Is magnetism really time?
130513
Magnetic flux \nweber: Wb = V s = W s/A = m^2 kg/s^2 A \n\nMagnetic flux density, magnetic induction \ntesla: T = Wb/m^2 = kg/s^2 A
608236
Time in of itself is apart of the universe. It is one of the four dimensions(length, width, height, and time). But time, more accurately ones sense of time can change from place to place. Strong gravitational fields and speeds approaching significant fractions of the speed of light can alter ones sense of time. In these conditions one would perceive their time as normal, but seeing some one after you left these conditions you would realize that they are older than you. In a sense what you are saying is correct. We measure time by things on earth, quartz or cesium nuclei, time is not dependent on these things only our concept and perception of time. I hope that helps.
11414
Well even though humans have known about magnets for thousands of years, the real reason they work is still somewhat mysterious. Depending on how deep you want to investigate, it can be a very complicated phenomenon. \n\nA magnet is, at its foundation, caused by the movement of electrical charge (yes this is the Biot-Savart Law). When charges (like electrons for example) move, they produce magnetic fields. If a charge moves in a loop, it creates a magnetic field. The magnetic field can be basically represented by an invisible set of arrows in space, that point in a direction. In the case of the loop, the arrows of the magnetic field will point out of the loop for a positive charge moving counter clockwise (this is the so-called "right hand rule"), and into the loop for a charge moving clockwise (some pictures are in the reference attached). \n\nThe magnetic field has a "north" end and a "south end". The little arrows from our moving charge are pointing in the "north" magnetic direction, and away from the "south" magnetic direction. It is a mysterious and interesting property of electromagnetism that two objects with fields that oppose each other, i.e., the little arrows of the field do not line up, so either the north end of one field is facing the north end of the other field, or the two south ends are facing each other, repel, or resist movement of the two objects towards each other with some force. \n\nOn the other hand, if the little arrows line up, the two objects attract each other with some force. \n\nThe little arrows are aligned along the so-called "magnetic lines of force". \n\nThe forces that result from magnetic fields (and for that matter, electric fields) are fundamental forces, and part of the four fundamental forces of the universe (strong, weak, electromagnetic and gravity). It is believed that these forces are caused, at their base, by particles passing "messenger particles" back and forth. In the case of electromagnetism, the messenger particle is a photon. How this actually works is still somewhat poorly understood, and is involved with the world of quantum mechanics, which is very counterintuitive but interesting. \n\nHowever, what is important is that we understand it well enough to make models of magnetism, and to make predictions based on those models which we can verify and use. All of electricity and electric motors are based on our ability to design systems with magnets and to be able to build and use them.
631191
No time does not exist. It is something people invented to try to "measure" duration of events. There is only life and it has a beginning point and ending point. Everything inbetween is just living.
137562
This is where convention comes in. hehe.\n\nYou see, today "time" is defined based on a reference. We define one second as exactly 9,192,631,770 oscillations or cycles of the cesium atom's resonant frequency, replacing the old second that was defined in terms of the Earth's motions.\n\nThe "uncertainity" is due to the fact that our one second here ( where its based on the measurement of this number of oscilations )  is NOT 100% the same as compared to our measurement of one second based on the previous way.\n\nWhat was the previous way? Well, it bascially defines one second the other way around. What i mean here is that in the old days time is defined relative to the motion of the earth around the sun. Ancients defined the total time taken for the earth to finish one complete revolution around the sun as one year. Then they agreed that one year is approximately made up of 365 days. Each day is then divided into 24 hours. 1 hour is then considered as having 60 minutes where 1 minute comprises as 60 seconds.\n\nOf course to achieve the definition of time as how we have it now did not just come overnight. It took some time... hehe. I did not attempt a chronological development of the idea but just intend to shed some light on the subject. You can find further information on the link below.
217172
It is called the equation of time. It isn't really statistics though.
286512
I believe that true time is simply another dimension we just haven't figured out how to move in any but one direction. Time as in seconds, minutes, etc are nothing but a random measurement we have placed on that axis; more random than how we chose inches, feet, or meters for the other axis'.
288511
According to one theory there are particles, which are exchanged and travel between the objects, giving impression that objects attract or repel each other. Nothing is proved yet and it is just a theory, as far as my knowledge is concerned.
115984
We really do not know what time is. However, here are some comments:\n\n1. The other 3 dimensions of the universe we live in are reversible. You can go forward and back, you can go left and right, and you can go up and down. But you cannot go forward in time and backwards, as far as we know. So it is different than the other 3 dimensions. \n\n2. The units of length, width and breadth are the same. The units of time are different. Physicists use the speed of light to convert between them, but that is semi arbitary, or at least it appears that way.  \n\n3. There are 3 spatial dimensions, but as far as we know, only one temporal dimension. We do not know why. We do not know if there are more. \n\n4. The equations of physics are mostly invariant with respect to time reversal (t---> -t): wave equation, heat equation, Laplace equation, schrodinger equation, etc. However, the phenomena we observe are not. \n\n5. The invariance we observe in nature mainly stems from thermodynamics, which requires the use of Grassmanians to be rigorously described. This is not true of other branches of physics. \n\n6. As far as we know, time is continuous. However, we have no way to tell. There are theories in physics which require time to be discrete. \n\n7. In the Lorentzian metric, time appears with a different sign that the other dimensions. We live in a nonRiemannian manifold because of this. That is, the proper distance between events can actually be an imaginary number!  \n\n8. We do not know if time is linear or not. We do not know if it has some strange topology or not. \n\n9. We use time as a parameter. We observe its passage. But we have no idea what it is, to be honest.
112252
yeah, you get a bit off on a deep tangent towards the end there... but I don't think Einstein asserted anything more than the idea that time, space, and matter are related and not independant.  two systems of matter travelling in wildly different velocities relative to one another also have different processions of time and different masses, from the perspective of the other.  It only applies to things moving close to the speed of light- I think it's the Schroedinger Equation that covers the inter-relation.  But there's no real analogy to it in the observable world, unless you work at a particle accelerator, so I leave it to the doctorates of physics to debate.
283263
No. Time is connected to space in our own definition. Time is based on earth's revolution around the sun, and rotation on its axis. so it is relevant only to our own perspective.
193728
The idea that time is another dimension is not currently in favor, so if you were to take a contemporary view, time isnt a dimension at all.  Thus, a 2 dimensional object moving through time would be just that- a changable 2D object.  Time is a degree of freedom for motion, physical and chemical reactions, etc, but not (again, currently thought) to be a dimension equivalent to the three we exist in (or the 13 or so that are sub-microscopic).
607569
a)It is already a magnet. It can not become an electromagnet.\nb)Can not happen\nc)If this happens it will only be for a short period\nd)After a long time its power may be reduced but not lost completely\n\nSo I can not tell for sure. Mots likely c
557020
The exchange of electrons between atoms, making atoms have a charge, which creates magnetism. Depending on the direction of the spin of the electrons around the nucleus, if an unequal amount of electrons spin in two different directions, there will be magnetism. \n\nMagnetism is also created by running an electric current through a particular substance, electromagnetism.\n\nAll materials have magnetism, but most are in a very minute amount.
619672
I had the same problem when I learned about both of them. \nBut now think of it in a different way. You are assuming that the magnetic FORCE that magnets have on certain metals. But if you think about it carefully they don't create or destroy energy. \nIf you don't beleive me consider a piece of iron with only gravity working on. But its height is 0 so it has no Potential or Kinetic energy. But now let's say you bring in a magnet. Now naturally that will make the iron bar rise and stick to the magnet. Now a natural assumption would be that you just created potential energy because the height of the iron bar just increased. But now you have to consider the fact that magnet is still putting some force on the Iron bar. So no change in potential energy occured. No change in Kinetic energy occured once the bar stuck to it. and the Energy needed to bring the bar up could be accounted by the energy needed to bring iron bar in. This shows that there was no energy created.  \nI think that you are trying to overthink the problem. I think this should help good luck.
251250
A bit rusty, but here it goes - I beleive they subtract fro m the net magnetization. If some of the ions are anti-aligned it is called ferrimagnetic. If the ions anti-align completely it is called antiferrmagnetic.
203726
Earth's magnetic field constantly fluctuates to some degree (it's weakened by about 10% since the 19th Century), but the majority of geophysicists see no hard evidence that the field is about to reverse like it's done in the past.\n\nEven should it reverse, the whole cycle takes thousands of years, and still would have little effect on our electrical power systems. Nor would planes fall from the sky, although reliance on magnetic compasses would have to be adjusted.\n\nGod should be spelled B-I-G B-A-N-G\nPBrax@netscape.com