Is Magnetic Flux A Misnomer?

[Dubbelosix]

GAHD:

 

I respectfully ask that my work remain the science forum, exchemist is a toiler if not a crank. I study physics every day and if this is not respected then clearly I am at the wrong site. 

Edited August 8, 2019 by Dubbelosix

[Dubbelosix]

A good reference on varying aspects of the fine structure

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_coupling_constant

[Dubbelosix]

I got off your bus long before Sluggo. :)

 

Yeah and into the same taxi for some bromance. 

[ralfcis]

I got off your bus long before Sluggo. :)

Well that's just another one of your lies because you were on my bus the other day. I'm curious how a guy who admitted he doesn't have expertise in relativity somehow has the expertise to know I'm wrong about it but can show no proof of his claim. Could it be that you're just an insecure kind of liar who tries to mask his inferiority with malicious and baseless posts? It seems so to me. You neither put up or shut up. You don't meet the minimum intelligence quota to ride on my bus so, really, stay off for good.

Edited August 8, 2019 by ralfcis

[exchemist]

Well that's just another one of your lies because you were on my bus the other day. I'm curious how a guy who admitted he doesn't have expertise in relativity somehow has the expertise to know I'm wrong about it but can show no proof of his claim. Could it be that you're just an insecure kind of liar who tries to mask his inferiority with malicious and baseless posts? It seems so to me. You neither put up or shut up. You don't meet the minimum intelligence quota to ride on my bus so, really, stay off for good.

Yes you are quite right, I had forgotten. I did jump on for a couple of stops later, before jumping off again.

 

But I’m not on your bus now: we are both on Dubbelsox’s bus, on a different sort of ride to nowhere. :)

Edited August 8, 2019 by exchemist

[ralfcis]

No, sometimes I look out the window. My bus is the only one headed for the Nobel podium. I'll wave once I get there but it'll be with one-finger.

Edited August 8, 2019 by ralfcis

[GAHD]

GAHD:

 

I respectfully ask that my work remain the science forum, exchemist is a toiler if not a crank. I study physics every day and if this is not respected then clearly I am at the wrong site. 

It is so far is it not? Nor is it labled as strange or silly. Alternative is a descriptor without negative connotations. I believe I'm being quite respectful of differing opinion(s). Do continue your discussions, but kindly in the appropriate areas. Pure math is something totally fine to discuss in the combined math and physics forums (eg your favorite derived equations) an alternative view towards magnetic flux should be placed in an appropriate category. Something like "spaghettification of a theoretical soul element" would go in silly.

 

To the rest: you should also scroll to the bottom of the page and read/follow the clearly listed rules. A bit of heat is good for debate and science, but don't go too far.

 

Again; rules are clear. Follow them. EVERYONE.

 

That is all.

[Dubbelosix]

 Pure math is something totally fine to discuss in the combined math and physics forums (eg your favorite derived equations) an alternative view towards magnetic flux should be placed in an appropriate category. Something like "spaghettification of a theoretical soul element" would go in silly.

 

I don't know how much more pure this argument could be:

 

1) There is no magnetic monopole

 

therefore

 

2) Without a quantization of a magnetic field, there cannot be a real physical flux. 

[Dubbelosix]

I don't know if anyone remembers, but I wrote an article in which we discussed the charge [math]\hbar c[/math] as related to the Casimir electron in which it owes it's mass in speculation to an interaction with an off-shell fluctuation of the metric:

 

https://www.quora.com/q/rawfndllhcyrkfcd

 

The question of mass and the relativity of charge also has implications to the Regge trajectories, all the important work can be followed in this link:

 

https://www.quora.com/q/chzwiiqhtujmvove

 

Intuitively, the electron could only be described by two parts, one establishing it's electric part and the other represented by its gravitational charge - also look for the article in previous link, concerning the Weinberg mass equation which predicts a wide range of particles from only the gravitational part. There is a similar relationship that we widely looked at concerning the black hole and conservation of equivalence concerning moving systems - from the following link

 

https://www.quora.com/q/mctpkjczfcviwugm

 

I preserve the laws of electromagnetism and Larmor radiation to the system of a black hole in which we argued it had to hold for a quantum description. More importantly, the relativity of charges had to be preserved also from the well-known black hole relationship

 

[math]Q + (\frac{J}{m^2}) \leq m^2[/math]

 

There is no coincidence here concerning the square of the mass in relationship to the black holes total charge, nor any more a coincidence that Regge trajectories works perfectly fine under this description. For other work concerning the importance of this relationship, is found in a wide range of literature, but here is one for example:

 

https://arxiv.org/abs/1701.07643

 

The units have to be restored so that it can be understood that the total charge [math]Gm^2[/math] is a contribution of its ordinary electric charge combined in addition with its angular momentum

 

[math]\hbar c + J c \leq Gm^2 = Q_{total}[/math]

 

If this relationship holds for fundamental black holes, then it may also hold for a wide range of particles as well.

Edited August 10, 2019 by Dubbelosix

[Dubbelosix]

The total energy therefore, becomes an inequality which satisfies the gravitational charge as the [mass content] which includes the total observed energy:

 

[math]E_{total} = \beta \frac{Gm^2}{R} \geq \alpha (\frac{\hbar c}{R} + \frac{Jc}{R})[/math]

 

With beta and alpha being the fine structure and in this specific case, [math]\hbar \ne J[/math].

Edited August 12, 2019 by Dubbelosix

[OverUnityDeviceUAP]

Let's say you have a ring within a ring, the outside of inner ring has the same circumference as the inside of the outer ring. Both rings are magnetic, which means due to the fact that magnets repel they can never spin past one another. If a black hole pops up in the middle, the rings will be forced to pass one another due to the GWs of that black hole and its spin. That's a temporary electromagnetic flux is it not? It generates a tremendous electric surge of joules.

Edited October 15, 2019 by OverUnityDeviceUAP

[OverUnityDeviceUAP]

src

 

What's referred to in the patent as an "EM energy flux" is almost identical to my single-cell Vonn Neumann probe, except instead of a beam powered black hole causing the em flux by forcing electrically charged spinners into overpowering the magnetic repulsion it's just a whirling collection of superheated ions being flushed down a vacuum chamber.