Dear Reader,
At the heart of all confusions related to electric versus magnetic field is that - in truth - neither field has been defined within the standard model. I wonder if I can explain this by analogy. Imagine that a wind blows against a tree. The boughs of that tree bend in relation to the direction of the wind. Then the wind stops. The boughs then relax and - to release the full force that was first established by the wind - and depending on the elasticity - or 'tensile strength' - of the boughs - they may relax into an opposite direction and then back to the earlier wind direction - and so on ... in a series of gradually diminishing oscillations. Which oscillations also then gradually release the force that was first applied to those boughs by that wind. Then the boughs finally reach their rest state.
All that is perfectly logical. But it is also dependent on the force of the wind. We know that the wind itself is the sum of atmosphere transferring through space to establish some level of thermal equilibrium within space - measured in the pressure of that atmosphere. And that atmosphere comprises gas atoms, gaseous molecules and somewhat larger and sundry dust particles and larger forms of matter that may be trapped within that moving atmosphere. In effect that oscillation of those branches - at the termination of that onslaught from the wind - is the sum of the applied force of the atmosphere - the velocity at which it moves - and the level of innate elasticity of the boughs themselves, in their response to that wind. Every action having and equal and opposite reaction - all is therefore fully accounted for.
Now we get to the confusions related to an electric field. According to the standard model here is what is proposed. A moving electric field creates a magnetic field. And a moving magnetic field creates am electric field. And so on. Each field moves at ninety degrees to the other. Also, according to the standard model, an electric field comprises the flow of electrons. A magnetic field is generated as a result of the flow of those electrons. But it says nothing about what that magnetic force is? Is it some kind of exotic atmospheric pressure? But writ really small? At the scale of the particle? Therefore, move an electron in one direction and there's a corresponding but opposite force potential established somewhere? Somehow? Which, sure as day follows night will then, and again, move that electron in the opposite direction?
This is the point at which science fractures into speculations that are as absurd in their reach as they are illogical in their foundations. It is not really possible to define something in terms of what it is NOT. To say that the moving electric field comprises electrons - but a moving magnetic field does not comprise electrons - tells us nothing, whatsoever, of the properties of a magnetic field. Except that, rather loosely and rather broadly one can liken the boughs of that wind blown tree - to those electrons. Which then approximates the wind to the magnetic field that moves it. And so on. Then. There are other confusions. One of which is that for the electrons to move in a shared path - they must first overcome their innate force of repulsion. Somehow? All very complex and very confusing. No wonder the explanations for current flow are so fraught with contradictions and the endless need for more and more qualifications - all of which simply fall on their knees for want of logic. Arguments that are as weak as the oscillations that they predict.
Now. This is the point. In the unlikely event that one can generate an oscillation that - by analogy - moves those branches of that windblown tree - that it oscillates strongly, and into eternity, AFTER the cessation of the wind - then one can seriously propose that either the wind continuously changes direction into eternity - which would be evident if this were the case. OR - that there's another force that's come into the equation. Something that is generated within the branches of that tree that moves it first in one direction and then in the opposite direction - and so on. THAT is the point of our experimental evidence. Nothing else. In other words - I do not care if we are exceeding unity or not. The question is simply that there is a measurable and corresponding evidence of an oscillation that sustains an alternating electric current flow - apparently into perpetuity.
And what we're proposing is that the hidden force that blows the wind in the first instance, is also within the branches of that tree. When it blows it liberates that same hidden force that it can 'blow back' so to speak. Which also means that the moving air is the effect and not the cause of that wind. The causal source is the foundational force that moves that air in the first place. A force that has a natural and immutable imperative to move matter to a condition of maximum equilibrium. It is behind the wind. It blows the air. And it is the thing that seeks out its required balance. Which is the magnetic field and the particles that make up that field. And these are entirely hidden - invisible - DARK.
I do hope that clarifies things.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
