Part I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX
In Part IV, I wrote that Ezekiel's wheel likely symbolizes the electric field that surrounds charged particles. I also introduced the concept of elementary mass and hypothesized that it is equivalent to the mass of the electron. I was going to explore this concept further in this post but I think it's best that I do it some other time. In this post, I would like to explain how a charged particle creates a magnetic field and why it occurs only when the particle moves in the three familiar dimensions. In the process, I expose some of the crackpot nonsense that has been passing for science. Please read the previous installments before continuing.
Physicists teach us that only a moving charge can generate a magnetic field but they never explain why in a manner that makes any sense. In fact, there is reason to believe that this is not true at all, that it is possible to have a magnetic field without an electric charge. Sure, relativists try to BS one another with their length contraction non-explanation, which is not really an explanation since nobody knows why length contracts in the first place. However, the rest of us have enough sense to know that a point particle such as the electron cannot possibly have a length. Relativists will counter-argue that by length contraction, they are not referring to the moving particle but to the observed distance between moving charged particles. The tale is that this observed contraction makes the net charge appear bigger. However, this argument fails because a single moving charged particle will generate a magnetic field as well.
Furthermore, the relativistic magic does not explain why neutrons, which have no electric charge, can generate a magnetic field. Neutron stars, for example, are known to have an exceedingly strong magnetic field. Of course, the standard circular refrain is that a neutron consists of charged particles and that it is these charged particles that generate the field. To which I respond that the electric charge of the neutron is completely canceled, therefore its magnetic moment could not possibly have anything to do with the charges. As you can see, modern physics is resting on a huge mountain of crap. There is no end to it. Needless to say, we can promptly and safely dump the entire relativistic explanation for magnetism right back into the relativistic garbage heap from which it emerged. There may be some truths to relativity but this is certainly not one of them.
It is not hard to understand the reason that physicists insist without proof that only a charged particle can generate a magnetic field. The political correctness within the physics community is such that they must support relativity at all costs. In other words, unless you are prepared to kiss the giant collective ass of relativity, your career as a physicist will come to quick end, period. In my opinion, the unification of electric and magnetic interactions into a single phenomenon called electromagnetism has been a disaster because it has forced a mindset on researchers that has prevented them from considering or even seeing alternatives. Brainwashing is a bitch because it can ruin progress in science for centuries.
The truth is that there is no reason to suppose that a charged particle must also have a magnetic component. Likewise, there is no reason to believe that a magnetic particle must have an electric component. In the end, it all depends on whether or not they have electric or magnetic faces or both. But what can one say about quarks, those strange hypothetical particles of quantum physics that, we are told, have fractional charges? Are such hideous creatures even possible? The answer is a resounding no, of course. I have maintained that the charge of a particle is the result of its orientation in the fourth dimension and how this affects its interactions with the lattice. I mean, how can a particle have a fractional orientation? The quark concept is another one of those things that, like quantum superposition and virtual particles, physicists strongly believe in without actually observing them. Scientists love to bash religious folks for having faith while being guilty of the same.
Let's Face It
So why does a particle generate a magnetic field only when it is moving? It certainly has to do with lattice interactions but why is there a need for the particle to move in one or more of the three familiar spatial dimensions in order to generate a magnetic field? My hypothesis is that it happens for the same reason that an electric field is generated when a particle with an electric face moves in the fourth dimension. But why does a stationary electron not generate a magnetic field even though it has at least one magnetic face? It seems that, even if two particles have a face in common, they cannot interact unless one of them underwent a discrete jump in that dimension (see Physics: The Problem With Motion for more on particle discrete motion).
Let me rephrase this so as to make it as clear as possible. An electron generates an electric field by interacting with e-seraphim, not just because it has an e-face, but also because it is moving in the e-dimension, aka the fourth dimension. Its motion in the e-dimension does not generate a magnetic field even though the electron has at least one magnetic face. It must be moving in the direction it is facing in other to cause an interaction with seraphim of the same face. But why? I have an idea. I'll explain in Part VI.