Ultimate proof of Magnetic Vortex, free book and videos

[gravityblock]

Yes; moving the magnet does not move the magnetic field (at least rotationally)
http://www.animations.physics.unsw.edu.au/jw/homopolar.htm  (demonstration of homopolar generators, one moving the plate and not the magnet, one moving the magnet and not the plate and one moving both)  So gyro anything doesn't help.  Otherwise you could just set a magnet on a conductive surface and have a current induced.  Doesn't happen.

The phase shift (see image or reference link below) cannot be explained if the magnetic field is considered to be immobile, but is readily explained by the rotation of the magnetic field with the magnet.  The magnetic field moves with it's source!  A current isn't induced by simply setting a magnet on a conductive surface because the field will cut the conductive surface twice in opposite directions.

The electrometer mentioned in the article is a way to perform truly "single piece" voltage measurements without having to close the loop, which raises the endless question as to where the voltage is truly generated. The open probe circuit is easily constructed and has a sensitivity of detecting 1 volt, which is ridiculously high. Credit goes to broli for bringing this open probe circuit to our attention.


1.) Zajev-Dokuchajev (Z-D) effect: the moving of the magnetic field with the rotating magnet.

Gravock

[d3x0r]

Go show me a static ATOM.   ROFL !!!

Show me an atom.

I said that last page dammit, moving a magnet  a SINGLE MAGNET produces electricity,  just because NOTHING IS COUPLING OFF that very meager electricity doesnt mean it isnt there
ABSURD

that's what you say, but you have no proof.

HINT::::::::::::::  A "magnet" is NOT A MAGNET(ISM).............     A magnet is powered by Dielectricity, ....magnetism is the SHIT,  the radiation, dielectricity is the 'HORSE' running the show.   

ya, I get that you think that.  but then you go on to say that a primary force is magnetism... wish you'd make up your mind whether it exists alone or not.  If not, then phi*psi is rubbish. 

Suck-O-pedia is no reference for anything though.

The etymology of electricity can be found in numerous other sites and they all say the same thing.  And yes, I do often check other places and end up going back to pick up the wikipedia link because it's often better phrased coming from several cooks in the kitchen.

... dollard's terminology...

Yes, and?  Agreed.

Well at least that's one point to agree on.

quantum entanglement

Sorry, Quantum is a dirty WH0RE with AIDS, I dont touch that filthy shit.         Everything nature can be explained by Euclidean geometry and Platonic logic.

*shrug* then what description would you call it?  spooky action at a distance?  Nothing in your theory has yet described or named that effect.  Just because you don't like a word, doesn't mean the resulting effect doesn't actually happen.

[gravityblock]

Are there any non-relative motions that cause induction? No.

What the fuck is wrong with you?  I have already provided you with a reference paper and an experiment that shows non-relative motion can cause induction.

Gravock

[TheoriaApophasis]

Quote from: d3x0r on Today at 12:39:51 PM
    Yes; moving the magnet does not move the magnetic field (at least rotationally)
    http://www.animations.physics.unsw.edu.au/jw/homopolar.htm  (demonstration of homopolar generators, one moving the plate and not the magnet, one moving the magnet and not the plate and one moving both)  So gyro anything doesn't help. Otherwise you could just set a magnet on a conductive surface and have a current induced.  Doesn't happen

A NON induced current of a magnet sitting on a so-called conductor does not mean there isnt an equalized current present in the stationary PHYSICAL magnet.  Magnetism is never stationary.


What is "sitting there" and what the hell IS RUNNING ROUND IT (fields) is sure as HELL NOT "just sitting there/  static"

2 wholly diff. things.


Space and time addition for current EMF with a moving magnetic field with latency TO (conjugate production of electrification) the dielectric is necessary for electrification.


Faraday was the originator of the concept of the magnetic field, (which is described in terms of "magnetic curves" our present day "magnetic lines of force") however HE NEVER SO MUCH AS SUGGESTED in his works that induced currents were a resultant of changing magnetic fields. ON THE CONTRARY, he clearly associated the phenomena of electromagnetic induction with changing electrical currents.


As per Maxwell, he TOO considered EM induction as a phenomena in which a current (or EM force) is induced in a circuit. but not as a phenomena in which a changing magnetic field causes an electrical field. He CLEARLY said that the induced EM force is "MEASURED BY, not CAUSED BY the changing mag field"   

Just as Faraday, he made NO allusion to ANY CAUSAL link between magnetic and electric fields

[d3x0r]

You keep forgetting what is "shitting out" magnetism............dieletricity.   


I said " JUST A magnetic field"


Like saying you only "moved Sally, ....but not Sally's body"  

Exactly... even if the magnet is just an embodiment of dielectric discharge, moving the dielectric discharge is dragging along the magnetic field.  Therefore...... moving a magnetic field.
'wherever she goes I will follow' (I swear that's a song, but I can't find it)
But in fact what was being said, was the creation of a magnetic field in a coil is a field moving in space, to go back to faradays description 'creates a wave of magnetism'... again inseparable from the dielectric propagation in reality, but not in theory (well except your theory).