(yes everything is moving, but magnetic induction in a coil requires relative motion to each other... even though we go around the galaxy some  483,000 miles per hour{a  6 ft wheel needs to turn at  187,312 RPM to go that fast on its circumferance...} doesn't matter if they aren't moving relative to each other  ... "and how fast is the Milky Way Galaxy moving? The speed turns out to be an astounding 1.3 million miles per hour" )

Magnetic induction in a wire does not require relative motion.  In 1988 Prof Francisco J. Muller completed a series of experiments, substituting Faraday's rotating disk and magnet by a filamentary circuit, one portion of which is immersed in a magnetic field (inside a gap between ceramic magnets) while the other remains outside the magnetic field. (The field is confined within iron plates).  By introducing a capacitive branch he could demonstrate that the induction occurs, indeed, in the wire that moves with the magnet, without need of relative motion. A variation of the experiment in rectilinear fashion makes this anti-relativistic conclusion totally unavoidable, invalidating the recourse to General Relativity. A list of other publications by Muller can be found at the World Science Database.

For the rotational case in Figure 1 there is a potential difference induced between O and R due to the ABSOLUTE ROTATION of the system, in-spite of the absence of relative motion between the magnet and wire.  In Figure 1, all of the velocities are parallel or tangential to the magnetic edges.  For the translational case in Figure 2 there is no induction between O and R.  In figure 2, the B field is the same, the speeds also are similar, and no relative motion exists as in Figure 1. Why the difference?

In Figure 1, all of the velocities are parallel or tangential to the magnetic edges.  In figure 2, most of the velocities have components perpendicular to those edges.  As a result, in Figure 2 the edges of the magnet produce magnetic "storms" by motion through space (an absolute effect) which are equivalent to negative (VxB) effects.  The latter cancels the positive (VxB) fields thus yielding zero net induction.

Gravock

VIDEO uploading now, all those BLURRED smears where the dielectric meets the magnetic in a MOVING MAGNET is electrification
move any magnet in space and time, and its magnetic interacts with its dielectric
see example of same "blurs" below.
its not "my view", its empirically measurable electricity .....,  however obviously, moving a magnet slowly by HAND is not going to POWER anything.

That's what you're proposing, now prove it has power.  prove that THAT point has power.    But again you're moving, and a ferromagnet and ferroelectric can maintain a magnetic field and electric field themeselves without motion.  And a ferroelectric has no magnetic field, and a ferromagnet has no electric field.  Moving one in time and the other space can join and entangle and form electricity, which may then be fed back to a dielectric storage or inductive storage... and again become magnetic and/or dielectric.


Moving a magnet by hand certainly can power things...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEu1lBYZKXI (ultra short clip, moving magnet, and actually lighting LEDs... I should loop it 10 times or something so it's not just 2 seconds *don't blink* )
Oh you said slowly... well just need a bigger (Better) coil... that one is actually fairly scramble-wound.




A magnet alone is not electricity.  (without a change in space) If you had a moving dielectric intermingled with magnetic, you would have electricity, and a magnet is not electricity.
Just as a capacitor alone is not electricity.  (without a change in time)


Mind you a few posts ago I mentioned that the word 'electricity' changed in meaning over time, and what was meant by 'electricity'.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymology_of_electricity
"The term quantity of electricity was once common in scientific publications. It appears frequently in the writings of Franklin, Faraday, Maxwell, Millikan, and J. J. Thomson, and was even occasionally used by Einstein.However, over the last hundred years the term "electricity" has been used by electric utility companies and the general public in a non-scientific way. Today the vast majority of publications no longer refer to electricity as meaning electric charge. Instead they speak of electricity as electromagnetic energy. The definition has drifted even further, and many authors now use the word "electricity" to mean electric current (amperes), energy flow (watts), electrical potential (volts), or electric force. Others refer to any electrical phenomena as kinds of electricity.
These multiple definitions are probably the reason that Quantity of Electricity has fallen into disfavor among scientists. Physics textbooks no longer define Quantity of Electricity or Flow of Electricity. Quantity of electricity is now regarded as an archaic usage, and it has slowly been replaced by the terms charge of electricity, then quantity of electric charge, and today simply charge. Since the term electricity has increasingly become corrupted by contradictions and unscientific definitions, today's experts instead use the term charge to remove any possible confusion"

I prefer Dollard's terminology from lone pine writings... (included a few posts ago, because when I got it, it was free.)
"For the Electricity extant between a pair of wires in your lamp cord, the
closer the wires, the more capacitance, and thus the more Dielectricity.
Conversely, for the same cord, the farther apart the wires, the more
inductance and thus the more Magnetism. Therefore it is seen that the
smaller the space (the more counterspace) the more Dielectricity that can be
stored, and conversely the larger the space between the wires (the more
real estate) the more Magnetism that can be stored. Very simple, do not let
your mind make it any more complicated than that!

Now let us reach out for a few quantitative relations: The product (line,
cross, or dot – unrestricted) of the total amount of Dielectricity multiplied
by the total amount of Magnetism (when both are in union) gives the total
quantity of Electricity. We will call this quantity of Electricity the letter "Q"
and name this "The Planck" after Max Planck."

-----
Reviewing LPW a little more; Dollard does not go as far to say there are variants in space without variant in time... so every term involves time.
Dielectricity operates in time... and because a wire itself has dielectric character, it is inescapable to have time... but pure induction should require no time... Quantum entanglement for instance.

"SPECIAL NOTE: These various groupings of coefficients exist in distinct,
independent, time frames. The dissipation coefficients are the result of
random molecular variations, that is, noise. The consumption coefficients
are harmonic in nature, relating to the operating frequencies, likewise for
the production coefficients. The random and the harmonic time functions
are NOT ADDITIVE. In general, the combinations of these coefficients
appear as versor sums. More on this later."

which is how he ends up avoid square-seconds... because he defines time multiplication as addition, which leaves seconds as seconds.... rather than recognizing he's got an extra term of seconds.... Hmmm

It is logically hard to conceive of a motion without time since so few things teleport and cover space without time.

    But again you're moving, and a ferromagnet and ferroelectric can maintain a magnetic field and electric field themeselves without motion.  And a ferroelectric has no magnetic field, and a ferromagnet has no electric field.  Moving one in time and the other space can join and entangle and form electricity, which may then be fed back to a dielectric storage or inductive storage... and again become magnetic and/or dielectric.

Yes, IM MOVING THE MAGNET, I said that last page.

FOUR primary dimensions in electrical engineering. These are:
1) Time
2) Space
3) Dielectricity
4) Magnetism


YOU SAID:
magnetic field and electric field themeselves without motion.


No such BS in this cosmos as  "Static magnetism"      EVERYTHING you can see with your eyes (and cannot) is MOVING.     Go show me a static ATOM.   ROFL !!!
That IS some PURE GRADE insanity

You said:
Moving one in time and the other space can join and entangle and form electricity


I said that last page dammit, moving a magnet  a SINGLE MAGNET produces electricity,  just because NOTHING IS COUPLING OFF that very meager electricity doesnt mean it isnt there
ABSURD

A magnet alone is not electricity.  (without a change in space) If you had a moving dielectric intermingled with magnetic, you would have electricity, and a magnet is not electricity.
Just as a capacitor alone is not electricity.  (without a change in time)

HINT::::::::::::::  A "magnet" is NOT A MAGNET(ISM).............     A magnet is powered by Dielectricity, ....magnetism is the SHIT,  the radiation, dielectricity is the 'HORSE' running the show.   


Thats right, the entire visible (and most of the micro-invisible atomic) universe is the defecation of a DISCHARGE, or a continuing discharge.    Empirical beings are living in a mirage world created by discharges, the fecal matter of dielectricity.

 

All you have to do is MOVE a magnet in space and time, dielectricity and magnetism are already present in and of the "magnet".

"The term quantity of electricity was once common in scientific publications. It appears frequently in the writings of Franklin, Faraday, Maxwell, Millikan, and J. J. Thomson, and was even occasionally used by Einstein.However, over the last hundred years the term "electricity" has been used by electric utility companies and the general public in a non-scientific way. Today the vast majority of publications no longer refer to electricity as meaning electric charge. Instead they speak of electricity as electromagnetic energy. The definition has drifted even further, and many authors now use the word "electricity" to mean electric current (amperes), energy flow (watts), electrical potential (volts), or electric force. Others refer to any electrical phenomena as kinds of electricity.
These multiple definitions are probably the reason that Quantity of Electricity has fallen into disfavor among scientists. Physics textbooks no longer define Quantity of Electricity or Flow of Electricity. Quantity of electricity is now regarded as an archaic usage, and it has slowly been replaced by the terms charge of electricity, then quantity of electric charge, and today simply charge. Since the term electricity has increasingly become corrupted by contradictions and unscientific definitions, today's experts instead use the term charge to remove any possible confusion"

Connotation is not DENOTATION.    Ignorant humans fuck up everything ever discovered. (not meaning you).

Suck-O-pedia is no reference for anything though.

I prefer Dollard's terminology from lone pine writings... (included a few posts ago, because when I got it, it was free.)
"For the Electricity extant between a pair of wires in your lamp cord, the
closer the wires, the more capacitance, and thus the more Dielectricity.
Conversely, for the same cord, the farther apart the wires, the more
inductance and thus the more Magnetism. Therefore it is seen that the
smaller the space (the more counterspace) the more Dielectricity that can be
stored, and conversely the larger the space between the wires (the more
real estate) the more Magnetism that can be stored. Very simple, do not let
your mind make it any more complicated than that!

Yes, and?  Agreed.

Reviewing LPW a little more; Dollard does not go as far to say there are variants in space without variant in time... so every term involves time.
Dielectricity operates in time... and because a wire itself has dielectric character, it is inescapable to have time... but pure induction should require no time... Quantum entanglement for instance.

No, dielectricity OPERATES at the rate allowed by INDUCTION of a given field, which translates INTO time.    Whooooooooops 


Sorry, Quantum is a dirty WH0RE with AIDS, I dont touch that filthy shit.         Everything nature can be explained by Euclidean geometry and Platonic logic.

It is logically hard to conceive of a motion without time since so few things teleport and cover space without time.

Induction by longitudinal dielectrics  "UNDER" spacetime, yes.

not hard at all, its both rational and exists.  YES

Space and time dont exist, their the SHIT / BYPRODUCT of polarized fields. Empirical existence is defined by space and time, that doesnt make them REAL, theyre a mirage.

It is logically hard to conceive of a motion without time since so few things teleport and cover space without time.

Space and Time is an illusion.  Time should play the part instead of meters or distance. We should look upon Time as the result of the force that impels a body through space. The greater the force, the shorter the time, and the shorter also the space to be traversed. Thus, if the force were infinitely great, time and space would be infinitely small, they would cease to exist. If the force was infinitely small, time and space would be infinitely great.

Gravock

Yes; moving the magnet does not move the magnetic field (at least rotationally)
http://www.animations.physics.unsw.edu.au/jw/homopolar.htm  (demonstration of homopolar generators, one moving the plate and not the magnet, one moving the magnet and not the plate and one moving both)  So gyro anything doesn't help.  Otherwise you could just set a magnet on a conductive surface and have a current induced.  Doesn't happen.

A: there is already moving magnetism as its nature, AND gyromagnetic precession
B: AND also physical space and time movement OF the magnet.

A) Yes there's lots of motion all the time... but it has to have relative motion to induce electricity...
B) you can't prove that time is required.... in fact there's an example called quantum entanglement that says time is not required. (even if you disagree with anything with the attribute quantum, the resulting effect is still present, describe it in your lingo)

You forget that magnetism being Spatial and dielectricity being radial
Magnetism and dielectricity are always, as is their nature, in conjugate relative "motion" due to magnetism having an enormous time differential that the dielectric doesnt have.  So , wrong again.

this is how Tesla was able to propagate longitudinal dielectric transmissions at (what was it again?) 3.6X  C

dielectricity isn't radial, it's temporal.
re tesla: Because dielectric happens in time and the space is irrelevant.

Haaa!!!!  Now you need to look into Galactic JETS and see what is going on at the center.

how does that have anything to do with our relative motion... was a statement to agree, yes everything is moving, all the time.  (you already said you didn't like the primer field guy, so I'm not bringing that up...) 

There is no such thing as "JUST magnetism".     Go show me JUST MAGNETISM autonomously.  Doesnt exist.  Its a posterior discharge to "X".

You have tons sitting around you.  But you already have your explanation... so I can't show anything, any more than you can show my that there's electricity from a magnet alone.

Dont go down that Quantum BS road.

so the discharge is into counterspace and charge from same counterspace?  That's an open circuit... a single conductor with unclosed ends.... ahh but you think there's two distinct interfaces (conduction paths) so that makes it all ok.  Then again you don't need phi.  EVERYTHING is in terms of Psi.  So why do you keep regurgitating that obviously obsolete paradigm?  IF magnetic induction is just a function of dielectric induction, then there's only f(dielectric induction_{counterspacial}) * dielectric induction_spacial? = plank. Except dielectric induction isn't spacial... so it can't be counterspacial either.

The edges of the magnet produce magnetic "storms" by motion through space (an absolute effect) which are equivalent to negative (VxB) effects.  The "storms" are vortices, and we saw these "storms" in the magnetic vortex videos with the hydrogen bubbles, so I don't know why you are shocked by the usage of the word "storms".  I confirmed what you said, but I used the language of the research paper instead of the language which is more acceptable to you.  You are your own worst enemy!

Gravock

Nope.      I proved the formula AND method for these few weeks ago and posted BOTH the video and formula.




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHDsnO3y7CA



Below: Mathematical proof that centripetal contracting fields “draw out” convergent spheres of a vortex-toroid, and centrifugal fields “draw out” expanding divergent vortex-toroid spheres. This golden section ratio of divergence and convergence is convergent centripetal fields = centripetal radius of 1; and centrifugal divergent fields are a radius of centripetal-1-value times (Phi+Phi [3.23606]). Or: (C1radius x 3.23606 = C2 radius) which all together = Phi cubed (C1r+Phi+Phi = 4.23606). Phi in the circle = golden angle of 137.5077 degrees. 1 in the circle = C1 radius which is 85 degrees. 

Magnetic induction in a wire does not require relative motion.  In 1988 Prof Francisco J. Muller completed a series of experiments, substituting Faraday's rotating disk and magnet by a filamentary circuit, one portion of which is immersed in a magnetic field (inside a gap between ceramic magnets) while the other remains outside the magnetic field. (The field is confined within iron plates).  By introducing a capacitive branch he could demonstrate that the induction occurs, indeed, in the wire that moves with the magnet, without need of relative motion. A variation of the experiment in rectilinear fashion makes this anti-relativistic conclusion totally unavoidable, invalidating the recourse to General Relativity. A list of other publications by Muller can be found at the World Science Database.

For the rotational case in Figure 1 there is a potential difference induced between O and R due to the ABSOLUTE ROTATION of the system, in-spite of the absence of relative motion between the magnet and wire.  In Figure 1, all of the velocities are parallel or tangential to the magnetic edges.  For the translational case in Figure 2 there is no induction between O and R.  In figure 2, the B field is the same, the speeds also are similar, and no relative motion exists as in Figure 1. Why the difference?

In Figure 1, all of the velocities are parallel or tangential to the magnetic edges.  In figure 2, most of the velocities have components perpendicular to those edges.  As a result, in Figure 2 the edges of the magnet produce magnetic "storms" by motion through space (an absolute effect) which are equivalent to negative (VxB) effects.  The latter cancels the positive (VxB) fields thus yielding zero net induction.

Gravock

And demonstrated on http://www.animations.physics.unsw.edu.au/jw/homopolar.htm
Rotation is a relative motion.  It's not linear... but it is a change in space over time of various points of the disk.
Are there relative motions that do not cause induction? Certainly.  Are there any non-relative motions that cause induction? No.