That's where you are broadcasting out to the world that you have a psychological disorder.  You seemingly can't make a distinction between a speculation that I am making about someone else and my own thoughts.  Or else, you are fully aware of the distinction but you make a posting like that anyway because in a quasi psychopathic way you believe the spin is more important then the logic of the argument and your own credibility.

Either way, it does not bode well in terms of your mental health.

ad hominem, and doesnt address the point.   


The LIE you and the other fools were taught that "ATOMS are 99.99999999%  EMPTY SPACE" is        100.99999999% ABSOLUTE BULLSHIT

In case you forgot,  I dont care what anyone thinks.

So... if you don't care, why do you care?

So... if you don't care, why do you care?

Who said I cared?


Suggest your read up on Taoist strategy, and the "two smooth rocks" ancient metaphor.....  THEN you will "get it".

Who said I cared? 

Right. You didn't even care to post. In bold and CAPS.

This apparently rules out electrical induction as the mechanism involved in "magnetizing" a pre-magnet.

Tell me when you learn the goddamn difference between electricity and dielectricity


Tell me when you learn that  electricity is the product of magnetism and dielectricity


Tell me when you learn that Electricity terminates AS magnetism by losing its dielectric component (in discharge)


TELL ME when you fucking learn that  magnetism = radiation = discharge = spatial = polarized(-ing).




School nor common sense (if any) has done you any good.   Id say they Intellectually ABUSED your fundamental grasp of  "CHARGE  (and resultant)  DISCHARGE"

 

Whoooops on you ! 
OF COURSE.......thats because it IS NOT / HAS NOT DISCHARGED
You missed the 100 posts I made stating magnetism is the discharge/ radiation of Dielectricity or the resultant of electricity losing its dielectric component!!!!!!
"magnetism is the dielectric FIELD (in discharge)" - FARADAY

dielectric - di being the greek prefix for 2...
http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/57600/prefix-di-and-bi (why use di instead of bi?  origin of the word)
Origin of electric? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymology_of_electricity    Sir francis bacon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Bacon  22 January 1561 – 9 April 1626)
The word has changed meaning through time also.

"The New Latin adjective electricus, originally meaning 'of amber', was first used to refer to amber's attractive properties by William Gilbert in his 1600 text De Magnete. The term came from the classical Latin electrum, amber, from the Greek ἤλεκτρον (elektron), amber.[1] The origin of the Greek word is unknown, but there is speculation that it might have come from a Phoenician word elēkrŏn, meaning 'shining light'."
Both similar; unclear why faraday would choose the greek prefix instead of latin; other than other science values are greek prefixed... such as carbon dioxide... but then there's sodium bicarbonate.

So a dielectric would be a battery or leyden jar or other capacitive thing with 2 poles. 
a discharge of such a dielectric causes a current which cause a magnetic field.

There is a difference though, in this method, the field is temporary; but there are materials that can be magnetostatic.
And, much like an electrostatic can be applied to make a momentary magnetic field, a magnetostatic can be used to make a momentary dielectric field.  The dielectric field can be condensed with a capacitor and remain as an electrostatic.  A magnetic field can be condensed by a ferromagnetic material and remain as a magnetostatic.

Much like you're approaching this from the view that dielectrics are the only thing that exist, and are responsible in all ways for everything magnetic, Ed Leedskalnin believed the opposite; and that magnets caused other magnets to move and be stored in batteries and capacitors; which is many ways is easier to follow, since magnets are so obviously static, and dielectrics so obviously dynamic and fleeting; but equally myopic.

It is interesting that the first inductive experiments were with a electromagnet and not a static magnet; although for man-power it takes a strong magnet and/or large inductance coil to notice a significant change on a meter... much like piezoelectrics generate such a small current when operated by human power.

1831 - electromagnetic induction from electrostatics; magnetostatic operation theorized by faraday
1832 - magnetostatic generator (dynamo practical of industrial use) implemented by Hippolyte Pixii

There is a thing called an Electret which is a static dipole of electric charge.
coined after the existing term magnet which is a static dipole of magnetic charge.

Both require external work to make a useful energy... electrets are such high resistance they do not generate continuous magnetic fields so must be applied and removed from a circuit... much like a magnet must be applied and removed from a circuit to get useful dielectric work from them.

Your praise dollard so; and yet he represents the full picture of maxwell as being both dielectric and magnetic... if one were the other you wouldn't need phi and psi... you would just need psi and a function of psi to get plank.
A capacitor is a dielectric device and has little magnetic effects.
An inductor is a magnetic device and has little dielectric effects.
a magnetic field on an inductor will persist in a closed circuit unless a capacitor is introduced in series.  (minus losses from resistance)
a dielectric field in a capacitor will persist in an open circuit unless closed by an inductor; any peice of wire no matter how short is an inductor.  (minus losses from radiated charge)

But neither operates alone, and each influences the other... that's why there's 2 axis in dollard's work - the dielectric and the magnetic, the cross of which divides into 4 quadrants....

Tesla's work was mostly magnetic (inductive), condensers being a means to an end and the target wasn't dielectric... faraday's induction experiments he express the result as " he expected that when current started to flow in one wire, a sort of wave would travel through the ring and cause some electrical effect on the opposite side" (wikipedia) (I looked very briefly for more precise quotes but didn't spend any time really)

I appreciate the devotion you have to your ideals... but you're trying to make a normal dirail train work as a monorail.  (bad example because there are monorails that function just as well as dirails, and it's really a quadrail).  ... maybe something more like being blind or deaf one can still function, but not as well as being sighted and aurally gifted.

ad hominem, and doesnt address the point.   


The LIE you and the other fools were taught that "ATOMS are 99.99999999%  EMPTY SPACE" is        100.99999999% ABSOLUTE BULLSHIT

TA,

I would lean more so towards stating that all particles, and therefore all matter, are more likely (or just as likely) 100% empty space (although we're still looking/learning).  There are, however, those "areas" of space (or aether)so defined with specific properties (wave functions) that do indeed act like particles (and matter).  Those areas, labeled as they are, can be manipulated as we have learned to do with the laws/rules/math and techniques we have developed.  This concept of nothing being "real" per se', predates your birth.  Even I, more than a decade before you were born, would state repeatedly to those who thought I was somewhat "touched", that "everything is made of nothing, and all nothing is almost something".  You might be surprised how I envision the world to be, and as well, how mainstream scientists imagine it.

The electron is not the only particle to have its wave function calculated.  They're getting there for all of them.  The big question relates to one I asked that you seemed to push aside, and that was if you believe the aether to be as Tesla described in the quote of his that you posted.  I.e., that the aether was a "medium thru which energy propagated as does sound thru the air".  That would infer that he believed the aether to be some" thing" unto itself.     

I also believe the great minds of the past, including those you both praise and disrespect, would be amazed at where we currently are technologically and how we have used and improved upon their discoveries since their time.   

With regard to the above, you are for the most part, merely preaching to the choir.


However, I fail to see how your response in anyway addresses or answers the question I posed.

Do you now agree that all magnets are created equal, irregardless of whether a PM, EM, or capacitive discharge/EM is used to align the domains?

PW