Physics does not explain why astro bodies spin or rotate which points out the fakeness of Big Bang and General Relativity; the Atom Totality theory however does explain the origins of rotation

a_plutonium wrote:

(all else snipped except for this poorly written paragraph)

I agree, I would not want anything to do with people who are not
anything short of "scientific and logical". I usually quote sources
that are connected with science such as a edu address. There were some
Google hits of Harvard with magnetic field but noone tabulated into a
table form all the latest magnetic moments of the planets. Anyone have
a good website????

I usually do not like making a post just to correct some of my grammar.
But the above is egregious for it shows that I post without reading
what I am typing. I post what is directly on my mind without proof
reading. The error I speak of is in that first sentence of "not
anything short of ". The error is of logic and that is worse than a
grammar or spelling error. I should have deleted the "not" for the
meaning I wanted to convey is that is "anything short of science and
logic".

But I want to also add something about my character of writing, in that
I knew instinctively of a habit of mine which is a good habit and which
others can profit from. Whenever I write something and which has a
possibility of misinterpretation, I so often, and this is automatic,
that I state what I am trying to convey in various forms or emphasis.

So that although someone reading the above post with its grammar error
of "not" when it should have been deleted, the reader could not fail to
understand that the direction and overall meaning of my post.

So what I am trying to say is that whenever you write about something,
try not to make the writing too short and too brief because if the
important message is too short and too brief that a reader would not
understand due to a grammar error.

In most of my writings, I tend to do a lot of repeating and alot of
picture drawing in different angles, and that is because I do want the
reader to grab a hold of the basic substance and not get caught up in
superficial sideshow or grammar or errors of writing.

This is a bigger trouble in science journal writings, in that so much
of what is printed-- the important things are said only once and not
highlighted, and the rest of the message is more likely distractions.
So even though I had a "not" where it should not have been, any reader
of my above post could not escape my meaning of what I wanted to
convey.

When I write to sci. newsgroups, I try to elaborate and emphasize in
various angles of my main message, and this is a good habit in all
writing.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

the fact that you chose a triviaility to correct, is interesting;
magnetic moments of planets is interesting, though!

restating an ill-posed hypothesis could result
in dyscovering the problem with it ... or otherwise, if
there's a good, plausible connection between the metaphors.

I agree, I would not want anything to do with people who are not
anything short of "scientific and logical". I usually quote sources

I usually do not like making a post just to correct some of my grammar.

thus:
there is no necessity for a perfect box to exist;
that is easy to state & prove )using Euler's parameterizations or
equiv.,
I think). to find a sufficient condition to prove nonexistance should
be somewhat harder to do, though true.

teh answer to your question is,
Wolframitism can't do numbertheory worth beans,
as of yet (although you'd *think* that Base One would
be a simple matter to emulate, thereby .-)

So has the proof which you referred to yet to be accepted by the
mathematical community at large, or is Wolfram Research a bit slow on the
uptake regarding this matter?

thus:
Dick Cheeny, Don Rumsfeld and Osama bin Latin form a mission
to Darfur, to prevent a war instead of to start one:
if Darfur is "100% Muslim," then
what's really going on, there?

is it just aother British Quag for USA soldiers to get bogged
into, with Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan et al ad vomitorium,
under auspices of the UN and NATO?

why won't the Bruin publish the fact of Islam on the ground,
therein?

thus:
Why doesn't the [UCLA Daily] Bruin report that
Darfur's populace is "100%" Muslim,
according to the DAC's sponsor,
Terry Saunders?...
"99%" was the figure given
by Brian Steidle, when I finally found
him at the Hammer, after everyone else
had left (he, his friend & I were the
very last to leave!)...
What could it possibly mean?

--The Other Side (if it exists)

also, please explain about how you keep
the positrons seperated from the electrons, or
from their associated negative nucleii; thank *you*.

that is, other than by the Leidenfrost Effect ...
is it that there is just one, other parallel universe?

a Perpendicular Universe, to ours?

magnetic moments of planets is interesting, though!

thus:
and, thanks to the militant perspicacity
of Trickier Dick Cheeny -- what *was* he doing
with Rumsfeld on the OEO under Nixon? -- there won't
be any college deferments. I mean,
he really doesn't want to go back to school.

in the meantime, please,
compile a compleat list of Remaining Breeteesh Quaggies
for US to be going to!

I realize that the lack of response could be becuase
of "political correctness," which may be how it is that
we are headed for Iran and "the" Sudan and a military draft.

thus:
Schroedinger's Cat Wordsoup continued;
you're metaphors don't hold any more water,
than do the Copenhagenschoolers'....
the fact that Kaluza-Klien works mathematically
for Maxwell's and Einstein's equations, is independent
of the fact that "one compact dimension" may not be
well-posed (that is to say,
it may just be a nonsequiter -- hey, but, at least,
your "make my day" metaphor was funny)....

Why are there non-local effects in quantum mechanics? The fourth
dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions. That
means that what begins as a point in the fourth dimension is a sphere
with a 186,000 mile radius one second later. So it is that the entire
spherical wavefront of the photon exists in the exact same place in
time. Hence the non-locality observed in double slit experiments, the
EPR effect, and quantum entanglement. Take two interacting spin ½
photons and let them propagate at the speed of c in opposite
directions. They are yet at the exact same place in time! And too, they
are yet in the exact same place of the fourth expanding dimension.

thus:
this is overkill. as implied in the alleged-proof paper,
a sphere of diameter one is all that you need
for qualifying what are rational points. or,
was that what the author of the below paper, meant?
http://www.math.leidenuniv.nl/reports/2001-12.shtml

thus:
the fact that you chose a triviaility to correct, is interesting;
magnetic moments of planets is interesting, though!...
restating an ill-posed hypothesis could result
in dyscovering the problem with it ... or otherwise, if
there's a good, plausible connection between the metaphors.

thus:
there is no necessity for a perfect box to exist;
that is easy to state & prove
(using Euler's parameterizations or equiv.,
I think). to find a sufficient condition to prove nonexistance should
be somewhat harder to do, though true....
the answer to your question is,
Wolframitism can't do numbertheory worth beans,
as of yet (although you'd *think* that Base One would
be a simple matter to emulate, thereby .-)

thus:
Dick Cheeny, Don Rumsfeld and Osama bin Latin form a mission
to Darfur, to prevent a war instead of to start one:
if Darfur is "100% Muslim," then
what's really going on, there? ...
is it just aother British Quag for USA soldiers to get bogged
into, with Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan et al ad vomitorium,
under auspices of the UN and NATO? ...
why won't the Bruin publish the fact of Islam on the ground,
therein?

thus:
Why doesn't the [UCLA Daily] Bruin report that
Darfur's populace is "100%" Muslim,
according to the DAC's sponsor,
Terry Saunders?...
"99%" was the figure given
by Brian Steidle, when I finally found
him at the Hammer, after everyone else
had left (he, his friend & I were the
very last to leave!)...
What could it possibly mean?

--The Other Side (if it exists)

Now if this new Faraday Law is true with its u i Gravity Displacement
term where Space is the ocean of positrons and gravity is a EM
attraction for mass and matter, then the warping of space around the
planet Jupiter would demand that its satellites have the largest
Magnetic Moments as compared to other planetary satellites of near
equal mass.

Just as Mercury is 5 times greater Magnetic field compared to Venus or
Mars is because of the Space warping nearby the Sun.

So I hope someone can locate a table listing of the most recent revised
Magnetic Moments of not only the planets but of their satellites also.

And I have been looking around to find out the situation concerning
comets and asteroids as to magnetic fields on those bodies.

So the summary is this: a astro body has a Magnetic Field due to at
least two major sources (1) internal dynamo of a liquid (2) the
intrinsic magnetic field due to the fact the body possesses a specific
gravitational mass and the gravity of nearby mass, and call this the
Gravity Displacement of the Faraday-Plutonium Law of the Maxwell
Equations the u i term in Integral E dot ds= (ue) -dB/dt + u i

Every astro body has a Gravity Displacement and thus a magnetic field,
however, a body has to be large enough in mass to detect its intrinsic
magnetic field.

In short, gravity creates magnetism.

Now I need to study how the pecular and strange magnetic fields of
Uranus and Neptune is a planetary form of the Aharanov-Bohm Effect of a
phase shift.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

a_plutonium wrote:
(much snipped)

So the summary is this: a astro body has a Magnetic Field due to at
least two major sources (1) internal dynamo of a liquid (2) the
intrinsic magnetic field due to the fact the body possesses a specific
gravitational mass and the gravity of nearby mass, and call this the
Gravity Displacement of the Faraday-Plutonium Law of the Maxwell
Equations the u i term in Integral E dot ds= (ue) -dB/dt + u i

Every astro body has a Gravity Displacement and thus a magnetic field,
however, a body has to be large enough in mass to detect its intrinsic
magnetic field.

In short, gravity creates magnetism.


And here should provide a very delicate experiment to prove or deny the
assertion.

We build an apparatus of a massive object which should have no magnetic
field. But because it is so massive, that a tiny magnetic field arises
and is proportional to the displacement current u i of both the new
Faraday Law and the displacement current in the old Ampere-Maxwell Law.

This reminds me of those huge pendulums of metal at Univ Maryland by
Weber to try to detect gravity waves. Instead of that, use those metal
balls to detect a magnetic field that really should not be there under
the old Faraday Law.


Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

--- quoting http://www.igpp.ucla.edu/galileo/results.html

The Galilean Moons

Passes by the moons have revealed that Ganymede has an intrinsic
magnetic field -- large enough to carve a mini-magnetosphere out of
Jupiter's magnetosphere. This surprising result has created
considerable interest among planetary scientists who are trying to
understand the source of this magnetic field as no other moon in the
solar system is known have an intrinsic magnetic field

A large magnetic perturbation was measured near Io. The magnetometer
team has concluded that it is likely, but yet uncertain, that Io also
has an intrinsic magnetic field. The ambiguity arises because strong
currents flow in the plasma near Io modifying the magnetic field.
There, then, is some possibility that plasma currents could explain
these observations.

In late 1999, Galileo will pass over Io's south pole at low altitude.
The magnetometer team believes that data from this pass will
unambiguously establish the source of the magnetic signature.

A pass by Callisto showed no intrinsic magnetic field. Europa has, at
most, a very small intrinsic magnetic field; additional passes will
probably help constrain its magnitude and its symmetry properties.

--- end quoting ---

Apparently the science literature on the magnetic fields of planets and
satellites is in need of alot of assembling into order. Someone should
have tabulated the most current numerical data of magnetic moments of
these astro bodies, but noone has. The above is mid 1990s old, and if
memory serves me that after Mars robot landings a few years back also
had some robots visiting Jupiter and its satellites. So there must be
more recent data on Jupiter satellites than the above 1990s.

But the above mentions that Ganymede has an exorbitantly high magnetic
field.

So if the Positron Space where gravity is the attraction of positron
space to ordinary matter/mass (since it is bits and pieces of the last
electrons of an Atom Totality) is correct. Then intrinsic magnetic
fields exist for every body of mass. And where the intrinsic magnetic
field is greatest is where bodies are nearby to larger mass bodies. The
planet Mercury has 5 times greater magnetic field than Venus or Mars
because of the gravity warp nearby the Sun.

So the gravity warp of Ganymede because it lies nearby the largest
planet-- Jupiter would account for Ganymede as the highest intrinsic
magnetic field of all the satellites.

It is a shame that this vital data information as to magnetic fields of
planets and their satellites is not tabulated.


Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

a_plutonium wrote:
So the monopoles in the Universe would be two monopoles. Space would be
a monopole since space is an ocean of positrons with only a positive
pole. And all of mass and matter that is observable is another monopole
since it is the electrons of the Atom Totality.

So the Maxwell Equations would have to be changed: (excuse me because
computers were never able to render the Maxwell Eq and so in shorthand
I deliver these below)

old Maxwell Equations:
Gauss Law for electricity-- Integral E dot dA = q/e
Gauss Law for magnetism-- Integral B dot dA = 0
Faraday's Law-- Integral E dot ds= -dB/dt
Ampere-Maxwell Law Integral B dot ds = ue (dE/dt) + u i

Now, with Space being Dirac's ocean of Positrons we iron out all the
asymmetry of the old Maxwell Equations and they become the new Maxwell
Equations:

New Maxwell Equations:

Gauss Law for electricity-- Integral E dot dA = q/e
Gauss-Plutonium Law for magnetism-- Integral B dot dA = q/e
Faraday-Plutonium Law-- Integral E dot ds= (ue)
-dB/dt + u i
Ampere-Maxwell Law Integral B dot ds = ue (dE/dt) + u i

You see, the stipulation that Space is a ocean of positrons causes the
monopole equation to be a positive q/e instead of a zero. And it causes
added terms of a displacement term in Faraday's Law, so that the
Maxwell Equations become perfectly symmetrical.

But Space as a ocean of positrons does something more. It eliminates
the notion in the 20th century that Space can be more than 3
dimensional. If Space is the ocean of positrons, then there cannot be
4th or higher dimensions. And so String theories all evaporate into the
trashcan of failed ideas.


Let me write out in shorthand the Maxwell Equations as given by
ELECTRICITY AND MAGNETISM, Berkeley physics course volume 2, Edward
Purcell 1965, page 263:

div E = 4(pi) p
div B = 0
curl E = -(1/c) dB/dt
curl B = (1/c) dE/dt + (4(pi)/c) J

--- quoting ELECTRICITY AND MAGNETISM page 262-263 ---
This will be negligible for sufficiently slow changes in field. We may
call a slowly changing field quasi-static. Now if J_d is a vector field
without any curl, it can be made up, in the same way that the
electrostatic field can be made of the fields of point charges, by
superposing radial currents flowing outward from the point sources or
in toward point "sinks" (Fig. 7.32). But the magnetic field of any
radial, symmetrical current distribution, calculated a la Biot-Savart,
must be zero by symmetry, for there is no unique direction anywhere,
except the radial direction itself.

In the quasi-static field, then, the conduction currents alone are the
only sources needed to account for the magnetic field. In other words,
if Faraday had arranged something like Fig. 7.31, and had been able to
measure the magnetic field at P, by using a compass needle say, he
would not have been surprised. He would not have needed to invent a
displacement current to explain it.

To see this new induction effect, we need rapidly changing fields. In
fact, we need changes to occur in the time it takes light to cross the
apparatus. That is why the direct demonstration had to wait for Hertz,
whose experiment came many years after the law itself had been worked
out by Maxwell.
--- end quoting this Berkeley physics textbook ---

Now the reason I quoted a long passage is to gather together a
understanding of the measure or magnitude of the displacement current
with respect to the regular current. I need to do this because we know
the magnitude of force strength between gravity as a force and the
Coulomb force of about 10^40 difference.

Not that I expect the displacement current to be of a difference of
10^40 from that of J current.

But the above text tells us how Faraday could easily have missed the
displacement current.

And how astronomers and physicists could easily miss the idea that a
large and dense star such as the MECO quasar of Q0957+561 would have a
large magnetic field, because the force of gravity itself is the
DISPLACEMENT CURRENT in the revised Faraday Law of the old Maxwell
Equations.

What I am trying to research at this moment, and which the above quote
atests to, is the magnitude or proportion of the Displacement current
in the Ampere-Maxwell Law compared to the regular current in the
Ampere-Maxwell Law and to see if that proportionality agrees with the
proportionality of Coulomb law force strength compared to Gravity force
strength.

As I noted in an earlier post, every astro body would have a Magnetic
Field, even asteroids and comets, even though they are tiny masses, and
those magnetic fields are due to the fact they possess a mass. What I
am doing is replacing Gravity with the displacement-current in the
revised Faraday Law of the Maxwell Equations.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

a_plutonium wrote:
a_plutonium wrote:
So the monopoles in the Universe would be two monopoles. Space would be
a monopole since space is an ocean of positrons with only a positive
pole. And all of mass and matter that is observable is another monopole
since it is the electrons of the Atom Totality.

So the Maxwell Equations would have to be changed: (excuse me because
computers were never able to render the Maxwell Eq and so in shorthand
I deliver these below)

old Maxwell Equations:
Gauss Law for electricity-- Integral E dot dA = q/e
Gauss Law for magnetism-- Integral B dot dA = 0
Faraday's Law-- Integral E dot ds= -dB/dt
Ampere-Maxwell Law Integral B dot ds = ue (dE/dt) + u i

Now, with Space being Dirac's ocean of Positrons we iron out all the
asymmetry of the old Maxwell Equations and they become the new Maxwell
Equations:

New Maxwell Equations:

Gauss Law for electricity-- Integral E dot dA = q/e
Gauss-Plutonium Law for magnetism-- Integral B dot dA = q/e
Faraday-Plutonium Law-- Integral E dot ds= (ue)
-dB/dt + u i
Ampere-Maxwell Law Integral B dot ds = ue (dE/dt) + u i

You see, the stipulation that Space is a ocean of positrons causes the
monopole equation to be a positive q/e instead of a zero. And it causes
added terms of a displacement term in Faraday's Law, so that the
Maxwell Equations become perfectly symmetrical.

But Space as a ocean of positrons does something more. It eliminates
the notion in the 20th century that Space can be more than 3
dimensional. If Space is the ocean of positrons, then there cannot be
4th or higher dimensions. And so String theories all evaporate into the
trashcan of failed ideas.


Let me write out in shorthand the Maxwell Equations as given by
ELECTRICITY AND MAGNETISM, Berkeley physics course volume 2, Edward
Purcell 1965, page 263:

div E = 4(pi) p
div B = 0
curl E = -(1/c) dB/dt
curl B = (1/c) dE/dt + (4(pi)/c) J

--- quoting ELECTRICITY AND MAGNETISM page 262-263 ---
This will be negligible for sufficiently slow changes in field. We may
call a slowly changing field quasi-static. Now if J_d is a vector field
without any curl, it can be made up, in the same way that the
electrostatic field can be made of the fields of point charges, by
superposing radial currents flowing outward from the point sources or
in toward point "sinks" (Fig. 7.32). But the magnetic field of any
radial, symmetrical current distribution, calculated a la Biot-Savart,
must be zero by symmetry, for there is no unique direction anywhere,
except the radial direction itself.

In the quasi-static field, then, the conduction currents alone are the
only sources needed to account for the magnetic field. In other words,
if Faraday had arranged something like Fig. 7.31, and had been able to
measure the magnetic field at P, by using a compass needle say, he
would not have been surprised. He would not have needed to invent a
displacement current to explain it.

To see this new induction effect, we need rapidly changing fields. In
fact, we need changes to occur in the time it takes light to cross the
apparatus. That is why the direct demonstration had to wait for Hertz,
whose experiment came many years after the law itself had been worked
out by Maxwell.
--- end quoting this Berkeley physics textbook ---

Now the reason I quoted a long passage is to gather together a
understanding of the measure or magnitude of the displacement current
with respect to the regular current. I need to do this because we know
the magnitude of force strength between gravity as a force and the
Coulomb force of about 10^40 difference.

Not that I expect the displacement current to be of a difference of
10^40 from that of J current.

But the above text tells us how Faraday could easily have missed the
displacement current.

And how astronomers and physicists could easily miss the idea that a
large and dense star such as the MECO quasar of Q0957+561 would have a
large magnetic field, because the force of gravity itself is the
DISPLACEMENT CURRENT in the revised Faraday Law of the old Maxwell
Equations.

What I am trying to research at this moment, and which the above quote
atests to, is the magnitude or proportion of the Displacement current
in the Ampere-Maxwell Law compared to the regular current in the
Ampere-Maxwell Law and to see if that proportionality agrees with the
proportionality of Coulomb law force strength compared to Gravity force
strength.

As I noted in an earlier post, every astro body would have a Magnetic
Field, even asteroids and comets, even though they are tiny masses, and
those magnetic fields are due to the fact they possess a mass. What I
am doing is replacing Gravity with the displacement-current in the
revised Faraday Law of the Maxwell Equations.

Usually I trim my posts and not repeat previous, but this thread is
special, in that it is historic to physics. This is the first time in
physics that gravity is tied to electricity and magnetism, and the
first time that the Maxwell Equations become perfectly symmetrical.
This is big science progress.

I wanted to point out a special sentence by Purcell's physics textbook.
The reason I quoted those paragraphs is because I need a sense of
"size" of the displacement current in Ampere-Maxwell Law compared to
the regular current. I need that because if gravity is this
displacement current it must agree in a "proportional size" to that of
Coulomb law is 10^40 stronger than gravity. So I must have agreement
and harmony in size if this new revision is true.

And the sentences that sticks out the most in the above quote is this:
"To see this new induction effect, we need rapidly changing fields. In
fact, we need changes to occur in the time it takes light to cross the
apparatus."

So is the time it takes for light to cross the apparatus a proportional
size of about 10^40?? From preliminary, I would say it is.

Not to say that the quasar, the MECO quasar of Q0957+561 does something
strange to the speed of light due to its gravity. But to say that a
quasar such as this MECO quasar is so dense and heavy that it pulls a
envelope over the star of the positron-space that matter-antimatter
annihilation begins and we see it as a quasar star. So that the
Displacement Current of the Faraday Law in the revised Maxwell
Equations above would rival the regular current in the Faraday law and
thus quasars are so bright in energy because their gravity is being
turned into energy of light as well as matter-antimatter annihilation.
So that quasars will be shining brightly for a very long time.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

a_plutonium wrote:
a_plutonium wrote:
So the monopoles in the Universe would be two monopoles. Space would be
a monopole since space is an ocean of positrons with only a positive
pole. And all of mass and matter that is observable is another monopole
since it is the electrons of the Atom Totality.

So the Maxwell Equations would have to be changed: (excuse me because
computers were never able to render the Maxwell Eq and so in shorthand
I deliver these below)

old Maxwell Equations:
Gauss Law for electricity-- Integral E dot dA = q/e
Gauss Law for magnetism-- Integral B dot dA = 0
Faraday's Law-- Integral E dot ds= -dB/dt
Ampere-Maxwell Law Integral B dot ds = ue (dE/dt) + u i

Now, with Space being Dirac's ocean of Positrons we iron out all the
asymmetry of the old Maxwell Equations and they become the new Maxwell
Equations:

New Maxwell Equations:

Gauss Law for electricity-- Integral E dot dA = q/e
Gauss-Plutonium Law for magnetism-- Integral B dot dA = q/e
Faraday-Plutonium Law-- Integral E dot ds= (ue)
-dB/dt + u i
Ampere-Maxwell Law Integral B dot ds = ue (dE/dt) + u i

You see, the stipulation that Space is a ocean of positrons causes the
monopole equation to be a positive q/e instead of a zero. And it causes
added terms of a displacement term in Faraday's Law, so that the
Maxwell Equations become perfectly symmetrical.

But Space as a ocean of positrons does something more. It eliminates
the notion in the 20th century that Space can be more than 3
dimensional. If Space is the ocean of positrons, then there cannot be
4th or higher dimensions. And so String theories all evaporate into the
trashcan of failed ideas.


Let me write out in shorthand the Maxwell Equations as given by
ELECTRICITY AND MAGNETISM, Berkeley physics course volume 2, Edward
Purcell 1965, page 263:

div E = 4(pi) p
div B = 0
curl E = -(1/c) dB/dt
curl B = (1/c) dE/dt + (4(pi)/c) J

--- quoting ELECTRICITY AND MAGNETISM page 262-263 ---
This will be negligible for sufficiently slow changes in field. We may
call a slowly changing field quasi-static. Now if J_d is a vector field
without any curl, it can be made up, in the same way that the
electrostatic field can be made of the fields of point charges, by
superposing radial currents flowing outward from the point sources or
in toward point "sinks" (Fig. 7.32). But the magnetic field of any
radial, symmetrical current distribution, calculated a la Biot-Savart,
must be zero by symmetry, for there is no unique direction anywhere,
except the radial direction itself.

In the quasi-static field, then, the conduction currents alone are the
only sources needed to account for the magnetic field. In other words,
if Faraday had arranged something like Fig. 7.31, and had been able to
measure the magnetic field at P, by using a compass needle say, he
would not have been surprised. He would not have needed to invent a
displacement current to explain it.

To see this new induction effect, we need rapidly changing fields. In
fact, we need changes to occur in the time it takes light to cross the
apparatus. That is why the direct demonstration had to wait for Hertz,
whose experiment came many years after the law itself had been worked
out by Maxwell.
--- end quoting this Berkeley physics textbook ---

Now the reason I quoted a long passage is to gather together a
understanding of the measure or magnitude of the displacement current
with respect to the regular current. I need to do this because we know
the magnitude of force strength between gravity as a force and the
Coulomb force of about 10^40 difference.

Not that I expect the displacement current to be of a difference of
10^40 from that of J current.

But the above text tells us how Faraday could easily have missed the
displacement current.

And how astronomers and physicists could easily miss the idea that a
large and dense star such as the MECO quasar of Q0957+561 would have a
large magnetic field, because the force of gravity itself is the
DISPLACEMENT CURRENT in the revised Faraday Law of the old Maxwell
Equations.

What I am trying to research at this moment, and which the above quote
atests to, is the magnitude or proportion of the Displacement current
in the Ampere-Maxwell Law compared to the regular current in the
Ampere-Maxwell Law and to see if that proportionality agrees with the
proportionality of Coulomb law force strength compared to Gravity force
strength.

As I noted in an earlier post, every astro body would have a Magnetic
Field, even asteroids and comets, even though they are tiny masses, and
those magnetic fields are due to the fact they possess a mass. What I
am doing is replacing Gravity with the displacement-current in the
revised Faraday Law of the Maxwell Equations.

On page 260 of the above quoted textbook is Fig. 7.29 and Fig 7.30
showing the lines of force of the Displacement Current. Now that
matches the lines of force of gravity as an inward towards the center
of the apparatus. So the magnitude of the displacement current can
match the force strength of gravity compared to EM, and now the
direction of the force matches gravity.

So that leaves the tantalizing question of whether a displacement
current term in the Faraday Law can explain the perihelion of Mercury
better than the General Theory of Relativity.

Now as far as I can remember from elementary astronomy on the subject
of the perihelion motion of Mercury that General Relativity predicts a
rate of 110 cm per century, whereas the actual rate is about 1300 cm
per century. This huge discrepancy was swept under the rug or carpet by
saying that other planets had a influence on Mercury. So I think this
issue has to be reopened and reexamined with this new theory of gravity
as Dirac's ocean of positron space attracting mass which is electron
mass of the Atom Totality, and where gravity is the displacement term
in Faraday's Law.

And another item that needs to be reexamined is the "deflection of
light". The actual deflection of light by the Sun compared to the
prediction of General Relativity is fairly close to 4.5 cm. However, it
is not that close of a match, wherein the theory of GR is at a large
enough variance from actual Solar deflection that perhaps the
Displacement Current would come even closer to the actual Solar
deflection.

Keep in mind that the theory of gravity as the displacement current in
a Space of positrons contains the central idea of General Relativity--
mass bends space and other mass follows the curvature of that bent
space. But the Displacement theory of gravity pinpoints what the
concept of "Space" actually is. So that the predictions of General
Relativity may come into a close range of the actual numbers, that the
Displacement current theory should come even closer to the actual
numbers. And then this new theory of what gravity is, should predict
things that GR was never able to predict, such as quasars, and such as
why all mass seems to have an intrinsic magnetic field.


Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

Also, I must comment on the quasar, the MECO quasar of Q0957+561 as to
the new theory of gravity being a displacement current in Faraday's
Law, since the post of a few minutes ago made questionable the
deflection of light by massive objects.

The magnetic field of that quasar was implied by "gravitational
lensing", and so was implied via General Relativity. I am not saying
that gravitational-lensing does not exist if the Displacement Current
of gravity is true. Perhaps that quasar has an even larger magnetic
field if the Displacement theory were true. So that very massive
objects such as quasars have an even larger magnetic field than what
General Relativity would calculate.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies