Since 2002^[1][2] I have been known online as kmarinas86.
kmarinas = k + m+a+r + i + n+a+s = 11 + 13+1+18 + 9 + 14+1+19 = 11 + 32 + 9 + 34 = 43 + 43 = 86 = 19+9+14 + 11+1+18+13+1 = s+i+n + k+a+r+m+a = sinkarma
Coincidence is nothing....

Articles whose sections I have rearranged

Other methods of improving Wikipedia in an efficient manner

Page renaming

Hydrino theory -> Blacklight Power (moved + overwhelming support)

Citation bombardment

Hello Kitty

(472 bytes - 0 cites) First edit (599 bytes - 0 cites) Year End 2002 (1043 bytes - 0 cites) Year End 2003 (5,152 bytes - 0 cites) Year End 2004 (8,268 bytes - 0 cites) Year End 2005 (12,739 bytes - 0 cites) Year End 2006 (18,621 bytes - 0 cites) Year End 2007 (9,794 bytes - 4 cites) Before	(11,710 bytes - 11 cites planted, 4 utilized) Bomb 1 (13,747 bytes - 6 cites planted, 6 utilized) Bomb 2 (13,747 bytes - 6 cites) After (14,986 bytes - 19 cites) Year End 2008 (17,718 bytes - 18 cites) Year End 2009 (18,336 bytes - 28 cites) Date this list was generated (October 3, 2010) Today
Kmarinas86 (Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia) ^{19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk = 86} 16:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

This user attends or attended the UNIVERSITY of HOUSTON

This user is a lapsed Catholic.

24³+

This user has made more than 24³ contributions to Wikipedia.

This user is not a biological parent.

en-US

This user is a native speaker of American English.

Ps

This user contributes using Adobe Photoshop.

This user believes in materialism, the belief that everything that exists is made of matter.

This user has never left the Northern Hemisphere.

This user does not smoke.

YA

This user is a young adult.

X	This user is strictly apolitical.

._.

This user sometimes watches anime.

Philosophical points of view

Rationalism
→ Empiricism
→ Verifiability
→ Falsifiability
= Scientific Method

Rationalism—A scientist's way of generating guesses, from humble hypotheses to elegant theories.

If something of importance is out there, it ought to be conceived. This is the basis for meaning.

Empiricism—A scientist's way of generating data.

If something of importance is out there, it ought to be discovered. This is the basis for discovery.

Verifiability—A measure of the scientist's ability to incorporate a result within a larger theoretical framework.

If something of importance is out there, it ought to be a recognized idea. This is the basis for defining the limits of knowledge.

Falsifiability—A measure of the scientist's ability to detach or quarantine an idea from a larger theoretical framework.

If a recognized idea does not correspond to the truth, it ought to be falsified. This is the basis for respect of the truth.

Correspondence theory of truth

The coherence theory of truth is wrong. Coherence respects the "meaning of man's words", but not the truth.

The pragmatic theory of truth is wrong. Pragmatism respects the "preoccupations of man", but not the truth.

The consensus theory of truth is wrong. Consensus respects the "limits of man's knowledge", but not the truth.

The taxonomy of claims

Four types of claims

Some	quality		is explained by
Some		action	is explained by
	feeling	justification		a quality.
	opinion	revelation	an action.

E_{1}

, Action / Event 1.

E_{2}

, Action / Event 2.

Q_{1}

, Quality 1.

Q_{2}

, Quality 2.

Feeling $Q_{1}\rightarrow Q_{1}$ $Q_{1}\rightarrow Q_{2}$ $Q_{1}\rightarrow \neg E_{1}$ $Q_{1}\rightarrow \neg E_{2}$ $Q_{2}\rightarrow Q_{1}$ $Q_{2}\rightarrow Q_{2}$ $Q_{2}\rightarrow \neg E_{1}$ $Q_{2}\rightarrow \neg E_{2}$	Opinion $E_{1}\rightarrow Q_{1}$ $E_{1}\rightarrow Q_{2}$ $E_{1}\rightarrow \neg E_{2}$ $E_{2}\rightarrow Q_{1}$ $E_{2}\rightarrow Q_{2}$ $E_{2}\rightarrow \neg E_{1}$	Justification $Q_{1}\rightarrow E_{1}$ $Q_{1}\rightarrow E_{2}$ $\neg E_{1}\rightarrow E_{2}$ $Q_{2}\rightarrow E_{1}$ $Q_{2}\rightarrow E_{2}$ $\neg E_{2}\rightarrow E_{1}$	Revelation $E_{1}\rightarrow E_{1}$ $E_{1}\rightarrow E_{2}$ $E_{2}\rightarrow E_{1}$ $E_{2}\rightarrow E_{2}$

Discussion

The next four sections discusses these four types of claims (in increasing order of objectivity).

Feeling [edit] When the only elements of an "explanation" are one or more qualities intended to explain a quality, such an explanation is not subjectable to scientific or otherwise academic scrutiny, whether the quality is true or false.	Examples: "I feel sick" because "it's wet outside". "That person is cool" because "they look cool in those jeans". "It's hot" because "it's very nice".
Opinion [edit] When the only elements of an "explanation" are one or more actions intended to explain a quality, such an explanation is subjectable to academic scrutiny, but not scientific scrutiny, whether the quality is true or false.	Examples: "I feel sick" because "I inhaled too much rain". "That person is cool" because "they've said nice things to me". "It's hot" because "our team won the game".
Justification [edit] When the only elements of an "explanation" are one or more qualities intended to explain an action, such an explanation is subjectable to academic and scientific scrutiny whether the quality is true or false. But either the explanation begs the question about the quality itself or it is tautological fact. Such qualities are not falsifiable given the limited context.	Examples: "My temperature is rising" because "I have a cold". "They've said nice things" because "they are nice people". "That person helped us win the game" because "her strategy was excellent".
Revelation [edit] When the only elements of an "explanation" are one or more actions intended to explain an action, such an explanation is subjectable to academic and scientific scrutiny whether the quality is true or false. It is possible for this form not to beg the question, in light of explanations of the causal actions, and the only tautologies that are allowed in this form are explicit, rather than implicit.	Examples: "My temperature is rising" because "I have caught flames on my sweater". "They've said nice things" because "they learn from other people who have said nice things to them". "That person helped us win the game" because "she scored the only points we needed to win".

Interests

Quantum Mechanics must apply Mach's principle
because otherwise it makes no sense

Which of the following does an object's force interactions depend on:
1) a chosen observer's frame of reference, or

2) all the masses the object interacts with?
The latter is the correct answer.
— kmarinas86

The consequences of a field at some point cannot be "relative" to some observer

Paradox 1: Millsian model for two-dimensional free electron disk

Take for example Mills' model for a rigid free electron disk. From the perspective of the external observer, the disk is a spinning disk of charge, and from the perspective of the disk of charge, the universe spins around it. To a distant observer (A), the charges in Mills' free electron disk model revolve coaxially around an axis (A_z), giving rise to a magnetic field with poles located at the center of the disk. However, a scientist studying this model and whose understanding is limited to the current understanding of man can easily assume that each charge in the disk has its own reference frame (B_i) which rotates about its own axis (B_i_z) at the same angular rate (B_i_ω) it revolves at exactly a right angle to the axis of the disk (A_z). If such reference frames were assumed, each charge in the disk, according to itself, cannot be affected by the collective magnetic field of the disk, for according to it (B_i), such a field would be non-existent (per the Lorentz force). As a result, from the point of view of each of these presumed individual reference frames (B_i), the electrostatic forces are no longer balanced out by the magnetic forces, and the whole disk would supposedly fly apart!

If the disk was not spinning in our reference frame (B_1), we would expect no magnetic field, and the disk would disintegrate. How then could there be any agreement as to the magnetic field at any point in space (A vs. B_i)? One would have to account for the non-inertial components of our reference frame (B_1). Even if we knew the physical forces responsible for our non-inertial reference frame (B_1), the physical forces on the "arbitrary" (B_i) observer are virtually ignored in all of mainstream physics. So instead we have the concept of "fictitious forces", and the result is that the magnetic field is merely assumed to be simply defined in the inertial frame (A) and non-simply defined in non-inertial frames (B_i). Yet if the acceleration of our reference frame (B_1) is not known, we can assume egotistically, like Flat earthers who believed they lived on a non-rotating, non-revolving flat world with an edge, that our reference (B_1) is inertial while (A) is a non-inertial frame.

There rarely is confidence in any claim of a classical solution for atoms in general for this reason, as well many others.

The following section shows why....

Paradox 2: Generalization of Paradox 1

The minimum condition for *relativity of fields* is that for a given frame of reference with respect to a particle, that particle's relative motion determines the line density surrounding it. This gives rise to the implication that line density is not intrinsic to space.
B_2	B_3
According to a reference frame (B_3) that moves quick enough around a negative charge's "magnetic field" (in the center of B_2) to observe it as an "electric field" (in the center of B_3).... Will the electric field perceived by the reference frame (in the center of B_3) really have a distribution that will give the charge (in the center of B_3) the equivalent of two magnetic poles preserving the magnetic attraction (as represented in B_2)?

Indeterminacy of fields suggests the existence of multiple universes

Per the above diagram (where the observer is limited in that one cannot account for motions outside the picture and thus cannot account for the origin of the motions in the picture): One observer (B_2) might calculate (based on information available to (B_2), with respect to (B_2)'s own position) very different magnetic fields for the same object than another observer (B_3) would (based on information available to (B_3), with respect to (B_3)'s own position), with a stark difference in the implied consequences. The Butterfly effect of Chaos theory would imply that a small difference in force can lead to very different effects, which in turn would affect each observer differently. It would mean that different observers (B_2 & B_3) exist in separate parallel universes. To extend that point further, if this was true, then the person you think you knew yesterday, or even the second before, could be a completely different observer now, and that observer who looked back at you would no longer see you, but some other version of you, placing that observer effectively in some other parallel universe. One observer would be living in one "Matrix" and the other observer in a different "Matrix", and it would be mere coincidence that some well-defined and numerically-limited set of observers, unlike others, share the same "Matrix". Ask yourself, "Is this branching away of universes a phenomenon accessible to science?"

Intrinsic fields: Observer independence

Mach's principle, if iterated, implies a fractal structure of the universe. (Specifically Mach principles *Mach3* and *Mach6* given by Hermann Bondi and Joseph Samuel).
*Mach3*: Local inertial frames are affected by the cosmic motion and distribution of matter.
*Mach6*: Inertial mass is affected by the global distribution of matter.
The external world...

"People of the Earth, you fly in the heavens and your voices are carried to the four corners of the Earth by means of radio waves. So the time has come for you to know the truth. As it has been foretold, everything is happening now that the Earth has entered the Age of Aquarius. Certain people have already written about this, but **no one believed them**. Some 22,000 years ago your creators decided to start their work on Earth and everything that has happened since was anticipated [by your creators] because **the movement of the galaxy implies this knowledge**. The Age of Pisces was the age of Christ and his fishermen, and the Age of Aquarius, which follows, began in 1946. This is the era in which the people of Israel found their country again:[....]" The Book Which Tells... Raël (1974)

If fields are intrinsic to space, it makes intuitive sense that their computation is derived from the computation of variables that are also intrinsic to space.

Basically, they depend on the causative origins of past particle movements.

Question: How is motion itself to be defined?

Partial answer: Work done on bodies should be understood from a shared reference frame

If we consider acceleration of two cars with respect to a flat terrain, starting from a speed of 0, the increase in kinetic energy (a scalar property) for each car depends on the speed each car gained relative to the flat terrain and not the speed differential between the cars. If each car has the same mass
$m$
and the same speed
$v$
relative to the ground, the kinetic energy that may participate in a head-on collision between the two cars is
$2*\left(1/2\right)mv^{2}$
and not
$\left(1/2\right)m\left(2*v\right)^{2}$
—obvious, for the latter would lead to perpetual motion.
Similarly, if we consider two charges accelerated through artificial means in a laboratory, we must consider the work done on each charge, relative to the inertial frame of the laboratory, to predict the field energy of each charge (accounting for any radiative losses)—not their relative velocity.

Item 1 proves that a relative velocity, defined by some random observer's motion subtracted from the motion of an observed particle, does not by itself have any bearing on the value of energy, or the form thereof, which the observed particle may have. That relative velocity has causative origins, but it cannot be explained by merely comparing its motions relative to some chosen observer. With respect to what does the total kinetic energy of a particle come from, including the part of kinetic energy not gained in acceleration relative to either a flat terrain (as per item 1) or a lab (as per item 2)?

Final answer: With respect to the universe's inertial frame

The energy responsible for this work done on a system is contributed by the sum of all particles in the universe outside of that system. Thus, total kinetic energy, momentum, and angular momentum received by a particle ultimately is defined in relation to a reference frame where the net momentum and angular momentum of the sum of all particles in the universe is zero (i.e. the universe's inertial frame).

The universe has no net....

....momentum, spin, or helicity.

The universe's inertial frame is one in which all momentum and angular momentum in the universe cancel out to zero.

→

Also, for each positive helicity, there also exists a negative helicity of equal, but opposite value to match.

→

If a particle possesses a positive helicity with respect to the universe's inertial frame, then sum of everything else adds up to an equal, but opposite negative helicity to match it... ...and vice versa.

....charge.

For each positive charge, there also exists a negative charge of equal, but opposite value to match.

→

If a particle possesses a positive charge, then sum of everything else adds up to an equal, but opposite negative charge to match it... ...and vice versa.

Three types of frames of reference (the universe's, the particle's, everything else's)

In the universe's inertial frame, one can select any particle with a charge of

q

, which will have the opposite charge and opposite momentum as the sum of all other particles in the universe. Also, the charge

q

will revolve in a direction opposite of the sum of all other particles in the universe. Thus:

In the universe's inertial frame, 50% of the strength of each point magnetic field is derived from the revolving motion of a given
$q$
, and the other 50% of its strength is derived from the sum of the revolving motions of every other particle in the universe.
In the particle frame, 100% of the point magnetic field appears to be produced by the rest of the universe.
In the "everything else" frame, whose net momentum relative to the universe's inertial frame is an exact opposite of the particle frame, 100% of the point magnetic field appears to be produced by a given
$q$
.

So, If that which is said to produce a certain field at a given point were its own observer, it would observe that the rest of the universe generates that same exact field at that same exact point. For example, if according to one observer, an electron's motions were observed to net a magnetic field of 1 Tesla at a particular point, then according to that electron, the rest of the universe nets a magnetic field of 1 Tesla at that particular point. This implies that the characteristics of the universe must be limited in some way.

A point magnetic field is a Mass-energy-charge (MEC)

Each MEC has a constant:

Mass
Energy
Charge
Speed - The speed of every "mass-energy-charge" must be exactly equal to the speed used in deriving the mass-to-energy relationship. In this case, it is the speed of light.
Momentum

All energy and matter are fundamentally 100% comprised of MECs.

Each MEC travels in a corkscrew path:

$c$
= Spin speed = Propagation speed
The spin and propagation velocities are orthogonal to each other.
The energy inherent in the spin speed is equal to that inherent in the propagation speed. The sum of these energies for a mass
$m$
is
$E=mc^{2}$
.
The handedness of the corkscrew motion is determined by the sign of the cross product of the spin velocity and the propagation velocity.
Due to conservation of angular momentum, the total fluid helicity of the universe and the total magnetic helicity the universe are both zero in the universe's inertial frame.
The magnetic field of each MEC is aligned with its propagation, and thus it is in-phase with the electric field associated with it.
Magnetic helicity is due to the deflection of each propagating MEC, while the fluid helicity is derived from the corkscrew path of each MEC.
An MEC is observed as "mass" when its path of propagation is folded into a volume as small as a subatomic particle.
The mass of a MEC exists even when propagating outside what is deemed "mass".
MECs travel along magnetic field lines such that the corkscrew motion combined with their charge produces a magnetic field aligned with the external magnetic field.
Due to the propagation velocity of MECs being
$c$
, electrical forces may only interact in the plane perpendicular to the propagation velocity, which does not allow the electrical forces to change the speed of each MEC—only its direction. Therefore, electrical forces on MECs lead to centripetal and centrifugal forces only, which prevents an infinitely dense singularity from forming via electrical means. A change in electrical potential then is merely the result of changing the rate at which momentum is applied (i.e. force) at a right angle to the motion.
If MECs must be added to a system to add to its momentum, then force is an exchange of MECs.

Special relativity is appended to assume that the *only* physically valid coordinate space is the universe's inertial frame. In this way, the Relativistic Doppler effect can be accounted for by a reference frame where objects undergo a true (not relative) Lorentz contraction within a universal space that does not itself undergo any Lorentz contractions.

If v^2+u^2=c^2. Then (c/u)=1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), which is the Lorentz factor
$\gamma$
. Proof:

(c/u)=1/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2)

(u/c)^2=(1-(v/c)^2)

(v/c)^2+(u/c)^2=1

v^2+u^2=c^2

Thus a body traveling at a

v

relative to the universe's inertial frame is time dilated by a factor of

\gamma

, and

u

is the speed which each MEC must on average travel at right angles to the motion of the body. When

v

approaches

c

,

u

approaches zero. Thus, at relativistic speeds, more time is required by an MEC to circumnavigate a mass, or a part of it, and time dilation is thus explained without space-time manipulation.

The space between objects consists of a higher density field of MECs. Gravity results from the tendency for MECs to leave an object where the MEC density gradient drops sharply due to less interference with other propagating MECs in that direction. Thus MECs are continuously being expulsed from mass in a direction away from other nearby masses, acting as a propellant that causes the masses to rocket into each other. The closer the proximity to other masses, the faster MECs are emitted. The surface density increases with the square of the proximity. This results in gravitational attraction obeying Newton's law.
When atoms gravitate toward each other, MECs constitute a significant flow out of atoms. However, due to further interference, most MECs do not fully escape masses from which they came, and instead most return within nanometers of being sent out. Thus frequency and density of collisions are such that atoms are time dilated, for MECs of which they are comprised take more time to complete a round-trip in the atom when these interruptions cause each MEC to instead take a more jagged path.
When the pressure of electrical repulsion between atoms matches the pressure due to gravitational attraction, it actually means that rate at which larger distant masses such as stars and black holes are losing MECs is enough to make up for the losses by much smaller masses. Thus, MECs generally migrate from larger, central masses to smaller, peripheral masses. A radius for peripheral mass is reached where opposite forces are in balance over the area of that object, helping to maintain the number of MECs that comprise that mass. Absorption of MECs from distant masses has the effect of returning mass-bounded MECs to a higher gravitational potential so as to not to continuously fall. Larger, central masses must therefore rely on much larger masses to supply further MECs, but if those do not exist, then masses would have the appearance of shrinking with respect to the universe's inertial frame, which could be interpreted from the inhabitant's point-of-view as an accelerating expansion.

My comment on a particular YouTube video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_i2ft90fwk) concerning Le Sage's theory of gravitation. "If the particles of Le Sage's theory had constant speed and energy, then many of the objections to Le Sage theory can be falsified. This requires that each particle of Le Sage's theory have a planar field of repulsion that is orthogonal to the path of the particle, rendering the collisions perfectly elastic. Le Sage particles that transfer force would be traveling in parallel for a mere instant. Thus, the Le Sage particles would approach at an asymptotically shallow angle to transfer momentum in steps."
The requirement that the net force must only occur at a right angle to the velocity means that any force backward or forward with respect to the path of the particle must somehow be negated. If two particles are to be regarded as acting with one another through this field in such a manner as to neither gain nor lose speed or energy, then such particles must be traveling parallel to each other at the time of the force transfer.
Only when we allow for direct superposition of two particles as being the criteria for force transfer between two particles may two particles moving in parallel have an exchange particle that is essentially the same speed as the two particles in question. However, in greater detail, we must realize that when the distance between such particles is non-zero, to explain how two particles moving in parallel may interact, we must consider the existence of particles that are faster than these which mediate the force in the plane orthogonal to their paths. To the extent that force actions can occur without superposition, the extent to which the mediating particles must travel faster than the things which they exchange between.
Whether or not the force interactions occur at a distance, it is clear that for the force interactions to not change the speed of particles in question, the force must occur as stepwise changes of the directions of particles. If two particles in question are in reality a construction of innumerable, infinitesimal particles, then the stepwise changes of the directions of particles leads to a continuous everywhere but differentiable nowhere path for all particles.

Predetermination

If you turn on an electric motor, a fundamental charge can only move as expected given the precondition that the electric motor is located in a place that, by rotation of the universe and of its motions about that fundamental charge, the same magnetic fields will be generated. Thus, if the electric motor is operated in a place very far away from any celestial objects, in the large intergalactic voids between galaxies, such that the same field is still produced, one or more of the following would be required:

The universe from that point possesses significant asymmetry.
The angular velocity of charges in that motor must be greater than expected.

Thus, the possibility for there to be an electric motor in that region of space whose charges possess the same motions that they would when placed elsewhere is contingent on the asymmetry of the universe about that point. If no corresponding asymmetry exists at that point, the electric motor will not both exist there and operate normally. If one observes that certain properties of that electric motor must operate normally under any observed condition it can experience, then the electric motor is forbidden to operate in a place where the asymmetry around it is very low. In many cases, the proposed ultimate constraint would forbid the electric motor from going to the region, whether it is operating or not.

In a very specialized case, there would be situations where the arrangement and motions of matter about a certain point require that a certain object exist there, or otherwise the arrangement of matter and motion is unphysical. If the characteristics of this object were to be implied by the characteristics of the motions of other particles, then one could infer that at some locations, other objects must exist that bear a resemblance to that object. Thus, the existence of a single lifeform in the universe may in fact be dependent on the existence of another lifeform similar to it, and the existence of a star would be dependent on there being other stars similar to it, and ad infinitum.

Related discussions

“

JohnEB

F. Rohrlich said:

“

(C3) An acceleration field is locally equivalent to a gravitational field.13

[...]

If one argues on the basis of (C3) that this situation involves an accelerated charge which should always radiate, the argument is erroneous, because the fact that a charge is accelerated does not necessarily imply that it radiates, unless the acceleration takes place relative to an inertial observer. A noninertial observer uses different clocks and yardsticks. Thus, even though the charge is accelerated, it follows that, because the observer is also accelerated, the co-accelerated observer sees no radiation.

”

Seeing radiation and whether or not radiation actually occurs are two different things! This relativism of reality to me is complete nonsense. I cannot fathom why physicists even believe in such a model. As far as I know, what matters here is whether or not the summation of fields at a particle's location is changing with time. So if the field intensities and directions do change in the vicinity of the charge, then it stands to reason that the charge will radiate, but the energy of the radiation must be derived from the value of the fields at this local intersection point only. This requires that those field intensities are invariant with respect to the observer chosen. However, in order for this to work, the motions of particles must be limited to that which results in the same values for the fields regardless of any translational and rotational transformations of the system, so not just any randomly arranged set of charge motions will satisfy this condition. This requirement goes beyond the very basic conservation laws. I've said this once, and I'll say it again. Fields must be intrinsic to space.

“

JohnEB

JEC said:

“

What steps, if any, in the syllogism I gave are wrong?

”

They are all frame dependent, and you, as usual, do not specify any frames.

”

This is utter nonsense.

Consider the example of a falling electron, a light sensor, and a nuclear weapon. According to falling observer A, the electron is not accelerating. According to observer B, who is sitting on his rocking chair, the electron is accelerating. Observer A claims that the electron is not radiating. Observer B claims the electron is radiating. The electron falls down in front of a sensor, and the sensor detects its light. The sensor sends a signal to a control board which automatically detonates the nuclear weapon. Both observers are killed. So who was right? Observer A or Observer B?

“

WillJ

Everyone will always agree detectors pick up something, but not everyone will agree on the interpretation. In one frame, the accelerating particle sets off Marina's nuke. In another (non-inertial) frame, Maxwell's equations look a bit different, and there is an electric field, which trips the detector.

”

That is no static electric field. A static electric field is a conservative field. For the electric field in question to trip the detector, it has give off energy to that detector in the form that it will accept. In this case it is a photon. Therefore, the electric field in question is a non-conservative field. This implies that the very act of detection must coincide with an acceleration of the electron with respect to the background field. Each point of the background field has its own inertial frame and it is fundamentally derived from the motions of surrounding charges. Some have speculated that gravity is a fourth-order effect of electromagnetism. In consideration of this background field (Mach's principle), there can only be one valid interpretation.

“

jeconnett

“

kmarinas86 said:

jeconnett wrote:

“

In the frame of the electron there is no radiation.

”

jeconnett wrote:

“

That does not imply there is no loss of energy. In your excerpt from Rohrlich, he says that in frames which are noninertial with respect to the electron, there will be radiation. That implies loss of energy.

”

This is very strange phraseology. Do you think this is how it should be discussed?

”

Well, yes, I do, actually. This however leads to the question: what is radiation?

Suppose you are sitting [briefly] in a vacuum chamber. You are holding a little pickup coil which is shorted out with a resistor.

An electron comes flying by. It induces a current in the pickup coil. This causes the resistor to heat up a little bit. This is a transfer of energy from the electron to the resistor. The electron's path changes slightly. It loses energy.

But has radiation occurred? Was energy transferred to the pickup coil by an EM wave or by photons?

Seems so to me.

Now, consider as before: suppose you and your pickup coil are moving along with the electron instead of sitting still and watching it go by. Will the pickup coil have any current induced? I say not. That is, no radiation is perceived in that frame of reference. And in that situation, assuming no gravitational field, the electron is not accelerated and does not lose energy.

Third situation: the electron is orbiting in a gravitational field. It is being accelerated by that field. A pickup coil moving with the electron does not pick up an induced current. However a pickup coil in another frame of reference will see radiation because an accelerated charge radiates. The electron will lose energy, even though it itself does not perceive radiation.

The disagreement between WillJ and me on one side and Barchak-Petkov on the other is as follows. Petkov says no radiation occurs when an electron is falling (accelerating) under the influence of a gravitational field. He says this without qualification, i.e., without specifying the frame of reference. Further, he says the electron follows a geodesic path. Whether a path is geodesic or not does not depend on the frame of reference; it is strictly defined by the geometry of spacetime. Therefore what Petkov is saying is that no one in ANY frame of reference will see radiation. This contradicts my argument and it contradicts what Rohrlich has said. This is all apparently a little too subtle for Barchak, whose main goal in any case is to prove I am a lunatic. Perhaps you agree.

John C.

”

An electron will radiate if it is displaced along E field lines and/or across B field lines. Gravitation can cause such displacement to occur. Is the power of stars controlled by a single external reference frame to the exclusion of any others? There is no such frame. Are there "multiple" realities of a star, one for each reference frame? Obviously not.

“

underante

hello

may i ask a question here about about this business of radiation being relative?

i know you are talking mainly about spaceships and so forth, but suppose instead you have an elevator on the 10th floor of a high-rise, into which alice then enters, but unhappily trips over this wretched charged brick carelessly left on the elevator cage floor, but being severely overweight, the accident then causes the safety mechanism to fail, and alice, the brick and the entire elevator cage then rapidly go into free-fall, and on its way down they all pass by charlie waiting impatiently on the 4th floor.

what will he see? (apart from alice frantically pressing all the elevator knobs trying to get it to stop?)

for relative to charlie, C, the charged brick, B, is accelerating, downwards, so he should see radiation, real photons that is, coming his way, but of precisely what colour would these photons be?

and suppose that there is a little glass window securely affixed to the inside of the elevator cage through which the radiation would have to pass to reach charlie. glass windows by their nature reflect some of the incident light, so would not alice see some of the radiation passing from B to C reflected back her way? but, alice and the window and the brick are all unmoving with respect to each other, (unmoving that is since by now alice has fainted with fright) but if she were to open her eyes momentarily, would she or wouldn't see anything coming her way? (apart from the grim reaper that is).

anyway, i hope i have at least conveyed a little of the apparent paradox involved, and of course, alice and charlie would have to be possessed of extremely good eye-sight to be able to see such low energy photons, but, heyy! i never said they were human!!(though the glass in the window may be a problem! -- doh, never mind! )

any thoughts here? regards f.c.

”

This business of "radiation being relative" is utter nonsense. It is very misleading.

What is really going on is that not only do charged particles have a velocity with respect to the observer, but so do the magnetic field lines. A relative velocity is created by a charged particle and the local magnetic field that is superimposed upon it. That relative velocity, v, is what determines the radiation produced. To preserve causality, the instantaneous value of B and its v must be intrinsic to the space in which q exists. In general, magnetic fields must be intrinsic to space.

Zero relative velocity means no deflection and, therefore, no radiation. When there is a non-zero relative velocity, the resulting deflection may result in radiation, but only if there is a change in kinetic energy in the charged particle. Cyclotron radiation is produced only when the energy of the charged particle changes. Radiation requires that the charged particle is not moving parallel to an equipotential surface of the magnetic field.

“

jeconnett

“

kmarinas86 sez:

This business of "radiation being relative" is utter nonsense. It is very misleading.

”

I am inclined to disagree. Imagine two situations:

1. A charged particle is traveling at constant velocity through empty space. Traveling parallel to it, at the same velocity, is a little pickup coil. No current is generated in the pickup coil.

2. A charged particle is traveling along through empty space. It flies past a pickup coil which you can think of as 'stationary'. As the charged particle goes past, a current is induced in the pickup coil. Energy is transferred from the charged particle to the coil. Is this radiation? I think a reasonable case can be made that it is.

John C.

”

"The business of 'radiation being relative'" which I speak of does not refer to two different setups with different initial and final conditions. It refers to the whole buzz here on HSG about whether radiation is relative to the observer chosen for any one given setup. Many have said that whether a given setup produces radiation varies by the observer, but I say it does not. A radiation event clearly indicates the dissipation of kinetic and/or potential energy of the charged particle which is lost by the charged particle (i.e KE+PE falls for the charged particle). This cannot be explained as simply "conversion" of the charged particle's electric field into a magnetic field because the energy of the charged particle as a whole is reduced, and the proof is that the radiation would be able to increase the energy of another particle. For an object to radiate in one frame, but not the other, violates causality.

“

WillJ

“

JohnEB

The really funny part of this is WillJ thinking he can prove something using a weak-field approximation. That boggles the mind.

”

In the weak-field approximation, you can certainly prove things about weak fields. And Rohrlich points to the general case.

”

The conceptual segregation of weak-fields and strong-fields can cause one to mischaracterize physical laws. Conceptual segregation does not give us physical laws; it gives us "engineer's laws". If approximations of law are equated with law, the result is internal inconsistency.

“

jeconnett

“

kmarinas86 said:

"The business of 'radiation being relative'" which I speak of does not refer to two different setups with different initial and final conditions. It refers to the whole buzz here on HSG about whether radiation is relative to the observer chosen for any one given setup. Many have said that whether a given setup produces radiation varies by the observer, but I say it does not.

”

Maybe I should have gone the next (and obvious) step in my mental experiment: Imagine that you have a charged particle moving through space, and two pickup coils. One moves exactly with the charged particle, i.e., in the same inertial frame, while the other is 'at rest', i.e., in a different inertial frame. The charged particle induces a current as it moves past the 'at rest' coil, while it does not for the coil in its own inertial frame. Same setup with regard to the particle; the observer in one frame perceives radiation while the other does not.

John C.

”

Both coils agree that one of them is receiving induction. It is not as if the coil moving with the electron says, "The electron is not interacting magnetically with the other pickup coil". Your example, in fact, does not claim that one coil "denies" that the other receives energy from the electron.

What I am essentially up against is the insistence by some that whether or not a particle radiates at all, or interacts magnetically with an object at all, depends on the frame of reference of one's choosing.

“

kmarinas86

“

jeconnett

“

kmarinas86 said:

"The business of 'radiation being relative'" which I speak of does not refer to two different setups with different initial and final conditions. It refers to the whole buzz here on HSG about whether radiation is relative to the observer chosen for any one given setup. Many have said that whether a given setup produces radiation varies by the observer, but I say it does not.

”

Maybe I should have gone the next (and obvious) step in my mental experiment: Imagine that you have a charged particle moving through space, and two pickup coils. One moves exactly with the charged particle, i.e., in the same inertial frame, while the other is 'at rest', i.e., in a different inertial frame. The charged particle induces a current as it moves past the 'at rest' coil, while it does not for the coil in its own inertial frame. Same setup with regard to the particle; the observer in one frame perceives radiation while the other does not.

John C.

”

Both coils agree that one of them is receiving induction. It is not as if the coil moving with the electron says, "The electron is not interacting magnetically with the other pickup coil". Your example, in fact, does not claim that one coil "denies" that the other receives energy from the electron.

What I am essentially up against is the insistence by some that whether or not a particle radiates at all, or interacts magnetically with an object at all, depends on the frame of reference of one's choosing.

”

Addendum In your coil example, the electron interacts with one of the coils. Due to electromagnetic induction, that coil generates a magnetic field which produces an emf into the other coil, regardless of orientation. It may be small, but it is still there. The emf will be a repulsive force per Lenz's law. Also, the electron will be deflected as it dissipates energy to the coil, rendering the assumption of inertial movement with respect to one of the coils impotent.

“

jeconnett

“

kmarinas86 said:

Also, the electron will be deflected as it dissipates energy to the coil, rendering the assumption of inertial movement with respect to one of the coils impotent.

”

True enough, there is essentially an infinite sequence of interactions - the stationary coil does create a changing field which affects (accelerates) the electron, which then affects the stationary coil, which etc. The after-first-order interactions are extremely weak. The infinite sequence will converge.

Regarding the second point about the assumption of inertial movement: you may as well assume the charged particle IS the coil, i.e.., that the 'moving' coil itself has an electrostatic charge. Clearly in that case, if it is rigid, its movement with respect to its own frame of reference is inertial. In which case that is not an "impotent" [whatever that means ...] assumption.

John C.

”

What was the aim of the assumption? Was it to show how radiation is relative? If so, please consider the following:

That an electron is still with respect to itself does not mean its movement is inertial. If the electron is still with itself, and by definition it is, can it radiate? Of course it can. But what is moving in the vicinity of that electron? A magnetic field. Would that explain why it can radiate? Yes. So where is that magnetic field from anyway? According to the electron, where does the energy for the radiation come from? Think about that one....

What does it mean? At least one of the charged particles in the system must be in an accelerated reference frame. Also note that this perspective can be reversed. From the other reference frame, it can be just as fairly claimed that your electron, which you claim as having an inertial reference frame that references itself, is really in an accelerated reference frame that is to be referenced in relation to other accelerated reference frames.

“

jeconnett

“

kmarinas86 said:

That an electron is still with respect to itself does not mean its movement is inertial. If the electron is still with itself, and by definition it is, can it radiate? Of course it can. But what is moving in the vicinity of that electron? A magnetic field. Would that explain why it can radiate? Yes. So where is that magnetic field from anyway? According to the electron, where does the energy for the radiation come from? Think about that one....

What does it mean? At least one of the charged particles in the system must be in an accelerated reference frame. Also note that this perspective can be reversed. From the other reference frame, it can be just as fairly claimed that your electron, which you claim as having an inertial reference frame that references itself, is really in an accelerated reference frame that is to be referenced in relation to other accelerated reference frames.

”

Let me try a different tack.

Really, I think we need to think about this in the same way one thinks about 'test charges' in an electrostatic field. One thinks about them as infinitesimal, so you can consider what the forces are on them without having to worry about what forces they in turn induce on their neighbors. In this case you need to think of the pickup coils as infinitesimal. No current is induced in the teeny weeny little pickup coil that travels with the charged particle. Meanwhile, the 'stationary' pickup coil that observes the charged particle whizzing by does have an induced current; to it, the electron appears to be radiating. Because it too is infinitesimal, however, it does not in turn have any effect on the (non-infinitesimal) particle or its accompanying pickup coil. This way of thinking about it essentially brings out only the first-order radiation effects, which are what really matters - it shows that the moving particle causes effects which are felt in a stationary frame in its neighborhood.

John C.

”

So the accompanying pickup coil IS the charge and does not interact magnetically (supposedly). If this charge induces emf on the "stationary" pickup coil, then at least one of the two is true:

It must be not moving parallel to the axis of that pickup coil.
The pickup coil is not symmetric around that axis.

If the charge in the infinitesimal moving pickup coil generates an emf into the stationary pickup coil, are we supposed to ignore the effect that would have on the direction of the charge?

You say the charge does not radiate in the frame of reference of this "accompanying pickup coil" in which it exists, yet according to the stationary pickup coil, the electron will radiate. If the charge says, "No sir, I am not the one who is radiating." what would your reply be?

Imagine the charge traveling through many of these coils. The charge says, "See I went through many hoops, and I still haven't lost my kinetic energy. I am still going!" Yet you know each time it passed through a coil, a voltage spike was received by each coil. Inducing current and voltage into a coil requires energy to be transferred.

Lenz's law should have reduced the relative velocity of the electron each time it had done that. The electron doesn't feel a hitch? Question that thought.....

Field Energy of Permanent Magnets vs. Magnetic Monopoles

Segregating Induced Magnetization from Source Magnetization

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Magnetic_field/Archive_4#segregating_induced_magnetization_from_source_magnetization

Based on the above discussions, it is clear that we need to have a section on 'induced magnetization', and a section on 'source magnetization'. The latter will be about permanent magnets.

It would seem that the equation B = μ_o(H + M) is ideally suited to 'induced magnetization'. In modern textbooks, the vector B is introduced first, often defined through F = qv×B. Then they introduce induced magnetization M. And finally they introduce H. However, there is never any attempt to hide the fact that H is the driving force, and that it is analogous to E, and historically, H came first and Maxwell's papers use μH. It should also be remembered that when we use the equation B = μ_o(H + M) it is only a broad macroscopic equation which deals in averages and simplifications. Molecules are considered to be rotating dipoles which all align in sympathy with the magnetic field.

Permanent magnets are a different topic because the magnetization is the actual source of H.

And as regards the dilemma that divB = 0, whereas M, which is part of the B function ends abruptly at the boundaries, this is not a problem. The M lines may end, but they don't end at sources or sinks. They just end. They are solenoidal where they exist, in sympathy with the H lines.

And finally, the idea of two magnetic fields, B and H, should be dropped. There is one magnetic field and the vectors B and H are both used in the analysis. David Tombe (talk) 12:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

"Molecules are considered to be rotating dipoles which all align in sympathy with the magnetic field." But what about diamagnetism? Extremely small electron eddy currents are produced in atoms of a diamagnetic material when brought towards a magnetic field, and this is obvious when dealing with superconducting materials. The result of diamagnetism is not attraction, but repulsion, upon approach. Perhaps the only way to overcome diamagnetism to allow for paramagnetism in materials in general is to switch the field on and off at a rate much quicker than the time it takes to develop the extremely small electron eddy currents, which is relative to the inductance/resistance time constant of charge circuits in atoms. Such a time constant, due to the tiny size of each atom, is ridiculously small, and thus it is not possible that atoms, except those with paramagnetism or ferromagnetism, generally possess magnetic attraction towards magnetic fields.Kmarinas86 (Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia) ^{19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk = 86} 20:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Kmarinas86, Diamagnetism is of course yet another topic. In my suggestion for segregation, I was really only thinking about a segregation as between paramagnetic and ferromagnetic induction on the one hand, and permanent magnets on the other hand. Feel free to write what you know about diamganetism in the article, but make sure you keep it in a separate section if such a section hasn't already been started. David Tombe (talk) 20:59, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I am strongly opposed to almost everything David is saying here. The equation B = μ_o(H + M) is not "ideally suited" to one thing or another, it is a universally true equation for any macroscopic system, including ferromagnets, diamagnets, paramagnets, or whatever. We should not imply that it is something restricted to certain applications. And we should not draw distinctions between "induced magnetization" and "source magnetization" unless that distinction is in the literature. (If it is, I haven't ever seen it, at least not the way David describes it.) --Steve (talk) 00:20, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

For it to be a "universally true equation" would prohibit limiting its validity to macroscopic systems.Kmarinas86 (Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia) ^{19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk = 86} 18:02, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Steve, the distinction is quite basic. We can have magnetization as caused by an external magnetic field. That topic is known as 'magnetic induction'. On the other hand, we can have a magnetic field caused by an alignment within a ferromagnetic material. That comes within the topic of permanent magnets. There is no induction involved in the latter, and both of these topics are in the literature and discussed separately. They are two reciprocal topics, and it merely confuses cause and effect if we try to mix them together in the same section. As regards 'induction', the equation B = μ_o(H + M) refers to the fact that within the material there will be an induced magnetization, and that the vector B is connected to the sum of the applied H field and the induced M field. As regards a permanent magnet, the magnetization is actually the source of the magnetic field. So even if we have one section to deal with these two reverse scenarios, we at least need to get the chronology correct and make it clear when have have moved on from talking about 'induction' to talking about permanent magnets where there is no applied field involved. David Tombe (talk) 00:44, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Because B only makes sense in terms a point in space and time, the equation should really express itself as B(x,y,z,t) = μ_o(H(x,y,z,t) + M(x,y,z,t)), if using rectangular coordinates for example, and thus M(x,y,z,t) is the magnetization at point (x,y,z) at time t, and H(x,y,z,t) is the background magnetizing field at point (x,y,z) at time t. These are instantaneous. It is not as though H(x,y,z,t) causes M(x,y,z,t). You can say that H(x,y,z,t) allows M'(x,y,z,t) to be non-zero, such that it affects the difference between M(x,y,z,t+α) and M(x,y,z,t-α), where α is some arbitrarily small positive real number. Induced magnetization is what you talk about when you speak of generating a magnetic field. This implies a change between two different times. What is left when the magnetic field is not being generated anymore is the remanence, which you cannot simply refer to as the "M field". To find the remanence, you remove the H-field (possibly a bar magnet) at time t, making H(x,y,z,t) effectively 0.

Of course, if you have two permanent magnets, the one outside the borders of the page could be treated as the source and sink of the H-field, and the one inside the page could be treated as the block in which the M-field resides. But interestingly enough, that permanent magnet outside the page can easily have its own M field. This further emphasizes the need to treat B, H, and M as intensive properties, not extensive properties (see Intensive and extensive properties).

The distinction between H and M can be simplified the following way:

The source and sink of H(x,y,z,t) is a set of points.
The source and sink of M(x,y,z,t) is point (x,y,z).

Kmarinas86 (Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia) ^{19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk = 86} 15:30, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Kmarinas86, The scenarios which we have been discussing are all frozen in time. The issue of inducing actual magnetic fields and time varying magnetic field would normally come in the next chapter. The magnetization which we have been talking about, and which we have been using the symbol M for, has been exclsuively about the alignment of the dipoles within a material, and not about the actual magnetic fields themselves. I think we have now identified the root of the controversy. It is with regard to the issue that the H field reverses its direction inside a permanent magnet, giving rise to magnetic H field monopoles at each end of the magnet. The reasoning for this seems to be that Ampère's circuital law, when applied through a permanent magnet does not have a source current. If we accept that argument, then H will indeed reverse and we will have magnetic monopoles. But these magnetic monopoles will only be a mathematical construct with no relationship to the actual physical magnetic field which is always solenoidal. And besides that, I don't understand why the above argument neglects the source magnetization current. David Tombe (talk) 17:01, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

An M-field is basically a microscopic H-field unit with an extremely small range beyond the source magnetization currents, which themselves are smaller than the magnetic domains. The shape of the M-field is basically the sum of all such units. This is why the M-field has the appearance of terminating at both ends of a bar magnet, which is merely due to the simplifying use of the M-field concept. In reality, only H-fields exist, but the M-field approximation is still useful physics, considering the uncertainty of the shape of H-fields at atomic dimensions or smaller. Monopoles do not even enter the situation. Also, saying that:

"The scenarios which we have been discussing are all frozen in time."

....contradicts the latter statement:

"It is with regard to the issue that the H field reverses its direction inside a permanent magnet, giving rise to magnetic H field monopoles at each end of the magnet."

....due to latter statement's need to imply a movement, which obviously cannot be described as "frozen in time".

Kmarinas86 (Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia) ^{19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk = 86} 17:48, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Kmarinas86, The microscopic details of magnetization are not altogether clear. As in all matters when we penetrate inside the dark and dirty jungles of atomic and molecular matter, we need to do alot of second guessing, and that of course leads to many varying opinions. The purpose of the equation B = μ_o(H + M) was to by-pass those details and simplify the matter by concentrating on the broader principles. The problem however is, that in doing so, it seems to have led to no end of confusion, in that the maths now seems to have confused the underlying physics. The bit in particular which I would like to hear your opinion on relates to the reversal of the direction of the H field inside a permanent magnet. You will no doubt agree that if we integrate an H field around a loop which goes through the middle of a closed electric circuit, that we will end up with Ampère's circuital law, and we will have a distinct value for electric current in the equation. Can you please explain to me why this should not be so if we replace the source electric current with a permanent magnet. The textbooks argue that there will be no current in the permanent magnet scenario, and they hence conclude that H reverses inside a permanent magnet. This in turn leads to the idea of H lines beginning and ending at the ends of the magnet. This seems to be what is causing all the confusion. Can you explain to me why we could not have the basic Ampère's circuital law for a permanent magnet using a source magnetization current? David Tombe (talk) 14:17, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Ampère's circuital law#Extending the original law: the Maxwell–Ampère equationKmarinas86 (Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia) ^{19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk = 86} 14:59, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Kmarinas86, The Maxwell addition to Ampère's circuital law is not the issue here, unless of course you think that 'magnetization current' is what is behind the additional Maxwell term. I do actually believe that, but the conventional belief is that Maxwell's additional term is tied up with conservation of charge. But let's not get side tracked into all that. At the moment we are focused on 'magnetization current', and the question is 'why are textbooks such as Grant and Philipps disregarding the magnetization current in a permament magnet when they are making the argument that the integral of H around a closed loop which passes through a magnet will be zero?'. This is the key point which supposedly turns H upside down inside a permanent magnet, hence leading to the idea that divH does not equal zero at the poles. Can you shed any light on this? It is the issue which is the source of most of the confusion in the topic. [As a historical aside, when Maxwell introduced displacement current in the preamble of part III of his 1861 paper, it did rather look as if he was aiming at a rotatory/magnetization type effect. But it seems that by 1864 he was looking more at a linear polarization effect. Nowadays, the polarization idea prevails in issues to do with dielectric materials, whereas in the vacuum, the idea has changed completely from its historical origins.] David Tombe (talk) 19:58, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

"You will no doubt agree that if we integrate an H field around a loop which goes through the middle of a closed electric circuit, that we will end up with Ampère's circuital law, and we will have a distinct value for electric current in the equation. Can you please explain to me why this should not be so if we replace the source electric current with a permanent magnet." "At the moment we are focused on 'magnetization current', and the question is 'why are textbooks such as Grant and Philipps disregarding the magnetization current in a permament magnet when they are making the argument that the integral of H around a closed loop which passes through a magnet will be zero?'."

Answer: The area of an H loop in a permanent magnet cuts through both sides of each magnetization current loop, not just one. So the currents cancel out. However, if one is nit-picky, one might include the currents at the very edge of the loop which are only cut by the area of the H loop at one side.Kmarinas86 (Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia) ^{19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk = 86} 02:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Kmarinas86, Thanks for answering the question. However, the currents at the very edge of the loop, which do not cancel, are a reality, and we have no way of putting a numerical figure to them. But it only takes that figure to be non-zero and then we have Ampère's circuital law in conjunction with a magnetization current, and hence there can be no basis for the argument that the H field must reverse its direction inside the magnet. This would all tie in with Maxwell's initial hunch that displacement current is a magnetization current associated with a rotatory effect, and also with one of his original equations, B = μH, which appeared in his 1873 paper. But since the modern textbooks have now decided to ignore the magnetization current in a permanent magnet, leading to a claim that H lines inside a permanent magnet are cut out and re-joined upside down, I will depart from this discussion. I can see now exactly what is going on. David Tombe (talk) 00:07, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Awards

Won: July 13, 2007

Won: July 18, 2007
[[Image:\|120px\|Raëlian beliefs and practices]]

Won: July 28, 2007

Won: December 26, 2007

		The Good Article Medal of Merit
		I have awarded you this medal for your work in helping to reduce the backlog during the Good Article Candidates Backlog Elimination Drive. You reviewed five or more articles during the drive, which helped to contribute to the large decrease in the backlog. If you have the time, please continue to review articles to help make sure the backlog does not jump back up to what it was. Good job and happy editing! Nehrams2020 06:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Badge received: June 15, 2007 (verification)

The Brilliant Idea Barnstar

Hi there. I've come across a number of your internet posts, etc, regarding Mills' theory of classical physics. I share a similar interest, and it appears we are both around the same level of 'technical proficiency' with it. I'd love to discuss it with you sometime, if you're so inclined. My wiki page is

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Eric_mit_1992

I am new to wikipedia user/editing, and I have no idea how one sends another member private message, etc. I'd rather discuss over email, etc. Anyway, feel free to drop me a line.

Eric mit 1992 (talk) 18:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Badge received: July 6, 2012 (verification)

Articles whose sections I have rearranged

Other methods of improving Wikipedia in an efficient manner

Page renaming

Citation bombardment

Philosophical points of view

Rationalism → Empiricism → Verifiability → Falsifiability = Scientific Method

The taxonomy of claims

Four types of claims

Discussion

Feeling

Opinion

Justification

Revelation

Interests

Quantum Mechanics must apply Mach's principle because otherwise it makes no sense

The consequences of a field at some point cannot be "relative" to some observer

Paradox 1: Millsian model for two-dimensional free electron disk

Paradox 2: Generalization of Paradox 1

Indeterminacy of fields suggests the existence of multiple universes

Intrinsic fields: Observer independence

Question: How is motion itself to be defined?

Partial answer: Work done on bodies should be understood from a shared reference frame

Final answer: With respect to the universe's inertial frame

The universe has no net....

Three types of frames of reference (the universe's, the particle's, everything else's)

A point magnetic field is a Mass-energy-charge (MEC)

Predetermination

Related discussions

Field Energy of Permanent Magnets vs. Magnetic Monopoles

Segregating Induced Magnetization from Source Magnetization

Awards

Rationalism
→ Empiricism
→ Verifiability
→ Falsifiability
= Scientific Method

Quantum Mechanics must apply Mach's principle
because otherwise it makes no sense