From: ralph.frost@gmail.com   
      
   On Friday, July 14, 2017 at 8:11:16 AM UTC-4, Edgar L. Owen wrote:   
   > On Sunday, July 9, 2017 at 8:18:11 AM UTC-4, Ralph Frost wrote:   
   > > Please pardon my poorly worded question. Are there ~independent methods   
   > > of detecting a north pole/flux of a magnet from a south pole/flux?   
   > >   
   > > When I hold two rod magnets, one in each hand, and the center ends   
   > > attract, I can obtain repulsion two ways by giving either magnet/hand   
   > > one-half spin.  Thus it appears that repulsion is attraction with   
   > > one-half spin (and potentially, 'north is south with one-half spin'...)   
   > >   
   > > Generally, we are taught that one of these repulsions is 'north-north'   
   > > and the other is 'south-south' (like-pole repulsion).   
   > >   
   > > I understand that if I am given an unmarked magnet, that I can assign   
   > > its ends a north or south label by the way it orients, say, within the   
   > > local geomagnetic field and ~relative to our prevailing planetary   
   > > spatial orientation relative to the 'North Star' -- Polaris.   
   > >   
   > > But, I wonder, and my question is, other than the inherited, nested, or   
   > > cross-dimensional correlation, does physics have any other means or   
   > > measures that determine if a repulsive magnetic region is 'north-north'   
   > > rather than 'south-south'?  For instance, do they 'look different' unde=   
   r   
   > > different spectral scannings?   
   > >   
   > > I'm curious about this because it seems like our words seem to imply or   
   > > identify the existence of two separate 'things' whereas empirically,   
   > > there is or seems to be only the one, rather entangled or inseparable   
   > > 'thing'.   
   > > =20   
   > > Thanks in advance for any clarifications.   
   > >   
   > > Best regards,   
   > > Ralph Frost   
   > >   
   > > Reality is nested structured~duality.   
   >   
   > Ralph,   
   >   
   > There actually aren't any such thing as magnetic poles because magnetic   
   > field lines are continuous circles through the magnet itself. What we   
   > call magnetic poles are simply the denser field lines entering and   
   > exiting magnetic materials.   
   >   
   > The non-existence of magnetic poles is easily seen in the magnetic field   
   > circling a current carrying wire which has no poles at all.   
   >   
   > Electromagnetism is explained in detail in my book Universal Reality 2.0   
   > available on Amazon under my name.   
   >   
   > Edgar L. Owen   
      
   Thank you, Edgar.  I think I see what you mean about an  circulating   
   magnetic flux line, but the other night I tore into my lawn mower   
   motor and cleaned oxidation off surfaces of 'magnetic poles' trying   
   to regain spark at the plug. (The real problem turned out to be   
   failing/poor lubrication with the kill switch cable.)   
      
   Anyway, the ends or surfaces of the magnets differ from their   
   partners, apparently differing in structural alignment -- internal   
   nested spins -- whether lines are entering or leaving the 'pole'.   
   That is, repulsion is attraction with one-half spin, all the way   
   down. Yet, since I could touch the surfaces I did get the distinct   
   impression, though, that the poles or entering/exiting surfaces   
   actually do exist.   
      
   Regarding circulating lines about a current-carrying wire, two   
   related poles that are present are, for instance, the cathode and   
   anode, of, say, the battery ~pushing the current.   
      
   So, poles may not appear to exist in the fields or flux lines, but   
   when nested within ~physical or higher density 'nested structural   
   coding' of spins, they ~do.   
      
   Best regards,   
   Ralph Frost   
      
   Reality, both the physical and the mental facets, is nested   
   structured~dual= ity.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)