Realizing upfront that there will be much derision on this thread . . . let's do some out-of-the-box (OOB) discussion of magnetic fields. It is understood from research that current thinking infers a 'static magnetic field' is just that - it is static, has no frequency, does no work, etc.
But, just for grins . . . . let's visualize that such static magnetic fields DO have a frequency component. Here I am conjecturing (conjuring?) that static magnetic fields only 'appear' to be static, and that they MAY actually have a frequency component; and that frequency is perhaps the result of virtual photons induced by energetic subquantum (subplanckian) interactions in susceptible materials. The resultant frequency (based on f=E/h*) is simply propogated at too-high a frequency to be detected as a vibrational component and thus 'appears' to be manifest as a static phenomenon.
O.K. Scifora members . . . go for it!!! I would appreciate minimization of personal and professional insults.
(*h usage in the relationship actually only applies to quantal entities -not subquantal ones . . but we have to start somewhere familiar.)
But, just for grins . . . . let's visualize that such static magnetic fields DO have a frequency component. Here I am conjecturing (conjuring?) that static magnetic fields only 'appear' to be static, and that they MAY actually have a frequency component; and that frequency is perhaps the result of virtual photons induced by energetic subquantum (subplanckian) interactions in susceptible materials. The resultant frequency (based on f=E/h*) is simply propogated at too-high a frequency to be detected as a vibrational component and thus 'appears' to be manifest as a static phenomenon.
O.K. Scifora members . . . go for it!!! I would appreciate minimization of personal and professional insults.
(*h usage in the relationship actually only applies to quantal entities -not subquantal ones . . but we have to start somewhere familiar.)
Last edited: