I prefer not to reinvent the wheel, nor take credit for the greatness of others:
In the section of Thus Spoke Zarathustra (1882) entitled "On the Vision and the Riddle", Zarathustra climbs to great heights with a dwarf on his shoulders to show him his greatest thought. Once there however, the dwarf fails to understand the profundity of the vision and Zarathustra reproaches him for "making things too easy on [him]self."
The TActivist
[Excerpts for the timestarved executive and ADD/ADHD victim]
"From the standpoint of the natural reference system, the system to which the universe actually conforms, the basic units are independent of dimensions; that is, 1^3 = 1^2 = 1. But because of our asymmetric position in the universe, the natural unit of speed, s/t, takes the large value 3 x 10^10 cm/sec, and this becomes a dimensional factor that enters into every relation between quantities of different dimensions."
"The energy relations in electromagnetism have given the theorists considerable difficulty. A central issue is the question as to what takes the place of the mass that has an essential role in the analogous mechanical relations. The perplexity with which presentday scientists view this situation is illustrated by a comment from a current physics textbook. The author points out that the energy of the magnetic field varies as the second power of the current, and that the similarity to the variation of kinetic energy with the second power of the velocity suggests that the field energy may be the kinetic energy of the current. “This ‘kinetic energy’ of a current’s magnetic field,” he says, “suggests that it has something like mass.” 93
"Indeed, the most striking characteristic of the electric current is its immaterial character. The answer to the problem is provided by our finding that the electric current is a movement of units of space through matter, and that the effective mass of that matter has the same role in current flow as in the motion of matter through space. In the current flow we are not dealing with “something like mass,” we are dealing with mass.
"As brought out in Chapter 9, electrical resistance, R, is mass per unit time, t2/s3. The product of resistance and time, Rt, that enters into the energy relations of current flow is therefore mass under another name. Since current, I, is speed, the electric energy equation, W = RtI2, is identical with the equation for kinetic energy, W = ¹/2 mv2. The magnetic analog of resistance is permeability, with dimensions t3/s4. Because of the additional t/s term that enters into this twodimensional quantity, the permeability is the mass per unit space, a conclusion that is supported by observation. As expressed by Norman Feather, the mass “involves the product of the permeability of the medium and a configurational factor having the dimensions of a length.” 94 In some applications, the function of this mass term, dimensions t3/s3, is clear enough to have led to its recognition under the name of inductance.
"The basic equations employed in dealing with inductance are identical with the equations dealing with the motion of matter (mass) through space. We have already seen (Chapter 20) that the inductive force equation, F = L dI/dt, is identical with the general force equation, F = m ds/dt, or
F = ma. Similarly, magnetic flux, which is dimensionally equivalent to momentum, is the product of inductance and current, LI, just as momentum is the product of mass and velocity, mv. It is not always possible to relate the more complex electromagnetic formulas directly to corresponding mechanical phenomena in this manner, but they can all be reduced to spacetime terms and verified dimensionally. The theory of the universe of motion thus provides the complete and consistent framework for electric and magnetic relationships that has heretofore been lacking.
"The finding that the onedimensional motion of the electric current acting in opposition to the threedimensional gravitational motion leaves a twodimensional residue naturally leads to the conclusion that a twodimensional magnetic motion similarly applied in opposition to gravitation will leave a onedimensional residue, an electric current, if a conductor is appropriately located relative to the magnetic motion. This is the observed phenomenon known as electromagnetic induction. While they share the same name, this induction process has no relation to the induction of electric charges. The induction of charges results from the equivalence of a scalar motion AB and a similar motion BA, which leads to the establishment of an equilibrium between the two motions. As indicated above, electromagnetic induction is a result of the partial neutralization of gravitational motion by oppositely directed scalar motion in two dimensions.
"This induction process is another of the aspects of electricity and magnetism that is unexplained in conventional science. As one textbook puts it,
'Faraday discovered that whenever the current in the primary circuit 1 is caused to change, there is a current induced in circuit 2 while that change is occurring. This remarkable result is not in general derivable from any of the previously discussed properties of electromagnetism. 95'
"Here, again, the advantage of having at our disposal a general physical theory, one that is applicable to all subdivisions of physical activity, is demonstrated. Once the nature of electromagnetism is understood, it is apparent from the theoretical relation between electricity and magnetism that the existence of electromagnetic induction necessarily follows."
Electromagnetism
The terms “electric” and “magnetic” were introduced in
Volume I with the understanding that they were to be used as synonyms
for “scalar onedimensional” and “scalar twodimensional” respectively,
rather than being restricted to the relatively narrow significance that
they have in common usage. These words have been used in the same senses
in this volume, although the broad scope of their definitions is not as
evident as in Volume I, because we are now dealing mainly with phenomena
that are commonly called “electric” or “magnetic.” We have identified
a onedimensional movement of uncharged electrons as an electric current,
a onedimensional rotational vibration as an electric charge, and
a twodimensional rotational vibration as a magnetic charge. More
specifically, the magnetic charge is a twodimensional rotationally distributed
scalar motion of a vibrational character. Now we are ready to examine
some motions that are not charges, but have some of the primary characteristics
of the magnetic charge; that is, they are twodimensional directionally
distributed scalar motions.
Let us consider a short section of a conductor, through
which we will pass an electric current. The matter of which the conductor
is composed is subject to gravitation, which is a threedimensional distributed
inward scalar motion. As we have seen, the current is a movement of space
(electrons) through the matter of the conductor, equivalent to an outward
scalar motion of the matter through space. Thus the onedimensional motion
of the current opposes the portion of the inward scalar motion of gravitation
that is effective in the scalar dimension of the spatial reference system.
For purposes of this example, let us assume that the
two opposing motions in this section of the conductor are equal in magnitude.
The net motion in this scalar dimension is then zero. What remains of
the original threedimensional gravitational motion is a rotationally
distributed scalar motion in the other two scalar dimensions. Since this
remaining motion is scalar and twodimensional, it is magnetic, and
is known as electromagnetism. In the usual case, the gravitational
motion in the dimension of the current is only partially neutralized by
the current flow, but this does not change the nature of the result; it
merely reduces the magnitude of the magnetic effect.
From the foregoing explanation it can be seen that electromagnetism
is the residue of the gravitational motion that remains after all
or part of the motion in one of the three gravitational dimensions has
been neutralized by the oppositely directed motion of the electric current.
Thus it is a twodimensional scalar motion perpendicular to the flow of
current. Since it is the gravitational motion in the two dimensions that
are not subject to the outward motion of the electric current,
it has the inward scalar direction.
In all cases, the magnetic effect appears much greater
than the gravitational effect that is eliminated, when viewed in the context
of our gravitationally bound reference system. This does not mean that
something has been created by the current. What has happened is that certain
motions have been transformed into other types of motion that are more
concentrated in the reference system, and energy has been brought in from
the outside to meet the requirements of the new situation. As pointed
out in Chapter 14, this difference that we observe between the magnitudes
of motions with different numbers of effective dimensions is an artificial
product of our position in the gravitationally bound system, a position
that greatly exaggerates the size of the spatial unit. From the standpoint
of the natural reference system, the system to which the universe actually
conforms, the basic units are independent of dimensions; that is, 1^{3}
= 1^{2} = 1. But because of our asymmetric
position in the universe, the natural unit of speed, s/t, takes the large
value
3 x 10^{10} cm/sec, and this becomes a
dimensional factor that enters into every relation between quantities
of different dimensions.
For example, the c^{2}
term (the second power of 3 x 10^{10})
in Einstein’s equation for the relation between mass and energy reflects
the factor applicable to the two scalar dimensions that separate mass
(t^{3}/s^{3})
from energy (t/s). Similarly, the difference of one dimension between
the twodimensional magnetic effect and the threedimensional gravitational
effect makes the magnetic effect 3 x 10^{10}
times as great (when expressed in cgs units). The magnetic effect is less
than the onedimensional electric effect by the same factor. It follows
that the magnetic unit of charge, or emu, defined by the magnetic
equivalent of the Coulomb law is 3 x 10^{10}
times as large as the electric unit, or esu. The electric unit 4.80287
x 10^{10} esu is equivalent to 1.60206
x 10^{20} emu.
The relative scalar directions of the forces between
current elements are opposite to the directions of the forces produced
by electric and magnetic charges, as shown in Fig.23, which should be
compared with Fig. 22 of Chapter 19. The inward electromagnetic motions
are directed toward the zero points from which the motions of the
charges are directed outward. Two conductors carrying current in the same
direction, AB or A’B, analogous to like charges, move toward each other,
as shown in line (a) of the diagram, instead of repelling each other,
as like charges do. Two conductors carrying current in the direction BA
or B’A, as shown in line (c), also move toward each other. But conductors
carrying current in opposite directions, AB’ and BA’, analogous to unlike
charges, move away from each other, as indicated in line (b).
Figure 23
B’
A
B
A’
(a)

=>

<=
(b)

<=
=>

(c)
=>

<=
Thus far, our discussion
of the rotationally distributed scalar motions–gravitational, electric,
and magnetic–has been carried on in terms of the forces exerted by discrete
objects, essentially point sources of the effects under consideration.
Now, in electromagnetism, we are dealing with continuous sources. These
are actually continuous arrays of discrete sources, as all physical phenomena
exist only in the form of discrete units. It would therefore be possible
to treat electromagnetic effects in the same manner as the effects due
to the more readily identifiable point sources, but this approach to the
continuous sources is complicated and difficult. A very substantial simplification
is accomplished by introduction of the concept of the field discussed
in Chapter 12.
This field approach is also applicable to the simpler
gravitational and electrical phenomena.
The magnitude of this gravitational motion of mass A
that is attributed to mass B is determined by the product of the masses
A and B, and by the separation between the two. as is the motion of mass
B, if the scalar motion AB is regarded as a motion of both objects. It
then follows that each spatial location in the vicinity of object A can
be assigned a magnitude and a direction, indicating the manner in which
a mass of unit size would move under the influence of the gravitational
force of object A if it occupied that location. The assemblage
of these locations and the corresponding force vectors constitute the
gravitational field of object A. Similarly, the distribution of the motion
of an electric or magnetic charge defines an electric or magnetic field
in the space surrounding this charge.
The mathematical expression of this explanation
of the field of a mass or charge is identical with that which appears
in currently accepted physical theory, but its conceptual basis
is entirely different. The conventional view is that the field is “something
physically real in the space” 32 around
the originating object, and that the force is physically transmitted from
one object to the other by this “something.” However, as P. W. Bridgman
concluded, after carrying out a critical analysis of this situation, there
is no evidence at all to justify the assumption that this “something”
actually exists.29 Our finding is
that the field is not “something physical.” It is merely a mathematical
consequence of the inability of the conventional reference system to represent
scalar motion in its true character. But this recognition of its true
status as a mathematical expedient does not negate its usefulness. The
field approach remains the simplest and most convenient way of dealing
mathematically with magnetism.
The field of a magnetic charge is defined in terms of
the force experienced by a test magnet. The field of a magnetic pole–one
end of a long bar magnet, for example–is therefore radial. As can be seen
from the description of the origin of electromagnetism in the foregoing
paragraphs, the field of a wire carrying an electric current would also
be radial (in two dimensions) if it were defined in terms of the force
experienced by an element of the current in a parallel conductor. But
it is customary to define the electromagnetic field on the magnetostatic
basis; that is, by the force experienced by a magnet, or an electromagnet
in the form of a coil, a solenoid, which produces a radial field similar
to that of a bar magnet by means of its geometrical arrangement. When
the field of a currentcarrying wire is thus defined, it circles the wire
rather than extending out radially. The force exerted on the test magnet
is then perpendicular to the field, as well as to the direction of the
current flow.
Here is a direct challenge to physical theory, an apparent
violation of physical principles that apply elsewhere. It is a challenge
that has never before been met. The physicists have not even been able
to devise a plausible hypothesis. So they simply note the anomaly, the
“strange” characteristics of the magnetic effect. “The magnetic force
has a strange directional character,” says Richard Feynman, “at every
instant the force is always at right angles to the velocity vector.”90
It is likely, however, that this perpendicular relation between the direction
of current movement and the direction of the force would not seem so strange
if magnets interacted only with magnets and currents with currents. In
that event, the magnetic effect of current on current would still be “at
right angles to the velocity vector,” but it would be in the direction
of the field, rather than perpendicular to it, as the field would have
to be defined in terms of the action of current on current. When there
is interaction between current and magnet, the resultant force is perpendicular
to the magnetic field; that is, to the field intensity vector. A test
magnet in an electromagnetic field does not move in the direction of the
field, as would be expected, but moves in a perpendicular direction.
Notice how strange the direction of
this force is. It is not in line with the field, nor is it in the direction
of the current. Instead, the force is perpendicular to both the current
and the field lines.91
The use of the word “strange” in this statement is a
tacit admission that the reason for the perpendicular direction is not
understood in the context of presentday physical theory. Here, again,
the development of the theory of the universe of motion provides the missing
information. The key to an understanding of the situation is a recognition
of the difference between the scalar direction of the motion (force) of
the magnetic charge, which is outward, and that of the electromagnetic
motion, which is inward.
The motion of the electric current obviously has to take
place in one of the scalar dimensions other than that represented in the
spatial reference system, as the direction of current flow does not normally
coincide with the direction of motion of the conductor. The magnetic residue
therefore consists of motion in the other unobservable dimension and in
the dimension of the reference system. When the magnetic effect of one
current interacts with that of another, the dimension of the motion of
current A that is parallel with the dimension of the reference system
coincides with the corresponding dimension of current B. As indicated
in Chapter 13, the result is a single force, a mutual force of attraction
or repulsion that decreases or increases the distance between A and B.
But if the interaction is between current A and magnet C, the dimensions
parallel to the reference system cannot coincide, as the motion (and the
corresponding force) of the current A is in the inward scalar direction,
while that of the magnet C is outward.
It may be asked why these inward and outward motions
cannot be combined on a positive and negative basis with a net resultant
equal to the difference. The reason is that the inward motion of the conductor
A toward the magnet C is also a motion of C toward A, since scalar motion
is a mutual process. The outward motion of the magnet is likewise both
a motion of C away from A and a motion of A away from C. It follows that
these are two separate motions of both objects, one inward and one outward,
not a combination of an inward motion of one object and an outward motion
of the other. It then follows that the two motions must take place in
different scalar dimensions. The force exerted on a current element in
a magnetic field, the force aspect of the motion in the dimension of the
reference system, is therefore perpendicular to the field.
These relations are illustrated in Fig.24. At the left
of the diagram is one end of a bar magnet. This magnet generates a magnetostatic
(MS) field, which exists in two scalar dimensions. One dimension of any
scalar motion can be so oriented that it is coincident with the dimension
of the reference system. We will call this observable dimension of the
MS motion A, using the capital letter to show its observable status, and
representing the MS field by a heavy line. The unobservable dimension
of motion is designated b, and represented by a light line.
Figure 24
We now introduce an electric current in a third scalar
dimension. As indicated above, this is also oriented coincident with the
dimension of the reference system, and is designated as C. The current
generates an electromagnetic (EM) field in the dimensions a and b perpendicular
to C. Since the MS motion has the outward scalar direction, while the
EM motion is directed inward, the scalar dimensions of these motions coincident
with the dimension of the reference system cannot be the same. The dimensions
of the EM motion are therefore B and a; that is, the observable result
of the interaction between the two types of magnetic motion is in the
dimension B, perpendicular to both the MS field A and the current C.
The comment about the “strange” direction of the magnetic
force quoted above is followed by this statement: “Another strange feature
of this force” is that “if the field lines and the wire are parallel,
then the force on the wire is zero.” In this case, too, the answer to
the problem is provided by a consideration of the distribution of the
motions among the three scalar dimensions. When the dimension of the current
is C, perpendicular to the dimension A of the motion represented by the
MS field, the EM field is in scalar dimensions a and B. We saw earlier
that the observable dimensions of the inward EM motion and the outward
MS motion cannot be coincident. Thus the EM motion in dimension a is unobservable.
It follows that the motion in scalar dimension B, the dimension at right
angles to both the current and the field has to be the one in which the
observable magnetic effect takes place, as shown in Fig.24. However, if
the direction of the current is parallel to that of the magnetic field,
the scalar dimensions of these motions (both outward) are coincident,
and only one of the three scalar dimensions is required for both motions.
This leaves two unobservable scalar dimensions available for the EM motion,
and eliminates the observable interaction between the EM and MS fields.
As the foregoing discussion brings out, there are major
differences between magnetostatics and electromagnetism. Presentday investigators
know that these differences exist, but they are unwilling to recognize
their true significance because current scientific opinion is committed
to a belief in the validity of Ampère’s nineteenth century hypothesis
that all magnetism is electromagnetism. According to this hypothesis,
there are small circulating electric currents–“Ampèrian currents”
–in magnetic materials whose existence is assumed in order to account
for the magnetic effects.
This is an example of a situation, very common in presentday
science, in which the scientific community continues to accept, and build
upon, hypotheses which have been revised so drastically to accommodate
new information that the essence of the original hypothesis has been totally
negated. It should be realized that there is no empirical support for
Ampère’s hypothesis. The existence of the Ampèrian currents
is simply assumed. But today no one seems to have a very clear idea as
to just what is being assumed. Ampère’s hypothetical currents were
miniature reproductions of the currents with which he was familiar. However,
when it was found that individual atoms and particles exhibit magnetic
effects, the original hypothesis had to be modified, and the Ampèrian
currents are now regarded as existing within these individual units. At
one time it appeared that the assumed orbital motion of the hypothetical
electrons in the atoms would meet the requirements, but it is now conceded
thai something more is necessary. The current tendency is to assume that
the electrons and other subatomic particles have some kind of a spin
that produces the same effects as translational motion. The following
comment from a 1981 textbook shows how vague the “Ampèrian current”
hypothesis has become.
At the present time we do not know
what goes on inside these basic particles [electrons, etc.]. but we
expect their magnetic effects will be found to be the result of charge
motion (spinning of the particle, or motion of the charges within it).92
Ampère’s hypothesis was originally attractive
because it explained one phenomenon (magnetostatics) in terms of another
(electromagnetism), thereby apparently accomplishing an important simplification
of magnetic theory. But it is abundantly clear by this time that there
are major differences between the two magnetic phenomena, and just as
soon as that fact became evident, the case in favor of Ampère’s
hypothesis crumbled. There is no longer any justification for equating
the two types of magnetism. The continued adherence to this hypothesis
and use of Ampèrian currents in magnetic theory is an illustration
of the fact that there is inertia in the realm of ideas, as well as in
the physical world.
The lack of any theory–or even a model–that would explain
how either a magnetostatic or electromagnetic effect is produced
has left magnetism in a confused state where contradictions and inconsistencies
are so plentiful that none of them is taken very seriously. A somewhat
similar situation was encountered in our examination of electrical phenomena,
particularly in the case of those issues affected by the lack of distinction
between electric charge and electric quantity, but a much larger number
of errors and omissions have converged to produce a rather chaotic condition
in the conceptual aspects of magnetic theory. It is, in a way, somewhat
surprising that the investigators in this field have made so much progress
in the face of these obstacles.
The energy relations in electromagnetism have given the
theorists considerable difficulty. A central issue is the question as
to what takes the place of the mass that has an essential role in the
analogous mechanical relations. The perplexity with which presentday
scientists view this situation is illustrated by a comment from a current
physics textbook. The author points out that the energy of the magnetic
field varies as the second power of the current, and that the similarity
to the variation of kinetic energy with the second power of the velocity
suggests that the field energy may be the kinetic energy of the current.
“This ‘kinetic energy’ of a current’s magnetic field,” he says, “suggests
that it has something like mass.”93
The trouble with this suggestion is that the investigators
have not been able to identify any electric or magnetic property that
is “something like mass.” Indeed, the most striking characteristic of
the electric current is its immaterial character. The answer to the problem
is provided by our finding that the electric current is a movement of
units of space through matter, and that the effective mass of that
matter has the same role in current flow as in the motion of matter through
space. In the current flow we are not dealing with “something like mass,”
we are dealing with mass.
As brought out in Chapter 9, electrical resistance, R,
is mass per unit time, t^{2}/s^{3}.
The product of resistance and time, Rt, that enters into the energy relations
of current flow is therefore mass under another name. Since current, I,
is speed, the electric energy equation, W = RtI^{2},
is identical with the equation for kinetic energy, W = ¹/2
mv^{2}. The magnetic analog of resistance
is permeability, with dimensions t^{3}/s^{4}.
Because of the additional t/s term that enters into this twodimensional
quantity, the permeability is the mass per unit space, a conclusion that
is supported by observation. As expressed by Norman Feather, the mass
“involves the product of the permeability of the medium and a configurational
factor having the dimensions of a length.” 94
In some applications, the function of this mass term, dimensions t^{3}/s^{3},
is clear enough to have led to its recognition under the name of inductance.
The basic equations employed in dealing with inductance
are identical with the equations dealing with the motion of matter (mass)
through space. We have already seen (Chapter 20) that the inductive force
equation, F = L dI/dt, is identical with the general force equation, F
= m ds/dt, or
F = ma. Similarly, magnetic flux, which is dimensionally equivalent to
momentum, is the product of inductance and current, LI, just as momentum
is the product of mass and velocity, mv. It is not always possible to
relate the more complex electromagnetic formulas directly to corresponding
mechanical phenomena in this manner, but they can all be reduced to spacetime
terms and verified dimensionally. The theory of the universe of motion
thus provides the complete and consistent framework for electric and magnetic
relationships that has heretofore been lacking.
The finding that the onedimensional motion of the electric
current acting in opposition to the threedimensional gravitational motion
leaves a twodimensional residue naturally leads to the conclusion that
a twodimensional magnetic motion similarly applied in opposition to gravitation
will leave a onedimensional residue, an electric current, if a conductor
is appropriately located relative to the magnetic motion. This is the
observed phenomenon known as electromagnetic induction. While they
share the same name, this induction process has no relation to the induction
of electric charges. The induction of charges results from the equivalence
of a scalar motion AB and a similar motion BA, which leads to the establishment
of an equilibrium between the two motions. As indicated above, electromagnetic
induction is a result of the partial neutralization of gravitational motion
by oppositely directed scalar motion in two dimensions.
This induction process is another of the aspects of electricity
and magnetism that is unexplained in conventional science. As one textbook
puts it,
Faraday discovered that whenever the
current in the primary circuit 1 is caused to change, there is a current
induced in circuit 2 while that change is occurring. This remarkable
result is not in general derivable from any of the previously discussed
properties of electromagnetism.95
Here, again, the advantage of having at our disposal
a general physical theory, one that is applicable to all subdivisions
of physical activity, is demonstrated. Once the nature of electromagnetism
is understood, it is apparent from the theoretical relation between electricity
and magnetism that the existence of electromagnetic induction necessarily
follows.
The force aspect of the onedimensional (electric) residual
motion left by the magnetic motion in the electromagnetic induction process
can, of course, be represented as an electric field, but because of the
manner in which it is produced, this field is not at all like the fields
of electric charges. As Arthur Kip points out, there is an “extreme contrast”
between these two kinds of electric fields. He explains,
An induced emf implies an electric field, since it produces
a force on a static charge. But this electric field, produced by a changing
magnetic flux, has some properties which are quite different from those
of an electrostatic field produced by fixed charges...the special property
of this new sort of electric field is that its curl, or its line integral
around a closed path, is not zero. In general, the electric field
at any point in space can be broken into two parts, the part we have
called electrostatic, whose curl is zero, and for which electrostatic
potential differences can be defined, and a part which has a nonzero
curl, for which a potential function is not applicable in the usual
way.96
The treatment of this situation by different authors
varies widely. Some textbook authors ignore the discrepancies between
accepted theory and the observations. Others mention certain points of
conflict, but do not follow them up. However, one of those quoted earlier
in this volume, Professor W. J. Duffin, of the University of Hull, takes
a more critical look at some of these conflicts, and arrives at a number
of conclusions which, so far as they go, parallel the conclusions of this
work quite closely, although, of course, he does not take the final step
of recognizing that these conflicts invalidate the foundations of the
conventional theory of the electric current.
Like Arthur Kip (reference 96), Duffin emphasizes that
the electric field produced by electromagnetic induction is quite different
from the electrostatic field. But he goes a step farther and recognizes
that the agency responsible for the existence of the field, which he identifies
as the electromotive force (emf), must also differ from the electrostatic
force. He then raises the issue as to what contributes to this emf. “Electrostatic
fields cannot do so,”13 he says. Thus
the description that he gives of the electric current produced by electromagnetic
induction is completely nonelectrostatic. An emf of nonelectrostatic
origin causes a current I to flow through a resistance R. Electric charges
play no part in this process. “No charge accumulates at any point,” and
“no potential difference can be meaningfully said to exist between any
two points.”97
Duffin evidently accepts the prevailing view of the current
as a movement of charged electrons, but, as indicated in a previously
quoted statement (reference 13), he realizes that the nonelectrostatic
force (emf) must act on the “carriers of the charges” rather than on the
charges. This makes the charges superfluous. Thus the essence of his findings
from observation is that the electric currents produced by electromagnetic
induction are nonelectrostatic phenomena in which electric charges play
no part. These are the currents of our ordinary experience, those that
flow through the wires of our vast electrical networks.
Read more at www.reciprocalsystem.comIn the course of the discussion of electricity and magnetism
in the preceding pages we have identified a number of conflicts between
the results of observation and the conventional “moving charge” theory
of the electric current, the theory presented in all of the textbooks,
including Duffin’s. These conflicts are serious enough to show that the
current cannot be a flow of electric charges. Now we see that the
ordinary electric currents with which the theory of current electricity
deals are definitely nonelectrostatic; that is, electric charges play
no part in them. The case against the conventional theory of the current
is thus conclusive, even without the new information made available by
the development reported in this work.
No comments:
Post a Comment