SO MANY HUMANS ARE PROGRAMMED TO SELF-DESTRUCT

MAYA-EL

the reasons for iron are quite many
the earths magnetic poles
the density of the earth being 5.5x water
the densest body within clear observation

under that intense pressure there is extreme heat
so the iron cannot really by properly solid enough to be hollow

although at the dead center of the earth there is zero gravity itself
because it pulls equally in all directions

but forces cause pressure to transfer between atoms
so there is still pressure pulling to the center
from above

gravity is only a direct attraction
magnets attract and repel, depending on polarity

so its clear they are entirely different ;
but the "standard view" is all that einstein nonsense

i prove that newton is literally millions if times more accurate than einstein here:
www.flight-light-and-spin.com/n-body/gravity.htm

Tesla was an engineer.
Not really a scientist.
His work was very much more phenomenology than science.
I have a 1000 page physics textbook that mentions him in one short paragraph only.

Nobody has ever been able to explain properly the science
of WHY alternating current works.

Many of his ideas do not work;
although there is so much mythology around him;
it can be tricky trying to figure out what is really his.

You see this highlights the difference between science and engineering;
because science is really a predictive philosophy;
that requires solid math.

There has not been any solid math for a hundred years
mostly due to deliberate misinformation
by the elitists to prevent people from empowering themselves.

Like, Einstein's theories which were prolific in order to
prevent the nazis and others from understanding how to make nukes.

This is what has destroyed the psychology of the world
and is the subconscious shadow that is fueling the current insanity.

Only when Einstein is removed as the idol of pseudoscience
will the world have a chance to move forward again.

Of course they can always replace him with worse too.

May I ask you, please?

I was intrigued by your underlining of "having no explanations of why alternative current works". It was interesting for me to read it, because when I was a kid I was very fond of electricity and electronics, so then I read lots of textbooks as far as I was able to.

And in textbooks the explanation of why the alternative current worked was that we could create an engine or a motor, and that motor or an engine (can't say I'm familiar with the lexicon of electricity in English) is made of such parts as a cylinder, coils, and magnets. And the proper construction of it works if that cylinder with coils are rotating with a stable frequency. And when is happening the potential is circulating up and down, and the current goes forward and backward changing its potential and force, and any devices, or lamps, or whatever can work then.

So, unlike DC we've got a sinusoid (a curved line in Descartes's) that reflects the work of the current. And to find its result we can use a math formula for a sinusoid (for that curved line). And, for example, if the current goes with the amplitude of ~320 Volts (I mean it's been already calculated, because the current is measured in Ampers, but I repeat what I remember from the textbooks), and the frequency of it ~50 times, then the result is ~220 Volts.

I don't know how mathematically correct to calculate the result, and I don't know which formulation is being used for that, but I think it works.

And the general explanation reads: the electrons in a metal go forward and backward, and since there's a magnetic field their movement raise an electromagnetic potential. So, in such a process that electromagnetic force is able to make some work. Being able to do that we can have power.

Can't say that my explanations were good, while that was I heard of it.

As for me there must be some basics to which we can reduce all of that. For example, it is well known that two metal conductors with the current are getting close or, vice versa, try to go to other sides..... Oh, seems it's not easy for me to explain this having such a minor vocabulary. I'll try to illustrate it:

|| - two conductors with the opposite current directions

| | - two conductors with the same current directions

In other words, if two conductors are parallel, and the direction of their currents go into the same way, then they will be getting closer to each other. If the direction would be the opposite, then they would be going separately.

I think in such a rule there's a lack: what if the conductors have different angles? Like:

| --

or

V

? Because I don't know how would any of conductors be if the angles between them is not 90* or 180*.

By the way, have you paid attention of why any coils do like that? I mean there are the coils of inductivity and they've got some interesting properties that can be use to resist or to amplify the current. My personal thought that the work of a coil can be explained using the rules above - the rules of the conductors with same or different direction of the current. But I don't know how to explain it since I don't know how any two conductors act if between them there's an irregular angle.

Eugene 2.0

well there are always explanations, and academics will swear that
those explanations make sense because they are paid to sell textbooks
with those explanations in them, so they don't just make sense
they make cents (and dollars)

but think:
if we have 2 objects

and one object moves forward a step
and another moves forward a step and move backward a step

why would the 2nd object do it more efficiently?