Ultimate proof of Magnetic Vortex, free book and videos

[gravityblock]

It cuts it the same number of times in all cases.

No, it does not cut it the same number of times in all cases.  I will provide references for this later.

Gravock 

[d3x0r]

no it doesnt

every 360 degrees of a single cycle of the turn of a magnet you have:
2 Ether-field modalities: dielectricity and magnetism (of course).
6 total pressure domain fluctuations, 2 centripetal, 2 centrifugal, and 2 dielectric
10 field-boundary gradients

Then please illustrate how rotating one, the other, or both changes the cuts of flux with the conductive plate

[gravityblock]

No, it does not cut it the same number of times in all cases.  I will provide references for this later.

Gravock

Look at table 3 in the below image taken from a publication titled, "Challenging Modern Physics", in chapter 9 on page 194.  The field in case a, b, i, and j cuts the circuit twice.  I think Oliver Crane wasn't too far off in saying, "all experimenters so far have been deceived by the Monstein-Effect". 

Gravock

[gravityblock]

Rotation is a relative motion.  It's not linear... but it is a change in space over time of various points of the disk.

Don't confuse relative motion with absolute motion.  A sting in the tail is as follows.  In mechanics, all states of uniform motion (including that of rest) are equivalent.  For any one body, it is equally true to say it is at rest or moving at any uniform velocity we choose to assume.  This indifference is expressed in Newton's first law of motion.  However, in electromagnetism, it is quite another story.  An electric charge at rest is said to be surrounded by only an electric field, but an electric charge in motion is equivalent to an electric current and is surrounded by a magnetic field.

From this, the motion in electromagnetism is not merely relative but absolute.  Einstein's theory was aimed at reconciling these two systems of kinematics and electromagnetism.  Assis et al. (1999) show that there is another complication in which there is an electric field outside a stationary conductor carrying a constant current.  This causes a problem for relativity theory because, as they say, "As regards those who consider magnets as a relativistic effect, we have shown that a resistive current carrying wire generates not only an electric field but also a magnetic field."

Gravock

[d3x0r]

Don't confuse relative motion with absolute motion.  A sting in the tail is as follows.  In mechanics, all states of uniform motion (including that of rest) are equivalent.  For any one body, it is equally true to say it is at rest or moving at any uniform velocity we choose to assume.  This indifference is expressed in Newton's first law of motion.  However, in electromagnetism, it is quite another story.  An electric charge at rest is said to be surrounded by only an electric field, but an electric charge in motion is equivalent to an electric current and is surrounded by a magnetic field.

From this, the motion in electromagnetism is not merely relative but absolute.  Einstein's theory was aimed at reconciling these two systems of kinematics and electromagnetism.  Assis et al. (1999) show that there is another complication in which there is an electric field outside a stationary conductor carrying a constant current.  This causes a problem for relativity theory because, as they say, "As regards those who consider magnets as a relativistic effect, we have shown that a resistive current carrying wire generates not only an electric field but also a magnetic field."

Gravock

I have no confusion between the two.
The table from the book you quoted... well, he died the year it was published.
The source would seem reasonably trustworthy, except in case D and F are wrong.
Bruce deplama's N machine was permanent magnets sandwiched on a conductive plate and the whole thing turning.  This generated a voltage in configuration F both together with no relative motion between plate and magnet.  Also the experiment you originally submitted had both the conductor and magnet rotating together also declaring F wrong. 


http://amasci.com/freenrg/n-mach.html - is also wrong, but he declares "Note that these are all UNTRIED THOUGHT EXPERIMENTS"


90.4995% are a stationary magnet and moving disc. (E correct)
9.4995% are both moving disk and moving magnet; so as to disprove relativity... because there is no apparent relative motion between the two... but time and again this has generated a voltage.  Faraday himself did this one to show there was a voltage. (F wrong)
the other 0.001% moving the magnet and not moving the disc generates 0 current... as demonstrated experimentally by only that phsyclips single source. (D shown as wrong)  Unfortunately it's hard to search for "rotation of magnet and not rotation of disc".


But really that's no surprise... and simplifies things, to say that rotation along the axis of a homogenous magnetic has no effect on its field.  Since also a coil rotating would see no difference bewtween that motion and the supposed current already running through the coil.  A more difficult experiment to take a helmholz coil with a conditive plate mounted rigidly with the coil, and rotate the helmholz counter to its current at even 25% the speed of light i would expect that event at 100% the speed of light the conductive plate would still have a voltage across it.
Actually rotating either with or against the current... other than the polarity of polarity of generated voltage would be reversed, the quantity would still be the same as whatever speed disc rotating itself within such a field.  But that's just a thought... something along the lines of disproving current flow in a wire.