Reconstructing EM & Energy Theory from scratch

[boguslaw]

point 1 - I proposed a long wire placed on Earth not elevated in air but insulated from it and in such position that all parts of wire is rotating with Earth with the same velocity.
Temperature can be measured on both ends and result corrected by a factore related to termo - electricity (but I doubt it would be large)

point 2 - let me post an example : a worker in factory produce each day a new device for example, but that device is sent to shop so next day he produce new device again. When there is no demand (people are poor and not buying goods) each device land in storehouse and after a few month either work is stopped or storehouse is full of crap.

So we have some possibilities
1. electric current produce magnetic field but something is depleting it also
2. electric current produce magnetic field but that magnetic field has to rise in time
3. something else produce magnetic field but is tied to electric current also

P.S. Sorry ,my English is not very good.

[Agent.A]

your english is fine, no need to apologize.

Point 1 -
it does not matter if the wire is horizontal or vertical, if it is long or very long, it will pick signals, thats a fact. really, it is.
even if the wire is placed on the face of the earth.

a long insulated wire, parallel to earth will act as a very big capacitor plate in reference to ground and in reference to the sky.
we live in the middle of a two plate capacitor, the earth and the ionosphere.

Earth: A Self-repairing Capacitor


point 2 -
which of the 3 possibilities makes the most sense to you and why ?

[Harvey]

I find that I must disagree with the assumption that integrating Maxwell's stress tensor over . . . something? . . . will give us the inverse cube law.

Gauss's Law (Which is one of Maxwell's equations used in the stress tensor) is referenced in this way:

Gauss's law has a close mathematical similarity with a number of laws in other areas of physics, such as Gauss's law for magnetism and Gauss's law for gravity. In fact, any "inverse-square law" can be formulated in a way similar to Gauss's law: For example, Gauss's law itself is essentially equivalent to the inverse-square Coulomb's law, and Gauss's law for gravity is essentially equivalent to the inverse-square Newton's law of gravity.

It seems that no matter how you mathematically treat the Poynting Vector or Maxwell's approach to electromagnetism you arrive at the inverse square law.

I am certainly open to having the "Integration of Maxwell's Stress Tensor" broken down and explained in such a way as to make the inverse cube law evident - but I am convinced that this will not be possible without first properly defining the flux surface being integrated and providing the proper connection between that surface and the distance variable under consideration, namely 'r' in 1/r² vs 1/r³.

I am always looking to learn something new, so if anyone can properly break it down to show clearly that inverse cube is contained in those equations I am all ears

[Harvey]

point 1 - I proposed a long wire placed on Earth not elevated in air but insulated from it and in such position that all parts of wire is rotating with Earth with the same velocity.
Temperature can be measured on both ends and result corrected by a factore related to termo - electricity (but I doubt it would be large)

point 2 - let me post an example : a worker in factory produce each day a new device for example, but that device is sent to shop so next day he produce new device again. When there is no demand (people are poor and not buying goods) each device land in storehouse and after a few month either work is stopped or storehouse is full of crap.

So we have some possibilities
1. electric current produce magnetic field but something is depleting it also
2. electric current produce magnetic field but that magnetic field has to rise in time
3. something else produce magnetic field but is tied to electric current also

P.S. Sorry ,my English is not very good.

When we carefully examine the laws relating magnetic field creation to electric currents we discover that it is the change in current over a specified time that equates to the 'voltage' (EMF) across an inductor but it is the amount of current over a specified time that relates to the flux density of the magnetic field.

So for a DC application, once the inductor is fully charged (maximum current flow) the magnetic field will not become any stronger and the flux density will be stable. As long as the amount is consistent (amperage remains constant) the field will remain consistent.

Thus there is a relationship between voltage applied (or induced), current allowed to flow and time involved. The ratios between these three impact the development of the magnetic field and govern its strength gradient for various distances from the core center.

To maintain a constant magnetic field, electric currents must continue to flow. Since an electric current is defined as 'charge in motion' the current can be something as simple as an eddy current running around in a little circle. Even smaller, it can be an electron running around in a little circle. Does any of the readers know what the amperage of a single electron orbiting a copper or iron atom is? You may be surprised to find out that this can be in the milliamp range. So when you have many of these atoms adding their magnetic fields cumulatively, you can get a good external field from it - such is the case with permanent magnets.

[boguslaw]

your english is fine, no need to apologize.

Point 1 -
it does not matter if the wire is horizontal or vertical, if it is long or very long, it will pick signals, thats a fact. really, it is.
even if the wire is placed on the face of the earth.

a long insulated wire, parallel to earth will act as a very big capacitor plate in reference to ground and in reference to the sky.
we live in the middle of a two plate capacitor, the earth and the ionosphere.

Earth: A Self-repairing Capacitor


point 2 -
which of the 3 possibilities makes the most sense to you and why ?

I will leave point 1 for a while.

Point 2 :

It's obvious that 2 never happens due to many experiments with solenoids. Only 1 and 3 are possible.
2:
Looking for a definition of electric current I see it's amount of charge over time (What ever it means - I still don't know what is the charge ) so HERE IS DEPLETION. Somehow CHARGE is the source of magnetic field but we see that field only when charge CHANGE IN TIME, so this change in time produce magnetic field but also somehow limit it in time.

It's the same kind of paradox like Zeno's paradox called "arrow paradox".Arrow is stationary in every point of its trajectory but obviously it's flying.The point is (and very important one) - static arrow and stationary arrow (in motion) ARE NOT THE SAME STATES.

I conclude so : charge MAY BE stationary. By "stationary" I mean : steady state flow like vortex seen outside or waterfall (I consider of course ideal ones).

3 is also still possible : for example if electric energy flow around wire is magnetic field or produce that field , then it's possible that electric current is a CHANGE IN PROPERTY OF SPACE which direct energy flow around wire - more current , more energy can flow around (being "glued" to wire)

[Harvey]

http://www.its.caltech.edu/~phys1/java/phys1/MovingCharge/MovingCharge.html

This is a link to a java applet which allows you to explore the changes that occur in an electric field when a charged particle changes position.

You can select different patterns and velocities.

One thing that is fun to watch, is to take the velocity slider by clicking on it and holding the mouse button down, then wiggle it back and forth rapidly to simulate rapid changes in velocity.

Everywhere a ripple occurs in the charge's electric force lines, this is where a magnetic effect is produced - it is the discontinuity in the electric force line that we view as a magnetic field.

Select circle from the drop down and imagine this as an electron. Change the velocity until you get a good spiral effect. The curl of that spiral is what we consider to cause a magnetic field, it is a vector relationship.

So where there is no change in direction or velocity, but motion does occur, then magnetism is expressed as compression and decompression of those force lines in front and behind the charge.

[Agent.A]

bingo.

[junglelord]

My very first thread over at Thunderbolts (the electric universe) was this very subject.
Thunderbolts Forum • View topic - Recovered:Elec Theory, Maxwells Formula, Tesla Scalar Vortex

I have learned that when we read the text by Maxwell with the understanding of todays quantum units, we can quickly come to terms with some gross errors that still are prevelent today. That being that charge is always distributed...never linear...however Maxwell made the mistake of making current linear, which it is not, it is distributed.

(16) Thus, then, we are led to the conception of a complicated mechanism capable of a vast variety of motion, but at the same time so connected that the motion of one part depends, according to definite relations, on the motion of other parts, these motions being communicated by forces arising from the relative displacement of connected parts, in virtue of their elasticity. Such a mechanism must be subject to the general laws of Dynamics, and we ought to be able to work out all the consequences of its motion, provided we know the form of the relation between the motions of the parts.



(17) We know that when an electric current is established in a conducting circuit, the neighboring part of the field is characterized by certain magnetic properties, and that if two circuits are in the field, the magnetic properties of the field due to the two currents are combined. Thus each part of the field is in connexion with both currents, and the two currents are put in connexion with each other in virtue of their connexion with magnetization of the field. The first result of this connexion that I propose to examine, is the induction of one current by another, and by the motion of conductors in the field.



The second result, which is deduced from this, is the mechanical action between conductors carrying currents. The phenomenon of the induction of currents has been deduced from their mechanical action by Helmholtz11 and Thomson12. I have followed the reverse order, and deduced the mechanical action from the laws of induction. I have then described experimental methods of determining the quantities L, M, N, on which these phenomena depend.
Maxwell

When Maxwell deduced the mechanical action from the laws of induction, he extended an error prevalent in physics at that time, and continuing through today. The error arose by incorrectly converting units from the cgs system of units to the MKS system of units.

Five units retained their expression in terms of distributed charge (conductance, inductance, capacitance, permeability, and permittivity). However, all other electrical related units were incorrectly notated with single dimension charge. For example, current in the cgs system of units was expressed as charge per time:

Current = gm-cm^3/sec^3

Converted to MKS units this becomes

Current = coul/sec

which is a linear expression, however all charge is distributed.

Current = coul^2/sec

which is the proper way to notate current in MKS units.

Current is just one of dozens of incorrectly converted units. In Maxwell's work, he worked backward from inductance and discovered a unit, which he interpreted as current squared:

Since Maxwell incorrectly interpreted the charge dimensions, he thought he was looking at current squared. But this unit is a unit of electric stroke. It is equal to charge times resonance (frequency squared). In other words, Maxwell's "current squared" is actually "electric stroke," or "resonating charge."


The other important thing to note is that there are two types of charge, yet modern physics only quantifies one EM....you must quantify both EM and ES.

In order to bring these results within the power of symbolical calculation, I then express them in the form of the General Equations of the Electromagnetic Field. These equations express:


(A) The relation between electric displacement, true conduction, and the total current, compounded of both.

(B) The relation between the lines of magnetic force and the inductive coefficients of a circuit, as already deduced from the laws of induction.

(C) The relation between the strength of a current and its magnetic effects, according to the electromagnetic system of measurement.

(D) the value of the electromotive force in a body, as arising from the motion of the body in the field, the alternation of the field itself, and the variation of electric potential from one part of the field to another.

(E) The relation between electric displacement, and the electromotive force which produces it.

(F) The relation between an electric current, and the electromotive force with produces it.

(G) The relation between the amount of free electricity at any point, and the electric displacements in the neighbourhood.

(H) The relation between the increase of diminution of free electricity and the electric currents in the neighbourhood.


There are twenty of these equations in all, involving twenty variable quantities.


(19) I then express in terms of these quantities the intrinsic energy of the Electromagnetic Field as depending partly on its magnetic and partly on its polarization at every point.
Maxwell

It is clear from proposed equation E that Maxwell considered electric displacement to be a key part of his theory. He differentiated it from proposed equation F, which is about the electric current. These two equations are founded in the reality that there are two very distinct manifestations of charges, as quantified in the Aether Physics Model.

If you quantify ES charge, then you find there is no gluons, no strong force, but rather EM charge creates the nucleus of atoms and ES charge is responsible for all aspects of electrons.

Also there are only two fundamental subatomic units, electrons and protons.
Neutrons on their own disintegrate in 14 minutes, they are not fundamental.

Protons and electrons are made of distributed dual charges, a ES Charge sphere surronded by a EM toroid. They are neither particle or wave, they are distributed charge. One finds that once you quantify Electrostatic Charge, EM becomes the so called Strong Force. Also the so called Weak Force of radioactive decay, is quantified as the geometric difference between EM and ES charges....so in reality it is not a force.

A three force model as determined by the Aether Physics Model is as follows.
EM Charge
ES Charge
Gravity.

I invite you to investigate the APM
Welcome

Cheers

[Agent.A]

welcome to reconstruction.



thats one hack of thread you have there
i really enjoy reading it.

please, do continue.

[junglelord]

It is quite simple really.
Electrostatic charge is not an effect of a accumulation of electrons, it is a fundamental property of electrons themself. If you do not quantify ES Charge you have not done your homework.

I see no proof for gluons and I bet there is none, because they do not exist.
I see no quantification of ES Charge, which is a clear issue to me because this charge is elemental, not the by product of electron accumulation.
Take out the first issue by quantifying ES Charge, which to me is a glaring problem with the standard force model.

This pumps EM charge up one level of quantification and it becomes the reason for the strong nuclear force....simple but brilliant.

You kill two birds with one stone.

[junglelord]

Here is a quote from the Meyl Scalar Technology Book, in his reworking of EM he has gotten rid of the Strong Nuclear Force. It builds on his previous work to identify the electron as a dual voretx dipole configuration and his math leads to this startling conclusion. In fact I have three authors that have all come to the same conclusion.

"Strong interaction"
A central question of nuclear physics concerns the forces which keep the atomic nucleus,
which consists of many neutrons and protons, together and give it its very good stability in
spite of the like positive charge.

According to today's textbook opinion the
forces of repulsion between the individual protons increase further as the distance gets
smaller, to obtain immense values within the nucleus. They theoretically had to be
overcome by new and unknown nuclear forces. Therefore physicists assume the
hypothesis of a "strong interaction". But they are mistaken.
The answer to this open question is provided by the course of the field for the proton.
We see that the electric field at first indeed still increases if we
approach the proton, but in the proximity it contrary to all expectations decreases again
until it is zero. With that then also any force of repulsion has vanished! But the course of
the field follows without compulsion from the overlap of the three individual elementary
vortex fields.

The field direction in the z-direction even is reversed! In this topsy-turvy world, in theory,
an electromagnetic force of attraction between two like charged protons can occur. We
conclude:

A strong interaction doesn't exist at all. The usually given values for "range" and
"strength" just represent a misinterpretation. The hatched drawn area marks the difference
which is misinterpreted by quantum physics. The model concept over and above that
answers another mysterious property of the proton. As an electrically charged particle with
a spin it first of all should form a magnetic moment for reason of the rotating charge. But
until now the measurable order of magnitude couldn't be explained.
Meyl - Scalarwave-Technology - The european website of www.k-meyl.de

THE STRONG NUCLEAR FORCE IS ELECTROMAGNETIC FORCE
Section 2

The author proposes that the strong force is fundamentally an electromagnetic force and that the strong force simply appears different than the familiar manifestations of electromagnetic force because of the vastly different distances between the centers of charge within the quark triplet substructure with its tripolar centers and much higher amounts of energy versus the distances between centers of charge of classical electrical charge involving electrons and atomic nuclei with single centers of charge and much lower amounts of energy.

The major difference between strong force interactions and classical electrical interactions which makes them appear as different forces is the amount of energy in closed electrical field lines between the two types of interactions. When centers of charge are as close as in the strong force of the quark triplet substructure, the electrical field lines are highly deformed, and yet they contain high energy as opposed to classical electrical fields which involve much lower amounts of energy in rotation about one or two centers of charge and involving much less energy inthe closed loop electrical field lines.

The strong nuclear force is a manifestation of electromagnetic force in which the distances involved between centers of electrical charge are within the structure of quarks as opposed to the distances between the centers being the distances of atomic nuclei and electrons.

High energy gluons carve tight gluon field lines whereas 'virtual photons' carve much less tight electrical field lines.

This view fits with Robert Mills view of quark color confinement in which gluon field lines are strings of energy which require energy to be stretched. Dr. Mills view is correct because it involves energy in a tight closed loop rotation (a string) while the proposed unit particle substructure also proposes closed loop bound energy in rotation.


III 5 The Nature of the Strong Force

Two Manifestations of Charge
The two types of charge recognized in the Aether Physics Model are the electrostatic charge and the electromagnetic charge. In modern physics only one type of charge is quantified. As a result of the two types of charges, we have successfully developed the electron binding energy equation, which accurately predicts the 1s orbital electron binding energies for all the atomic elements. Our white paper, "A New Foundation for Physics," explains the two types of charge in greater detail. A synopsis is given on this page.

Also, in modern physics charge has only one dimension. In the Aether Physics Model charge is distributed (charge squared).

The electrostatic charge is the same as elementary charge, except that it is represented as e2 instead of just e.

Strong nuclear charge is the product of angular momentum of a subatomic particle and the conductance of the Aether.
Unlike the electrostatic charge, which is the same for both the electron and proton, the EM strong charge is different for each subatomic particle and is directly proportional to the subatomic mass. In this respect EM charge is the distributed view of linear mass.

The angular momentum of an electron is represented as Planck's constant

The proportion of electrostatic charge to strong charge is equal to 8p times the fine structure of the subatomic unit.
The significance of this proportion is that it represents the "weak nuclear force" of the particle. Each particle has its own "weak nuclear force".

Two Types of Charges

[Tehnoman]

Oh gosh, this tread fills with information faster than I can give a constructive criticism.

[..]
are you kidding me ?!
come on, you seriously believe that having a degree makes you better then anyone else who does not ?
and more to that, that only PhD's and above can fully or closely understand the theories !? !?

COME ON !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[..]

No, you misunderstood me. Not better, but more qualified to use developed physical theories. If you have PhD, it is an evidence that you have worked for some time with science, you have practiced the usage of physical theories. It is strongest evidence (having a PhD) to be closer to existing theory application to any life situation in question.

Understand - it could be too strong word. Ability to use and describe - more appropriate.

[..]
bull, a new theory can be build from scratch without including any whatsoever bit of other theory.
[..]

You can build it how you like to do it the best. But, if your theory special case will not be Maxwell equations, that developed theory is meant to vanish. Seriously. I can bet on it. Let's say, you have ten years to develop EM theory that would not include Maxwell equations as special case. And then I give you 1000$. If it is other way around, I get 1000$. What do you say?

[..]
oh, i understand the scientific method very well, oh, so well.
the mathematical part is the last tool to be used.
we can debate much about this but lets not, lets just agree that we do not agree.
[..]

Mathematical part is the only possible way how to describe a theory. Motion have representation in mathematical world, force have representation.. Everything. We can stop debate here, but I deem this aspect so important, that in the same time I stop wasting my time writing in this thread.

2.one need not be careful, just point to DATA and say -> " Hay, look, this does not fit to theory "

Wow about two things.

First, how can you say that data does not fit to theory if you don't even know what the theory says it should be.

How you imagine to do this conclusion "does not fit" without mathematical part? Every number is mathematics. Or you just say - hay, I think this one does not fit the theory.

example:

Gravity Probe B
LIGO - Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory

Yes, this is a good one. And it was pointed out by PhDs in physics, that are specialized in theories of gravity and for sure can say that there are contradictions to classical theories. But still - it does not cancel out Newtons' law of gravity or Einsteins' theories of relativity. It is just an evidence, that there is something more.

I find that I must disagree with the assumption that integrating Maxwell's stress tensor over . . . something? . . . will give us the inverse cube law.
[..]
I am certainly open to having the "Integration of Maxwell's Stress Tensor" broken down and explained in such a way as to make the inverse cube law evident - [..]
I am always looking to learn something new, so if anyone can properly break it down to show clearly that inverse cube is contained in those equations I am all ears

Maxwell's stress tensor must be integrated over closed volume surface area, electric and magnetic field configuration must be considered. The result will be integral force, that this enclosed volume would feel due to EM interactions. This is not particularly convenient to analytic work (more for numerical simulations).

But nevertheless answer to your question is already posted in this thread:
http://blazelabs.com/inversecubelaw.pdf
Or do you think that this inverse cube law is created by some magical trick in PDF above and there is used something else than Maxwell equations?

The key word is: dipole. It is a special case, and from Maxwell equation, electric force or whatsoever analysis for point charge, inverse cube law for dipoles can be derived. Therefore I can surely say, that also Maxwell stress tensor will give the same result as inverse cube law for dipoles.

If we want to explain this effect (inverse cube law) "on fingers", it should be as follows. Dipole is overall neutral and consists of two bounded elementary charged particles (with different signs, so the sum would be zero). If such dipole has been put near a charged object, each of dipole elementary sub-particle would feel a force, that can be described with inverse square law. But, from the fact that sub-particles of dipole has different signs, force directions will be opposite. Resulting force, that dipole would feel, would be difference between two sub-particle forces. This difference will not be zero, because one sub-particle of dipole is closer to charged object (feels stronger field and therefore stronger force) than other sub-particle. But difference of forces is smaller than each "inverse squared" force (due to simple reason, that it is a difference). The exact inverse cube law for dipole together can be acquired with simple mathematical analysis.

------------------------------------------------

I deem myself to be open minded, but my thoughts and beliefs can not be changed simply by empty talking. Talking about theory without a single mathematical equation is sooo empty.

I start to see why the science does not recognize this stuff. This forum is full of respectable experimentalists (and I do admire them), but I still have not seen a smallest sign of new physical theory. Few, at which direction I was pointed and which I could try to analyze at sufficient level, turned out to be quite a non-sense.

[Harvey]

With all due respect Tehnoman,

I have read that PDF before and noted right away this quote from that material:

For the condition <<2R, which was set as one of our assumptions, we are justified to apply the
binomial approximation (1+x)n 1+nx, or 1/(1+x)n 1-nx, valid for x<< 1. This reduces:
1/(1- /2R) 2 to 1+ /R, and 1/(1+ /2R) 2 to 1- /R
The force field equation can therefore be approximated as:

(bold mine)

Also, I feel it is very important to stress that the writer is drawing attention specifically to the case of a dipole interaction with a monopole. I find no reference at all to Maxwell's Stress Tensor in that document.

Furthermore, if we use the closed surface as you describe, then we must both agree that Maxwell identifies the the net magnetic force to be zero (Guass's Law of Magnetism ). So again I fail to see how integrating this tensor over that surface will cause the inverse square law to become evident.

The experiment proposed for you (as you requested) was to show that empirical evidence demonstrates a failure in Maxwell's equations to predict the magnetic density of an isolated magnetic dipole at a given distance from the center of that dipole, namely r where r is defined as the distance from the center of the magnet to either of the pole faces.

Maxwell's shows that the magnetic flux density should be 1/r² while empirically we find it to be 1/r³. If you use a magnetometer to read the Gauss of a strong magnet along the equatorial plane at modulo r = 0, I think you will readily see this is the case, especially where r is greater than the length of the magnet.

I am looking forward to your results of this precise experiment and the mathematical treatise to support the facts you obtain.

Cheers,

[Tehnoman]

Ok, this post I like better that ones before. Haven't got much time, but will try to point out some things.

With all due respect Tehnoman,

I have read that PDF before and noted right away this quote from that material:

(bold mine)
[..]

These are valid assumptions for cases, when dipole is at at least some distance from source of field. In analytical descriptions from existing physical theories, assumptions and simplifications (small deviations) are common, if one would like to be absolutely correct, the resulting analytic expression would be more than one line (in some cases, even more than one page).

[..]
Also, I feel it is very important to stress that the writer is drawing attention specifically to the case of a dipole interaction with a monopole. I find no reference at all to Maxwell's Stress Tensor in that document.
[..]

It is true, it is a dipole interaction with monopole. But it is still valid for interactions with other field sources, as long as they produce field that follows ~ 1/r^2 (inverse square) law.

No reference to Maxwell stress tensor indeed, because, as I mentioned, that creation is not particularly convenient for analytic derivations.

[..]
Furthermore, if we use the closed surface as you describe, then we must both agree that Maxwell identifies the the net magnetic force to be zero (Guass's Law of Magnetism ). So again I fail to see how integrating this tensor over that surface will cause the inverse square law to become evident.[..]

No no no, there is one fundamental misunderstanding. Maxwell equation for magnetic flux say that there is no magnetic sources and therefore integration of magnetic flux over closed surface gives zero. There is no connection to force (yet).

Look carefully at two things:
Gauss law for magnetism: Wiki
Maxwell stress tensor final expression (also in Cartesian coordinates): Wiki, for easier analysis take only magnetic part.

As it can be easily seen, if Gauss law for magnetism is compared to Maxwell stress tensor definition, expressions are not equal (Gauss law contains only plain B vector, Maxwell stress tensor contains quite complex combination of magnetic field B vector, both must be integrated over a surface). Therefore from a fact, that magnetic flux integral is zero for a closed surface, does not follow a conclusion, that Maxwell stress tensor integral is zero. If you does not believe me, make a numerical computation (I believe, analytic for general case is too heavy).

Of course, if we take a magnet in vacuum and integration of magnetic flux and also Maxwell stress tensor over any chosen closed surface, result will be zero. But that is logical, because I haven't observed a force on single magnet. Put another magnet nearby, and the situation will change. The configuration of magnetic field would be changed, so that magnetic flux integral around any chosen closed surface will be zero, but Maxwell stress tensor integral over closed surface, that contains only on magnet, will result in a force, with what these both magnets are interacting.

Long story short - I agree, that integrating magnetic flux over any closed surface will give zero, but disagree, that integrating Maxwell stress tensor for any closed surface will give zero (I say, that if there is a force, result will not be zero).

About evidence of inverse square or cube law - numerical experiment would provide data, which would correspond to different distances, that would show force dependence from distance. Then it could be evaluated whether Maxwell stress tensor give inverse cube or inverse square law for specific situation.

[..]
The experiment proposed for you (as you requested) was to show that empirical evidence demonstrates a failure in Maxwell's equations to predict the magnetic density of an isolated magnetic dipole at a given distance from the center of that dipole, namely r where r is defined as the distance from the center of the magnet to either of the pole faces.

Maxwell's shows that the magnetic flux density should be 1/r² while empirically we find it to be 1/r³. If you use a magnetometer to read the Gauss of a strong magnet along the equatorial plane at modulo r = 0, I think you will readily see this is the case, especially where r is greater than the length of the magnet.[..]

Ok, when I will have time for that, I will try to create analysis of this situation. As I can understand, as magnetic flux density is referenced field B, magnetic induction (more common title for me).

[..]
I am looking forward to your results of this precise experiment and the mathematical treatise to support the facts you obtain.

Cheers,

If I will be able to get my hands on magnetometer. But I will create a description based on Maxwell equations first.

[Agent.A]

Tehnoman, Aharonov–Bohm effect,

explain this.