Strength of magnetism and electric field the same?

On Dec 1, 12:23 am, BURT <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote:


That's right Mich. Relativity converts E into M and M into E. They are
the SAME thing. They are absolutely equal to each other. Since light
is both E and M it unites them both into a unified field theory.

I think I smell dual Nobel Prizes here....!!!!!

On Nov 30, 10:44*pm, Benj <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote:

Is there a difference in the strength of the magnetic and the
electric
force

Magnetism is the force that moving charges exert on one another. This
formal definition is based on this simple formula.

FB = qv × B

The combination of electric and magnetic forces on a charged object is
known as the Lorentz force.

F = q(E + v × B)

so their two sides of the same coin but the diffrence is how their
force moves and interacts with the protons propagation.

On Dec 1, 3:43 pm, "[Only registered users see links. ]"
<[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote:
Burt, you have made two conflicting statements. If they are unified
then we should have no need of the two words 'electricity' and
'magnetism'. I do think this may be possible, but the way to get there
is not the professed way. Something needs to get flipped around.
Relativity theory ignores Maxwell's equations and relies only on the
speed of light.

These equations above do not include the electron's spin.
Because the raw charge does not exist the chance at truly unifying
electricity and magnetism promises itself. That may seem too cryptic,
but essentially what I am saying is that these equations must be
wrong. I know they are awfully well behaved as witnessed when we use
an electron beam television (CRT). I don't have a complete answer, but
I have a start.

Both electromagnetism and relativity theory are couched on an
assumption of isotropic space.
Is space isotropic? The same in all directions? Or is it unique in
every direction? Then is spacetime isotropic? The 4D form? Clearly it
is not. Time is unidirectional and so the 4D situation already has
destroyed the isotropic form of the tensor.

There is a new path and it will derive spacetime within its
construction. Electromagnetism likewise will be built within this same
construction, just as the electric and magnetic constants are taken in
modernity to be features of space itself. This new construction has a
richer geometry than the usual cartesian constructions.

Rotation is a simplistic area compared to what we are discussing, yet
that same cross product enters its role there in the definition of
angular momentum. The cross product itself is not a general operator.
Those who claim to have generalized it are mistaken I believe. Rather,
the cross product is not a natural operator. It will be more like a
side effect. Rotation will be natural as exhibited in the product of
the polysign numerical system which supports spacetime naturally:
[Only registered users see links. ]

How we have come to focus so thoroughly on translation and attempt to
break rotation down into translation helps explain what has happened.
For instance a simple puzzle might help get you going:
Which of these two possibilities best describes a zero spin state?
1. The moon rotates around the earth and maintains its
orientation to the earth.
2. The moon rotates around the earth and in one rotation it
repeats its orientation.
Why should such a simple problem seem confusing? Doesn't the moon spin
since it maintains its orientation to the earth and we accept that the
earth is spinning? In the essence of this problem we can almost come
to view the moon and the earth as one body in the state of their
mutual orientation. Even with a gentle rocking motion we could still
accept an analogy to thermodynamics. As we step out from this simple
problem and accept that the earth orbits the sun, the sun orbiting
about in a galaxy, then this problem takes on its fullest puzzlement.
Yet where is this description in modern physics? It all is couched in
rotation as translation and ignores the fundamental description that
is presented here. All the way back to solid objects being merely
points in translation, as resolved through calculus. Yet when we
rotate solids, if their parts be rotating, then we should admit that
those parts will then be rotating at differing speeds. Well, I've
broken the definitioin of solid in this description, yet again I've
also interpereted a non-solid earth and moon duo as a solid. So the
solid state can be questioned even from such simple terms. Along with
this comes a challenge to our sense of dimension, for it is the solid
state which allows the determination of three dimensional space.

I'm sorry to say that few will come to puzzle over such simple terms
as I am using. These puzzles were already solved right? But were they
solved correctly? If not, then all of this scrutiny is fully valid.
Even if solved correctly scrutiny is supposed to be the way of the
physicist so I challenge you to a thorough description of the
rotational systems which we admit to being a part of and for instance
ask you whether when you hold a pendulum stable in your 'fixed'
reference frame if you have a clean gravitational measure. How many
influences on this measure are there? Can they all be declared? If
your head is not spinning then probably you don't get this.

- Tim

On Dec 2, 9:01*am, "Tim BandTech.com" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote:

The moon rotates around the earth and maintains its
orientation to the earth.
2. The moon rotates around the earth and in one rotation it
repeats its orientation.


The moon falls around the earth in geosycronis orbit
rotates--at the same speed as it orbits the Earth. So, in the 27.32
days it takes the Moon to go around Earth, the Moon also spins about
its axis one full revolution. That's why we always see the same face
of the Moon.

On Dec 2, 10:05*am, RustyJames <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote:

isn't the cause of that entrenchment?