Magnet Myths and Misconceptions

[tinman]

Several have explained and you can easily research for yourself to determine that the lines in a magnetic field diagram each represent a quanta of flux.  You may wish to object that such diagrams aren't helpful to you, but your argument that the archetypical such drawing of the field around a dipole does not fairly represent the flux has been refuted many times over.  The diagrams that you have presented with their figure eight shapes would be somewhat representative of flux density, if the proximity of the lines to the magnet is intended to represent flux density.

The arrows in a magnetic field diagram tell us orientation.  If we place a magnetized dipole in the field that is free to rotate in the plane of the lines, the arrows tell us which way that dipole will align.

When you say physical force, do you mean to say "mechanical force"?  If you do, what mechanical force do you refer to?  Is it the force on some glob of highly permeable material?  Is it the torque on a highly permeable dipole?

I am not a You Tuber.  I don't shoot videos.

Ha,i was just reading your last post,and i like this bit-Quote: 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.

Anyway,back to the question.

When you say physical force, do you mean to say "mechanical force"?  If you do, what mechanical force do you refer to?  Is it the force on some glob of highly permeable material?  Is it the torque on a highly permeable dipole?

So here is what we need to know in regards to force. What physical structure is it that provides a pulling force between a magnet and say a piece of iron-what reaches out of the magnet to retract that piece of iron back to it(the magnet).

What do you believe these two opposite forces are that can exert a physical force toward magnetically active materials(materials that react to a magnetic fields presence).E.G,are they oppositely charged particals?.

I believe you made reference to the wind not so long back,and how we cant see it,but we can feel it and see it exert a force on tree's-and things like that. But with that,we can fully explain how wind is created,and we can give exact ratio's of what gasses make the air that moves to become wind. So we need the same information about the magnetic fields that form a dipole,and like the wind,the explinations have to be clear and precise to be accepted.

It is all well and good to say-we know the magnetic field is what we think it is,because computors and CRT monitors work the way they do. Well my car has a V8 engine,and that engine provides the needed energy to propel my car down the road at 110kph. Thing is,my mate up the road has a car that also dose 110kph down the road,and his motor is a rotary engine. It opperates on the same principle,but is of a completely different design. Then there is the electric car-altogether different motor design and a different type of fuel,but guess what-it still pushes a car down the road at 110kph.

So before you have the right to dispell anyone's thoughts/theories about magnetic fields,you need to provide absolute information about why and how a magnetic field dose what it dose-explain it as clearly and correctly as we can the wind.

[MarkE]

Ha,i was just reading your last post,and i like this bit-Quote: 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.

Anyway,back to the question.
So here is what we need to know in regards to force. What physical structure is it that provides a pulling force between a magnet and say a piece of iron-what reaches out of the magnet to retract that piece of iron back to it(the magnet).

What do you believe these two opposite forces are that can exert a physical force toward magnetically active materials(materials that react to a magnetic fields presence).E.G,are they oppositely charged particals?.

I believe you made reference to the wind not so long back,and how we cant see it,but we can feel it and see it exert a force on tree's-and things like that. But with that,we can fully explain how wind is created,and we can give exact ratio's of what gasses make the air that moves to become wind. So we need the same information about the magnetic fields that form a dipole,and like the wind,the explinations have to be clear and precise to be accepted.

That wind analogy was not mine. 

It is all well and good to say-we know the magnetic field is what we think it is,because computors and CRT monitors work the way they do. Well my car has a V8 engine,and that engine provides the needed energy to propel my car down the road at 110kph. Thing is,my mate up the road has a car that also dose 110kph down the road,and his motor is a rotary engine. It opperates on the same principle,but is of a completely different design. Then there is the electric car-altogether different motor design and a different type of fuel,but guess what-it still pushes a car down the road at 110kph.

So before you have the right to dispell anyone's thoughts/theories about magnetic fields,you need to provide absolute information about why and how a magnetic field dose what it dose-explain it as clearly and correctly as we can the wind.

No, when one wishes to argue against established understanding it is up to the challenger to provide convincing evidence.

As human beings we do not have any absolute knowledge.  Philosphers get to argue about such matters while never attaining absolute knowledge anymore than anyone else.   We can absolutely predict with deadly accuracy: static electric, static magnetic, and electrodynamic behaviors to incredibly high accuracies.   That we are able to do so, very strongly suggests that we have a very strong grasp of how the elements interact.  If someone wants to make a dent in the set of beliefs that allow us to do this, then they need to find at least one situation where their new idea makes better predictions, while making equally accurate predictions as established beliefs in all other cases.  It is a very tall order.  So no, I reject the idea that one has to have a fundamental answer to the theory of everything in order to adhere to established scientific beliefs: IE physical laws.  To paraphrase Dr. Sheehan:  "Laws are laws until they aren't."  Come up with a case of where the laws fail.  Then come up with a better answer.

[NoBull]

Bar magnets [one over the other] a few pages back  ,a twist ?? 
Nice example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9lsaGtRBGc

So you noticed the analogy between turning magnets and turning domains in a soft ferromagnetic.
Too bad TinselKoala did not reply to this message about a similar subject.

[allcanadian]

@Mark

"Laws are laws until they aren't."  Come up with a case of where the laws
fail.  Then come up with a better answer.

Personally I have found the laws almost always apply however many people have failed to consider the context in which they are applied. For instance a drop of water cannot climb up a wall against the force of Gravity, it is impossible and violates many known laws of science. Yet this is exactly what one scientist did using an engineered material (nano-material) and he did not break any laws doing it. In fact his experiment did not violate any laws but in fact proved them on that scale.

My magnetic bearing is another example and when I told some people I built a 99% passive magnetic bearing based solely on attractive forces they said it cannot be done and violates the laws of science. It doesn't violate the laws of science or Earnshaws theorem because it is 99% passive not 100% and again basically proves the laws but in a completely different context than most would expect.  Thus in my mind it was never the laws which were ever in question but a persons ability to understand the context in which the laws may be applied.
At which point we could go one step further and say the laws we know may always apply however we may never know the infinite number of ways in which the context of there application could change. Almost anything is still possible however it is not a matter of breaking a law but how we interpret and apply it from our own perspective.
The Down wind faster than the wind technology is another perfect example because I didn't see that one coming. I mean I have decades of experience researching and experimenting in aerodynamics but that one caught me completely off guard no matter how obvious it was after the fact.

AC

[sparks]

   If the core of the Earth is a plasma and the plasma is spinning would the free electrons comprising the outer sheath of the plasma generate a magnetic field?.   It looks to me like the Earth is nothing more than a little bubble of Sun stuff.   Some plasma, when the plasma sphere of the sun was much larger, that got swirling and became magnetically propelled from a portion of the shrinking plasmasphere of the younger sun.   Now she's cooling off and skinned over with atoms.  The plasma current just happens to be aligned with the surface rotation and meanders independent of the rotation of the atomic stuff on the confining surface we live on.  Periodically the shear zone between the rotating plasma increases in viscosity.  This links the surface with the plasma and aligns the plasma rotation with the surface rotation at various polar angles.