Magnet Myths and Misconceptions

[EMJunkie]

You claimed in your original reference to the article that the researchers had created a magnetic monopole. The article however, as I have shown with my quoted excerpt, specifically states that they have NOT done so, they have merely created an _analogue_, that is, something that is _like_ a monopole under certain very specific conditions and when looked at in a very specific way.  They certainly do NOT have a "Mono Pole sitting in free space". Are you having a problem with your reading comprehension? Anyone here can read the article for themselves and see that your claims about it what it says are false.

Go ahead, email the authors and ask them about the magnetic field line picture surrounding a permanent magnet. You dare not... because _even you_ know what they will say.

I have been a member of this forum for quite some time, and I've only had this one username that whole time. While you have had several... how come?
Has it been ten years? I actually don't know, but I first started posting in response to the Archer Quinn claims of his "Sword of God" magnet assisted gravity wheel nonsense. Are you a supporter of Archer Quinn, perhaps? A very large number of my posts came in the long running argument and debunking of Rosemary Ainslie's false claims, lying "experimental" reports and her continued insulting badgering of Poynt99, MileHigh and others as well as me. Are you a supporter of the proven liar and false claimant Rosemary Ainslie? Another large set of my posts had to do with Wayne Travis and his false claims of a "self running" buoyancy device, with his long string of broken promises and failures to achieve any credible demonstration of his claims. Are you a supporter of Wayne Travis?  And anyone who actually knows what I post about can direct you to my posts concerning the better-than-Bedini MHOP pulse motor, the Steorn Orbo/Orbette Core Effect motor research, the several unique Joule Thiefs that I have presented, the struggle to educate people about the FTW QEG scam.... etc etc.  My track record here is clear: I am probably the _most often insulted_ poster on this forum, because I tell the truth about BS when I see it.  You can "bet" whatever you like with whomever you like, but you have no idea what I do all day, day after day, that's for sure, and you can provide no evidence for your literally _crazy_ and false assertions about me.

TinselKoala,

I Quote: "Hall's group has reproduced that vortex in a Bose–Einstein condensate of ultracold rubidium atoms. The condensate is a single matter wave and stands in for the electron cloud in Dirac's formulation. To reproduce the monopole, the researchers applied a real, external magnetic field to the condensate to orient the constituent atoms in such a way that they create a "synthetic" magnetic field inside the condensate. There is a "one-to-one correspondence" between that synthetic field and the field that would be produced by a magnetic monopole, Hall explains. "You could draw exactly the same field lines in the synthetic field and the locus of the monopole is where those field lines spring from," he says."

Just a bit more for you:

"To show that they really had produced a Dirac monopole, the researchers shone a laser beam through the condensate. The beam created a "shadowgraph", in which the shadow cast by the atoms in the sample was pierced by a narrow strip of light."

I wonder why you would dispute that this "Made in the Lab Monopole" is a Monopole?

I wonder who might have dyslexia?

Comprehension is in plain words right in front of us now isn't it!

[tinman]

So finally we get to an agreement:  You have been mapping flux density with representations the rest of the world uses to map flux.  Do you now withdraw your objections to the truth of the representations of flux as normally used?Fair or not, the statement that AC offered was to me so preposterous that I think it deserved the LOL.  I think that if you go back through even just this thread you will find that I have been very patient with you.  I believe that I have focused on the technical issues.  MH speaks for himself.  He is far more concerned with who calls who names than I am.  There are on these threads some posters who behave very poorly, and generally I simply don't bother with them.That is something that I put effort into avoiding.  I try to help people who want to try things out, or understand science better.  I try to stay above the fray of name calling and feces flinging.  In dealing with you, a person I hold in respect, I take particular effort, whether that shows or not.Fair enough.

I withdraw nothing, and im no where finished.
Please take a good look again at the diagrams that are suppose to represent the magnetic fields, and tell me that you see nothing wrong there.
Some questions
The arrows tell us what?
The physical force from each pole is caused by what
I would like you to provide absolute proof within your own test via video Mark, that your answers are absolute.

[EMJunkie]

I withdraw nothing, and im no where finished.
Please take a good look again at the diagrams that are suppose to represent the magnetic fields, and tell me that you see nothing wrong there.
Some questions
The arrows tell us what?
The physical force from each pole is caused by what
I would like you to provide absolute proof within your own test via video Mark, that your answers are absolute.

@Tinman - Don't BOW to these Backsides!

They have nothing, no common-sense, no Science, No Experiments, no Native Intelligence and not a single bit of Intuition!

Dont bow to them, they are wrong and being utterly stupid about the whole thing, beyond stupid, its as if they are getting paid to bring it all tumbling down!

Kind Regards

  Chris

[MarkE]

@Mark

Yes that was my first thought before I built the probe however I thought it was easier to simply introduce an offset into the code. All the values are temporarily stored in an array so it's no big deal to introduce an offset (user defined constant) during calibration so that the sensor planes line up exactly before the output to the graphs.


Super easy, take the Y coordinate +/- whatever the resolution of one line is and you end up with a vertical offset which will be the sensor plane offset. Simple input box to define the x and y offset on the interface. click, tap, tap, click done.


AC

That sounds reasonable.  The only other variable will be the difference in response between the two sensors used. 

[MarkE]

@EMJ

There lies the problem doesn't it?, information and knowledge without the creativity to apply it in a meaningful way means nothing. It reminds me of the person who memorized the whole Encyclopedia Britannica, I mean the whole damn thing, but what does he do now?. Why he tours and writes books about memorizing the Encyclopedia Britannica, lol. All that information and yet he doesn't have a clue what to do with it which is unfortunate.


Don't get me wrong, knowledge has it's place and it can streamline the learning process however it does not guarantee anything. If we have to draw a progress line I think it would be as follows---information, knowledge, understanding then creative application of that understanding. It's that last little part which is most important in my opinion because that is the only part which translates into real progress.


AC

IMO, the most important research skills are:  1) Critical thinking, 2) The ability to search for relevant existing information, 3) The presence of mind and humility to ask questions.  Somewhere down the list is the ability to personally set-up and conduct experiments.  Many things that we want to know about will be well beyond our individual means to directly research.  Creativity is very useful but it is also down the list.  Those who master the criitical basic skills and are also creative thinkers are able to take jumps where linear thinkers must plod.  Linear thinkers who master the basic skills are equipped to make advances.  Those who do not master the basic skills but are creative can have interesting ideas but are unequipped to sift gems from dross.  Those who think linearly but who do not master the basic skills tend to regurgitate what they are taught without consideration for the fact that mostly correct is not totally correct.