Lines Faradays Theory of lines of force, is well founded in experimental evidence and experimental demonstration. In addition the interpretation of these experiments and of the appearances has gone through a great deal philosophical attrition, even today it still forms the basis of our teaching regarding electrostatic lines of force and the magnetic lines of force. Encapsulated within this theory, within the flexibility of the lines of force, is that the deriveable notion of a moment of magnetic force. this is actually a departure from faradays preferred view, but one which has been worked into is robust theory of lines of force .

Based on Saturdays theory we should understand lines of force to be as follows: a path indicating the least action of electrostatic or magnetic force in a medium as it acts upon the medium and whatever is in the medium ; A path indicating the conduction of the lines of force through any medium with the deflection from the path which would be demonstrated in a vacuum indicating material interaction; The lines of force indicate the preponderance of the conduction but do not indicate the only forces within any given volume.

In interaction with materiality the lines of force behave in two ways: either they compress or condense or contract together within material; or they diverge expand and deflect from each other.

This interaction with Matic produces secondary forces which either aligned themselves with the lines of force or due to the nonuniformity of the field diverge from the lines of force. These secondary forces cause the behaviour that is called paramagnetism or diamagnetism .

Professor Tyneale showed The apparent formation of polls within a day of magnetic material, in particular Bismuth. These were polls induced within a business call by and electromagnetic coil, which in itself naturally forms a north and south pole expression ,These apparent poles are explainable in terms of Faradays lines of Force theory.

Now I do not know if faraday defined only one direction for his lines of force, or whether he envisioned lines of force emanating from both polls in opposing directions. It is quite clear that his theory works in both cases and with a combination of the two. It is these lines of force Howard Johnson‘s measurements, and putative theory have two equal will be better then. It is evident by faradays example that much research experimentation and philosophical attrition is required in order to establish a new theory of magnetic behaviours, and the meaning of any magnetic lines which are drawn. This scientists seem reluctant to do .

Let us see How Faradays intuition is twisted into a different theory by Mathematicians. This simple introduction shows the chemical basis of Faradays intuition.

In his Day Coulomb and Cavendish established a polar coordinate or point formula for electrostatic force. Faraday saw lines of arrangement not force vectors. Yet Newton’s force vectors and his orthogonal resolution of them were standard physics by then, alongside His treatment of curvilineal vectors by resolving them to tangents and associated circles. , much harder to intuit than the rectangle of forces.

Mathematicians tried to demonstrate Faradays lines of force using the 2d plane and the rectangle of forces. Later Maxwell used Hamiltonian Quaternions to better fit these lines of force, thus giving a fundamental role to the mathesis of so called imaginary quantities. .

Lord Kelvin preferred the straight line vector approach Gibbs cobbled together from a poorly understood reading of the Method and system of the Grassmanns., combined with the interpolate day power of the Fourier Transform. Faradays intuitive and observable lines of force were lost in this mathematical complexity. Finally Clifford combined the Hamilton and Grassmann descriptions by means of a presentation Hermann Grassmann wrote shortly before his death and introduced clearly the dot product and the cross product methods. Then he also died. Cayley then systematised the whole presentation using matrices.

Where were Faradays lines of Force?

Eventually a differential method called the source( or confusingly divergence) was associated with Faradays electrostatic sources for positive and negative charge. Unfortunately mathematical conventions meant that only one direction could be chosen, the other direction opposite had to be negative. We lost the sense of two lines of force. However orientation of the supposed direction of source force combined with the Grassmann more flexible parallelogram of resolution produced acceptable resultant vector resultant which taken as tangents to some curve enabled Faradays lines of force to be plotted out on a grid.

It was also found that a product method called the curl of a vector field enabled vectors to be oriented directly and to establish a curl vector sum of 0 as representing a closed loop with convergence and divergence as required by Faradays magnetic lines of force theory..

These mathematical complexities and nomenclature obscure Faradays intuitive representation, despite what mathematical Physicists might state about Clarification.

Here we see the source ( divergence) linked to the curl as causes of each other. However this is unphysical, as the curl has to pass through the material however small while the source has to arise and terminate at a boundary however small. It is therefore mathematically inherent that curl causes source at a boundary crossing. But Electrostatic lines are not “allowed to cross a boundary” and curl is not allowed to be nonzero, and so this description is unphysical, and we lose the power of Faradays lines of force to preponderate material either paramagnetically or diamagnetically.. The other aspect lost is the principle of least action so that the lines may be described as lines indeed surfaces of least Torque action on dipoles of any sort. For any really useful mathematical representation we need to study and develop Magneto hydro dynamics . This would provide a somewhat complex mathematical representation of Faradays lines of Force theory for all known forces, and be truly universal.

There seems to be only only 2 libraries in the world with a copy of the printed book ”Discovering Magnetism by Howard Johnson, Steve Davis, Gerhardt Beyer “ One is the Library of Gongress , the other is the University of Queensland library . If anyone can gain access to a copy and share it here for research purposes I would be grateful.

The question is; what do the lines in Johnson’s publications refer to?

We are presented with contour maps and 3D representations of Data collected over a 90 minute measurement process in one plane parallel to NS axis of a cube and banana shaped magnet with enhanced polar regions. We are invited to add a spin vortex around these contours and shown confusing pictures of double spin vortices measured in constructed magnetic arrangements. We are shown a representation of attraction and repulsion measurements .

These are all strikingly different to Faradays lines of Force theory and no clear link is presented .

The difference between Faradays method and Johnson’s has not been fully explored, and I have made an initial foray only to find my scanty appreciation of Faradays Method and results are insufficient to the task.

Nevertheless, it is clear that our modern Field theory is inadequately fitted to Faradays observations because Mathematicians have finessed the issues with a particle theory , and an Einsteinian space time aether and the Dirac Quantum probability aether. Both of these are outgrowths from the Maxwellian luminiferous electric magnetic aether. However Maxwell like Faraday compared his aether model to a fluid dynamic but unlike Faraday he relied upon straight line forces rather than curvilinear manifestations of an in situ power in the vacuum

It is important to note that neither for Newton of Faraday was space ever empty, Space was a resistive medium for Newton, and a vacuum or evacuated region for Faraday, where whatever was in it was rarefied to the greatest achievable extent. Thus an aether for both of them was material and existed in a container called absolute space which by the term absolute contributed no properties whatsoever to anything in it. I on the other hand accept space as a contributing fluid because I can not conceive of nothing Well then, from the aether I understand that filaments and lines of action and differentiation form in the presence of a crystalline structure organic or inorganic in relation to other materiality in its environs. Indeed Faraday and others show how these lines penetrate and pass through the aethers and other materiality.. associated with these interactions and passages through are observable motions of the general translation and rotation nature where the translation is curvilinear. . We find the lines and thus the aether to be in continuous patterned flux, and it is the convergence / concentration orientation and direction that best predicts ponderous motion in line while the divergence best predicts such motion out of the line of action. This is so fluid like in terms of hydrostatic considerations that it makes an overwhelming case for a fluid analogy..

Given that how do we relate measurable pressures to dipole orientations of small or finely grated and powdered interacting materials? The u.timate question is can we justifiably describe our measurement in these flat vortex spin arrangements based on these planar xy,XZ,yz measurements?

Let’s say that magnetic lines of force wrap themselves into trochoidal as they propagate in and through and being of space. What electric charge signal would be generated and what apparent mass centre would be generated? One of the things people ignore about Einstein’s Tensor equations is the application to electrostatic and magnetostatic force law.. The constraint on geometrical topology adduced by these field modalities give geodesic for motion . Hence the saying mass tells space how to curve and space tells mass how to move..

When physicists rave about gravity waves it is in the face of the much more evident magnetic waves. Thus any so called gravity wave is without a doubt a magnetic wave mistaken for gravity, which to my knowledge , has never been established as a different force, just a very weak one in comparison. We can account for it by diamagnetic behaviour in a diverging magnetic field of Faraday tubes of magnetic force. If such tubes have these trochoidal dynamics in propagation.

Why space is cold and the sun is hot . Faraday lines of Force are in perpetual dynamism causing all the material phases, and elements. Active materials. Magnetic field lines are active

😂😂😂😂 tiny magnets. In other words magnetism is a fundamental primitive.

So why make electrons primary? They are not, quark magnets are primary in quantum field theory.. Dynamic quark magnets generate electrostatic, so called, charge. Faradays dynamic magnetic field lines generate Faradays electrostatic charge field lines.. if the charge is NOT static then the underlying magnetic field dynamic is revealed.

## Comments

Based on Saturdays theory we should understand lines of force to be as follows: a path indicating the least action of electrostatic or magnetic force in a medium as it acts upon the medium and whatever is in the medium ;

A path indicating the conduction of the lines of force through any medium with the deflection from the path which would be demonstrated in a vacuum indicating material interaction;

The lines of force indicate the preponderance of the conduction but do not indicate the only forces within any given volume.

In interaction with materiality the lines of force behave in two ways: either they compress or condense or contract together within material;

or they diverge expand and deflect from each other.

This interaction with Matic produces secondary forces which either aligned themselves with the lines of force or due to the nonuniformity of the field diverge from the lines of force. These secondary forces cause the behaviour that is called paramagnetism or diamagnetism .

Professor Tyneale showed The apparent formation of polls within a day of magnetic material, in particular Bismuth. These were polls induced within a business call by and electromagnetic coil, which in itself naturally forms a north and south pole expression ,These apparent poles are explainable in terms of Faradays lines of Force theory.

Now I do not know if faraday defined only one direction for his lines of force, or whether he envisioned lines of force emanating from both polls in opposing directions. It is quite clear that his theory works in both cases and with a combination of the two. It is these lines of force Howard Johnson‘s measurements, and putative theory have two equal will be better then. It is evident by faradays example that much research experimentation and philosophical attrition is required in order to establish a new theory of magnetic behaviours, and the meaning of any magnetic lines which are drawn. This scientists seem reluctant to do .

Let us see How Faradays intuition is twisted into a different theory by Mathematicians.

This simple introduction shows the chemical basis of Faradays intuition.

In his Day Coulomb and Cavendish established a polar coordinate or point formula for electrostatic force. Faraday saw lines of arrangement not force vectors. Yet Newton’s force vectors and his orthogonal resolution of them were standard physics by then, alongside His treatment of curvilineal vectors by resolving them to tangents and associated circles. , much harder to intuit than the rectangle of forces.

Mathematicians tried to demonstrate Faradays lines of force using the 2d plane and the rectangle of forces. Later Maxwell used Hamiltonian Quaternions to better fit these lines of force, thus giving a fundamental role to the mathesis of so called imaginary quantities. .

Lord Kelvin preferred the straight line vector approach Gibbs cobbled together from a poorly understood reading of the Method and system of the Grassmanns., combined with the interpolate day power of the Fourier Transform. Faradays intuitive and observable lines of force were lost in this mathematical complexity.

Finally Clifford combined the Hamilton and Grassmann descriptions by means of a presentation Hermann Grassmann wrote shortly before his death and introduced clearly the dot product and the cross product methods. Then he also died. Cayley then systematised the whole presentation using matrices.

Where were Faradays lines of Force?

Eventually a differential method called the source( or confusingly divergence) was associated with Faradays electrostatic sources for positive and negative charge. Unfortunately mathematical conventions meant that only one direction could be chosen, the other direction opposite had to be negative. We lost the sense of two lines of force. However orientation of the supposed direction of source force combined with the Grassmann more flexible parallelogram of resolution produced acceptable resultant vector resultant which taken as tangents to some curve enabled Faradays lines of force to be plotted out on a grid.

It was also found that a product method called the curl of a vector field enabled vectors to be oriented directly and to establish a curl vector sum of 0 as representing a closed loop with convergence and divergence as required by Faradays magnetic lines of force theory..

These mathematical complexities and nomenclature obscure Faradays intuitive representation, despite what mathematical Physicists might state about Clarification.

Here we see the source ( divergence) linked to the curl as causes of each other. However this is unphysical, as the curl has to pass through the material however small while the source has to arise and terminate at a boundary however small. It is therefore mathematically inherent that curl causes source at a boundary crossing. But Electrostatic lines are not “allowed to cross a boundary” and curl is not allowed to be nonzero, and so this description is unphysical, and we lose the power of Faradays lines of force to preponderate material either paramagnetically or diamagnetically..

The other aspect lost is the principle of least action so that the lines may be described as lines indeed surfaces of least Torque action on dipoles of any sort. For any really useful mathematical representation we need to study and develop Magneto hydro dynamics . This would provide a somewhat complex mathematical representation of Faradays lines of Force theory for all known forces, and be truly universal.

Discovering Magnetism by Howard Johnson, Steve Davis, Gerhardt Beyer“One is the Library of Gongress , the other is the University of Queensland library .

If anyone can gain access to a copy and share it here for research purposes I would be grateful.

The question is; what do the lines in Johnson’s publications refer to?

We are presented with contour maps and 3D representations of Data collected over a 90 minute measurement process in one plane parallel to NS axis of a cube and banana shaped magnet with enhanced polar regions.

We are invited to add a spin vortex around these contours and shown confusing pictures of double spin vortices measured in constructed magnetic arrangements.

We are shown a representation of attraction and repulsion measurements .

These are all strikingly different to Faradays lines of Force theory and no clear link is presented .

The difference between Faradays method and Johnson’s has not been fully explored, and I have made an initial foray only to find my scanty appreciation of Faradays Method and results are insufficient to the task.

Nevertheless, it is clear that our modern Field theory is inadequately fitted to Faradays observations because Mathematicians have finessed the issues with a particle theory , and an Einsteinian space time aether and the Dirac Quantum probability aether. Both of these are outgrowths from the Maxwellian luminiferous electric magnetic aether. However Maxwell like Faraday compared his aether model to a fluid dynamic but unlike Faraday he relied upon straight line forces rather than curvilinear manifestations of an in situ power in the vacuum

It is important to note that neither for Newton of Faraday was space ever empty, Space was a resistive medium for Newton, and a vacuum or evacuated region for Faraday, where whatever was in it was rarefied to the greatest achievable extent. Thus an aether for both of them was material and existed in a container called absolute space which by the term absolute contributed no properties whatsoever to anything in it.

I on the other hand accept space as a contributing fluid because I can not conceive of nothing

Well then, from the aether I understand that filaments and lines of action and differentiation form in the presence of a crystalline structure organic or inorganic in relation to other materiality in its environs. Indeed Faraday and others show how these lines penetrate and pass through the aethers and other materiality.. associated with these interactions and passages through are observable motions of the general translation and rotation nature where the translation is curvilinear. . We find the lines and thus the aether to be in continuous patterned flux, and it is the convergence / concentration orientation and direction that best predicts ponderous motion in line while the divergence best predicts such motion out of the line of action. This is so fluid like in terms of hydrostatic considerations that it makes an overwhelming case for a fluid analogy..

Given that how do we relate measurable pressures to dipole orientations of small or finely grated and powdered interacting materials?

The u.timate question is can we justifiably describe our measurement in these flat vortex spin arrangements based on these planar xy,XZ,yz measurements?

Let’s say that magnetic lines of force wrap themselves into trochoidal as they propagate in and through and being of space. What electric charge signal would be generated and what apparent mass centre would be generated?

One of the things people ignore about Einstein’s Tensor equations is the application to electrostatic and magnetostatic force law.. The constraint on geometrical topology adduced by these field modalities give geodesic for motion . Hence the saying mass tells space how to curve and space tells mass how to move..

When physicists rave about gravity waves it is in the face of the much more evident magnetic waves. Thus any so called gravity wave is without a doubt a magnetic wave mistaken for gravity, which to my knowledge , has never been established as a different force, just a very weak one in comparison. We can account for it by diamagnetic behaviour in a diverging magnetic field of Faraday tubes of magnetic force. If such tubes have these trochoidal dynamics in propagation.

Why space is cold and the sun is hot . Faraday lines of Force are in perpetual dynamism causing all the material phases, and elements.

Active materials.

Magnetic field lines are active

😂😂😂😂 tiny magnets. In other words magnetism is a fundamental primitive.

So why make electrons primary? They are not, quark magnets are primary in quantum field theory.. Dynamic quark magnets generate electrostatic, so called, charge. Faradays dynamic magnetic field lines generate Faradays electrostatic charge field lines.. if the charge is NOT static then the underlying magnetic field dynamic is revealed.