Is this our current model for the magnetic field?

>Ken Wheeler
Dude just makes up concepts of apropo of nothing, then just asserts these concepts explain the phenomena he's trying to explain, without providing any logical connection between the concepts he makes up and without expanding on those concepts.

It's absolute nonsense. I mean shit, I even downloaded the book he wrote (not because I thought he was onto something, but because I actually wanted to try and engage with the ideas) and still came out with no deeper understanding. I still don't think I've seen a definition of "counterspace" nor have I seen it used to make any new predictions over "standard electromagnetism".

>The only scientists we can trust are genius like Nicolas Tesla.
the irony

it's like the people that circulated that popular biased tesla infographic decided to form a cult

>appeal to authority
The glowing flat earther CIA drones always come to these threads, do any of you find it coincidental?
They're all fake or ill informed new agers.

>appeal to authority
Appeal to asking a legitimate question you fucking dunce. Your apparent defensiveness does a good job of answering it.

0 now make your point. Show me how the universe does math.

That's what the CIA put in your textbooks. Open your eyes, sheeple

>Show me how the universe does math.
Most people start with a textbook. If you're studying some supposedly revolutionary theory but not bothering with formal training, you're not doing math; you're just writing random shit.

>guy who cant understand a language with a few basic thoroughly defined rules can totally grasp mathematical concepts with complex interactions that already have other explanations with predictive power that conveniently arent correct according to his “theories”
The guy is fucking looney. The insult about being a tattooed fat white Erkle wasnt meant to discredit him, i just think hes a moron and should be referred to using his most notable characteristics. He is trying to make a cult of “science” while painting himself as having a deep understanding that nobody else does. You took the bait, hook, line, and sinker.

>pic related, your messiah

You don't need any Math to see that Earth is flat
Just simply look with your eyes.

Earth chan is not flat

This idea that formal education is illuminati brainwashing is a poorly founded one. Intentionally misinforming your best and brightest about how the world works is a poor strategy, because developing new technologies based on known laws of physics almost always makes the rich richer. If your goal is power and money you want scientists to make breakthroughs and then exploit those breakthroughs for money. Improperly educating the public just limits the amount of power you can grab.

But they've already grabbed the magnetic monopoles, and they're keeping us all in the dark about them.

If the public doesn’t know they exist, and you cant sell them anything containing magnetic monopoles without spilling the beans, how does that benefit anyone? That keeps them at the same level of uselessness as if they just didnt exist. Tell me why someone would want to do it and show me some evidence. Until then, burden of proof and such.

>chan
>not tan
disgusting

I've got some monopoles to sell. They only come in pairs though.

This entire statement is wrong since he (and numerous times mind you) rejects the ideas of science,new age garbage and those "loonies" you speak of. He is not a "free energy" promoter, he has not promoted any religion or cult and in fact has shit on them. The closest thing you can call him is a Platonist since that is where he derives a lot of his knowledge from (because he translates ancient Greek). Usually people who act like mediators do so to gain profit, yet I find nothing that he actually sells. All his info is free (both on photography and magnetism), the only thing he asks for is voluntary donations.

Tell me what bait did I take? I gained a shitload of knowledge about history, magnetism, diamagnetic materials, light and other shit because he takes the time to mention and give credit to those who first came up with the experiments and ideas so I could go back and research those he mentions.

>pic related, man shows his 20 year old hemp robe and jokes about meditation and new age garbage and someone takes an opportune screenshot.
This is your last (you)
No wonder it's so bright in this thread, all these glowing men are now in it.

To me, the counterspacial idea makes sense when you get rid of the current model of the Atom and particles and just replace it with OP's image, with the electron valences being replaced with tiers in the field.

Counterspace could be defined then as both a molecular/atomic inner space and a literal terminus for electrical phenomena, thus the ideas of "grounding in counterspace".

im only 1 minute into one of his videos and he's already incredibly arrogant and retarded

the "speed of gravity" is not instantaneous, this was predicted literally a century ago by einstein and confirmed within the past couple of years multiple times

What is the "speed of gravity"?

Not him but I'm pretty sure he means the speed at which it propagates across space (the speed of light).

he thinks light waves are longitudinal like sound waves ... ?????? this can be proven wrong in maybe 30 seconds by a simple light diffraction experiment, separate from that even thinking about how light interference patterns come about for maybe a couple minutes should be enough

he hasn't been even remotely correct about a single thing so far jesus. and the comment section is even worse

>In a more physically correct sense, the "speed of gravity" refers to the speed of a gravitational wave, which is the same speed[1] as the speed of light (c) as predicted by General Relativity and confirmed by observation of the GW170817 neutron star merger.
also proven by observation
Moreover, Einstien's predictions for the speed of gravity have been experimentally consistent with calculations done roughly 2 decades ago now.

Interference patterns prove a wave-like propagation.

>?????
Now I get it.

Too hand wavy. And too simple to presume that everything has been figured out decades prior and no more analysis should be done.

Gravity as a wave to me is in contradiction with mass being the sole producer of gravity. Then you have to figure out what these waves are propagating through, and if you go with the Relativistic idea of space-time then it only adds more questions.

The LIGO experiment to me is both ironic and insulting. Ironic in what other previous experiment it can be likened to, and insulting that a hypothetical collision that far away could be the only reason for the interference.

arxiv.org/pdf/1110.4309.pdf
please tell me how to polarize longitudinal waves, i'll wait user

What is that paper talking about?

Could we also conceive that same field as an atom?

>Ken Wheeler is the one of the only people on earth to have properly modeled and understood magnetism
Ken Wheeler is a fucking textbook example of a con man and will stay that way until he can provide some theories to back his claims. As it stands you can predict physical and electrical phenomena to an incredibly high degree of accuracy through mathematics... which means that current models are extremely refined when it comes to practical applications. I dont give a flying fuck about a bunch of buzzwords if they have no real world application and have no supporting theories and proofs to speak of.

But do you just want the mathematics? It's a language for measurement.

Can you really say the understanding of electricity and light is at 100% when no one can even define magnetism?

Mass isn't the sole producer of gravity though, energy is as well. For example, compressed springs and charged batteries are actually heavier then when they are uncompressed/depleted

>incredibly high degree of accuracy
>at 100%
incredibly high =/=100%. I want understanding, i can understand things very well through mathematical models. I cant understand anything if a person makes a statement about semantics.

'Definition of magnetism' (whatever you mean by that) does not matter if it serves no purpose and doesnt advance any scientific field in any measurable way.

>Magnetism: A physical phenomenon produced by the motion of electric charge, which results in attractive and repulsive forces between objects.
>All magnetism is due to circulating electric currents. In magnetic materials the magnetism is produced by electrons orbiting within the atoms; in most substances the magnetic effects of different electrons cancel each other out, but in some, such as iron, a net magnetic field can be induced by aligning the atoms

The physicality of magnetism. You can't brush that aside because a model works really well.

But then what is gravity? No one wants to say and so we become content with only the observable properties.

How do you measure the physicality of magnetism? What do you do with the information?

Notice it's just called a phenomenon here.

You experiment with different ideas.

For example what is it exactly? Is it physical?
Does it move? Is it a field? Does frequency play a part? What's a field?

Asking simple questions should prove valuable to understanding it.

Because it is. Why do you think there needs to be more to it than that?

Well then why does it need to be any less than what it could be then?
Phenomena of current. Where do you go with magnets then? Is an electrons orbit current? Or do they each produce their own magnetic field?

>What's a field?
Everything is fields and fields have no physicality to them. Asking what the "physicality of magnetism" is a question with the wrong premise. Magnetism is an effect not a cause, effects are illusions.

And for some hilarious reason, people still think electricity flows like water in a pipe and that light actually moves.

This is exactly why Ken does the work he does. He has not exaggerated the statement "nobody has explained what causes magnetism".

according to Ken "gravity is incoherent dielectric acceleration". A magnet is a "coherent dielectric acceleration". Substitute "dielectric" for "bloch wall" "domain wall" or "donut hole", whatever it doesn't matter what you call it.

What is it that leads a person to think like this? It’s bewildering.

What leads someone to believe that magical "big bazinga/biggs bazinga particle" came out of nowhere for no reason.

Also I would like to know which part bewilders you. Do you actually think light moves? Do you actually think that "photons" travel through the "vacuum of space"? Do you actually believe that "electrons" are flowing through a copper rod? If so then then you truly have no concept of what you're talking about.
Even Nikola Tesla and J.J Thompson (who came up with the "electron) denied that it was actually something of physicality. It is an electrical momentum, a shadow so to speak.
How do you reify a shadow? You can't, it's not a thing.

>Do you actually believe that "electrons" are flowing through a copper rod?
Proof that that's wrong?

>according to Ken "gravity is incoherent dielectric acceleration". A magnet is a "coherent dielectric acceleration". Substitute "dielectric" for "bloch wall" "domain wall" or "donut hole", whatever it doesn't matter what you call it.
this is nonsense.

LOL, proof that's right? It's a series of perturbations a pressure differences. There is nothing actually moving other than the rotor with magnets attached to it. Said magnets having a FIELDS which are not particles.

How do you think wireless electricity works? How do the "electrons" flow from coil to coil with "nothing" in between?

lol

The better question is how do you prove that that is right?
You can say that the weight of something charged is increased but that's only based on the formulae behind it. Who has weighed it out?

The idea of electrons as particles has more failings than an aether. You become embroiled in the realm of physics, marble analogies and energy.
The biggest proof you could have it the temperature of a larger conductor. If the idea that current is an even distribution through the conductor then the heat from the electromagnetism should be uniform across it.

The idea of free electrons and outer valences is messy.

I couldn't think of anything clever to say so just check out these sick antennas, one helical polarized and then we have two axial. ( on a hobby toy no less)

I love how science just makes everything work for you and you don't have to do a damn thing because if it's possible somebody smart will do it sooner or later

numerous common electronics rely on counting electrons to function.
you're hoping someone is too ignorant to have any idea what's going on and then hooking them with your vapid rhetoric

>Ken Wheeler

Jesus fucking tap-dancing Christ. Stop posting on Veeky Forums, Ken. I'm sick of seeing your shit on /p/.

Nothing relies on counting physical electrons. How can you when the idea that a physical duality exists in the observation of them? Which do you subscribe to? That's the biggest fallacy.

Everything relies on identifying 'state', not 'count'. Even the concept of a Coulomb is shaky.

solar cells are designed from the explicit quantum prediction that electrons are displaced from the valence band to the conduction band and physically separated. then, the charge separation drives current through the coulomb force.

not a single experiment or material has contradicted this.

digital cameras measure intensity by counting electrons displaced by photons, as another example.

How can you count a single electron?

He may not ask for money, but it’s because he doesn’t have to. You think hes not making any money off this scam? Ads and data are valuable.

very carefully and with tools

You can fool yourself into thinking you're counting electrons with ideas about charge and displacement.

Why do solar panels need to work in a different way? Doesn't the photoelectric effect prove that it's just simple conductance at work?

>Do you actually think light moves?
>if u think electrons are flowing through a conductor u have no concept
it's quite ironic, half the terms ken uses are from year1 ee circuit theory yet this seems to imply you are entirely rejecting all of modern engineering because you entirely reject any use of c in any equations, or the permeability of free space (a constant used for calculations in every simple circuit, every electronic device, especially capacitors and dielectrics which he loves to mention), you reject charge densities, even how simple batteries work; their internal resistances balanced between the voltage and the emf, all the billions of transistors in every modern computer, the way simple pn junctions work, the way pnp/npn transistors amplify current, all the men that invented them knew this to be true. somehow, in your world, these geniuses were working under false assumptions yet somehow came to the right conclusions. every man alive responsible for the hardware you're using are all misguided? there's no voltage across the depletion region, band gaps don't exist, doping semiconductors and all the math behind it to create the precise conductivities we need, it's all fabricated lmao the transistors i built, the logic gates, the experiment to test the differences between different dielectrics i did yesterday -- a lie perpetuated by my university, or a coincidence. wow

>Even Nikola Tesla and J.J Thompson (who came up with the "electron) denied that it was actually something of physicality
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
especially brain-dead considering these men were forcibly a product of their times, like every other scientist in history.
>even aristotle believed in an aether! look so did newton! special relativity is retroactively a sham because i can just appeal to the genius men that came before these theories!
don't worry, as long as you say dielectric as much as possible people will follow

>Doesn't the photoelectric effect prove that it's just simple conductance at work?
ignoring the fact that conductance isn't the proper word to use here, and you know that, "No." solar cells only function because light of specific wavelengths (not intensity) will excite electrons sufficiently. this is also true regardless of orientation or polarization, which directly contradicts your "counter spacial acceleration" conjecture.

let's move the goalposts back to where i placed them, instead of where you carelessly carried them off to, shall we?
Nothing you've mentioned has disproved all the known and predicted results of the standard model.

you're wasting your own time, and more importantly mine

>Doesn't the photoelectric effect prove that it's just simple conductance at work?
im confused, you're op? you realize the photoelectric effect is just electromagnetic radiation reaching the work function of a metal; consequently producing an electric current depending on the intensity of the light?
>electric current
>electrons don't move through a conductor in spite of the fact that the first ever experiment proving the photoelectric effect involved an ammeter reading that light shining on metal produced a current [flowing through a conductor]?

Those ideas don't go against what is engineerable in any way. But understanding it is still important.

I don't think anyone understands it all. What's a transformer doing? What are these waves doing? What's really happening in the atomic level of a battery? What about free space and permeability?

We have a baseline understanding in my eyes. But no one wants to take it further.

Conductance isn't the proper word if you're going with the idea that the current inside the conducting path.

Leaving aside the ideas of electron excitement and how light interacts with that, then you need a whole physicality to explain all of it.

You can't just prop up the standard model. That's dogmatic and unscientific at its core. Even if it IS right in every single thing it predicts and explains.

Can someone tell me about antenna placement and let's say as a hypothetical because I didn't post even though it's those antenna I'm talking about.

"They" say not to mount these antenna on metal, is that even relevant? Let's say there's a 2"x2" battery right next to one of those antennas is it going to fuck the signal up in that direction?

Nothing is ever measured through the conductor anyway, it's always along the conductor's surface.
You have to define what electromagnetic waves are first. What is light?

this is an argument. not science, and by science i mean the implementation of the scientific method.
the standard model is supported by decades of scientific research by the same definition above.

i've still yet to see a counter proposal from you, with the necessary supporting mathematics or experimentation, to warrant such a complete rejection of standard convention.

In mathematics, we say something that describes something else perfectly as "isomorphic." even if you did find some other way to explain all physical phenomena as well as current theory does, it wouldn't be any different. the words you use and the maths you chose would be pedagogy and nothing else.

>Nothing is ever measured through the conductor anyway, it's always along the conductor's surface.
this is a misinterpretation. in electrostatics, yes, all charge is accumulated along the surface of a conductor. however, once you get into electrodynamics, it's easy to verify that charge moves through the inside of the material.
resistance of a material is proportional to the cross sectional area of the material, not the surface area.

Sure, decades. But what about before that? Who's to say these are all my ideas?
Maybe my ideas could have 5000 years of research. But that doesn't matter anyway. You shouldn't prop up something because of legacy.

And you can't prop up mathematics as the sole descriptor for experimentation and reality, because it's only a language of measurement.

You could say both ideas of conductance are one in the same really, just different outlooks on an effect. It comes to the same result anyway, same readings, so big deal.

But if you do take that route, then perhaps you miss out on an underlying 'something' between light and electricity, and you miss a thread of 'something'.

Alright, so what is resistance then? Charge may very well move through resistive materials, or you can say conductors with higher resistance.

So what is happening with insulators? What's going on there in regards to current? That brings up a lot of questions when you start talking about electricity as particles.

What about some simple experiments with insulators involving electromagnetic waves? Something like glass for example if it's bombarded by these waves?

Why don't you go to university for a few years and find out? It's like you're rejecting that these answers exist simply because you don't understand them.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drude_model

You're not very educated, are you?

These are very basic questions you're asking.

Yes but do we really understand them? That's the question.

Here's an example: What happens to the electrons when you put a piece of wood along a current?

Now I know you really want to jump to Wikipedia, but don't. Instead think about what's happening or what could be happening and ask if that really makes sense.

Who cares about university? Everyone knows it's for a paper and not much more.
ANYONE can go and pass university.

I think it's actually too high a hurdle for someone like you until you see a psychologist and work out your mental issues.

>ITT: OP suffers from immense Dunning-Krueger and possibly some autism.

Please don't insult me ;_; I'm just trying to help.

Metals have a crystalline structure and readily available, weakly bonded valence electrons. This allows a magnetic field to excite them in such a way that they move through the metal. Wood does not have these properties. Ken Wheeler is a moron.

So what happens to the atom when these electrons are gone?

>I don't think anyone understands it all.
No. *You* don't understand it. The people who have actually taken time to sit down and study understand it just fine, but that doesn't make them obligated to spoonfeed you answers to your inane questions.

Not sure what you’re referring to but the electrons that are moving are “in the conduction band” they aren’t tightly bound enough to any atom to resist a voltage across. They never leave the conductor, also you only need to remove a relatively small amount of them in order for it to become very positively charged

Let me qualify, two things there:
First there’s basically a bunch of metal ions “under” a sea of free electrons that aren’t tightly bound to any particular atom. That isn’t to say the metal doesn’t have electrons, it does, it’s just that each atoms outer electrons are held extremely weak and free to drift randomly. Under a voltage they will drift towards the positive end, quite slowly actually (people think electrons flow quickly in a conductor, this is not the case)
Second there’s never an absence of free electrons from the conductor, the more you remove the more positively charged it becomes and at a certain point it will start pulling electrons from adjacent materials as it becomes extremely positively charged very quickly relatively speaking

So if you take the idea of an electron as a particle, and the idea that it's becoming unhinged, from the atom, yet the atom is still holding its structure, how is the atom refreshing those electrons?

To answer this, by “wood along a current” I assume this means potential difference across the wood in which case nothing happens because all the electrons are in the “valence band”, and in order to jump to the conduction band they need a ridiculous amount of energy (insulators have a huge band gap between the valence and conduction band) so there are basically none of them so current can’t flow across the wood so it’s basically just an open circuit nothing will happen. Imagine if you have a “”wire made of wood”” and touch both ends of a battery.. nothing will happen because the wood has a ton of resistance which is related to bandgap. It’s the same as if you touch both ends of a battery.. nothing will happen because your skin has a lot of resistance. If you wet your fingers depending on the battery you might actually get shocked because wet skin has a much much lower resistance; at least that is what I heard. I don’t feel like getting shocked but you can try the experiment

They don't. They measure it electromagnetically and electrically and make determinations based on the measurements.
That doesn't mean people understand how a transformer is working or what it's doing.

No one has any idea about what exactly constitutes a wave because there is no medium.

No one knows what's happening at the atomic level when you remove the idea of fields refreshing and instead opt for particle orbits AND wave-like mechanics at the same time.

Thirdly, you gain all sorts of perturbed explanations about electrons moving across free space through magnetic fields and excitation from light because nothing fits together. Physics has little place in electrical phenomena. It's bastardized it and the way people think about things people can't even see.

Maybe the wood has little to no resistance. Maybe current actually goes through the wood and terminates at an atomic level.

A conductor’s electrons are referred to as a sea of electrons because they randomly drift around and aren’t particularly bound to any specific atom. The local charge densities of the conductor are all basically the same because if any place lacked electrons it would become positively charged and they would naturally even out across the region. The atom itself is a positivity charged ion. When a voltage is applied, this forces the electrons to move towards the area with less charge density (located on the battery), the electrons drift towards this area at differing speeds depending on the current which depends on the voltage and resistance (low in a conductor). Not sure if that answered your question because I was a tad bit confused

So everything just works, the math works perfectly, which is based on physical observations but everyone is interpreting it wrong? Power dissipation in a conductor isn’t due to a high “voltage” or “current”, the variables actually mean something entirely different physically, is that what I’m understanding?

>terminates at an atomic level
What do these words mean

So you can say that that idea is stupid, and of course the wood doesn't terminate any electricity, it obviously prevents flow.

But then you have lightning. Insulators blasting. Cracking.
Then you ask what's causing this shit to blast and is there any direction force on the insulators to signify that it's only the current doing this.

And if you fancy learning about that, then you go wade through 'Theory and Calculation of Transient Electric Phenomena and Oscillations'.

Well this is the idea behind that if I understand you correctly

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakdown_voltage

I only used this term with diodes when you apply a large enough voltage in the way it isn’t supposed to which at a certain point forces the electrons to cross the massive depletion region which then causes it to entirely collapse

Well there aren't many physical observations on Earth say for ionization in the air.
The math is fine. You have your resistance tables and your simple algebraic ratios and that's all good.

The point I'm trying to make is to take the understanding of electricity further, and to not derive it's physicality solely from meters. What happens when you have a current one day that shows absolutely nothing across a voltmeter or multimeter? What would that even mean hypothetically?

>The breakdown voltage of a material is not a definite value because it is a form of failure and there is a statistical probability whether the material will fail at a given voltage

There we go. Now what if you could pinpoint the exact moment the material would 'break' under the stress of the current? Then you have something else.
Then it's not something random. It's predictable. It's understandable.

says the guy who doesn't understand high school physics