Science contradicts itself..Questions

[Koen1]

If science can explain the PMH, then where is the law of energy conservation
will fit in ?  This is a perpetum mobila - which is unacceptable by science.

So it is claimed by Leedskalnin-fans.
But what exactly is moving perpetually, I ask you?
I see a magnet that remains magnetic untill you 'cut the flux lines' by removing
the keeper...
Or is your assertion that magnetism itself equals perpetual motion? Then I simply disagree.
Magnetism is magnetism and it is not at all strange for a magnetic material to
remain magnetic if the flux path is not disturbed. It is also not surprising to see an induced
current in a coil around the magnetic material when the flux path is cut off.
That does not mean those electrons need to be moving perpetually when the flux path
is still intact. The magnetism present in the magnet and the keeper does not require
the electrons to perpetually flow through the coil wire, and they don't.
After all, if they did, you should be able to tap that flow without ever having to remove the
keeper at all, as the perpetual flow should continue...
So in my opinion this is one of the examples of Eds "close but no cigar" ideas,
as his conclusion that there must be perpetual motion going on is not supported
by his observations. No matter how often he repeats his assumptions, repetition
of assumptions is not the same thing as proving them. There is no perpetual motion.
There is magnetism. Yes, if you take Eds monopole assumptions as a fact instead of
the assumption that it is, then you could formulate an interpretation that concludes
that these hypothetical monopole flows must be perpetually flowing in the material
in order to maintain the magnetism, and this could be interpreted as a perpetual flow.
But that's all just a matter of semantics and unproven assumption.
If we realistically take the assumption of monopole flows as the unfounded assumption
that it is, and consider magnetism as a spin field and not as particle flows, then there
is no "motion" going on at all, there is not "perpetual motion", but yes there is magnetism,
and in a proper material arrangement magnetism can be retained efficiently for a long time,
and when the flux lines are 'cut' the collapsing magnetic field can be 'intercepted' by a coil
in which a current is induced at that moment. So yes, we can use electric current in a coil
to magnetise a body, then keep that body magnetised for a relatively long period of time,
and then collapse the magnetic field and extract the input energy in the form of electrical
current in the coil. But no, that does not prove there is anything moving perpetually.

Even if they think electrons are traveling inside, then electrons have a mass ?
Yes it does = 9.109 382 15(45) x 10-31 kg. So why this mass never stop orbiting
the PMH ?

Well, like I said, because they don't. There are no electrons
in perpetual motion.

Never slowing down ?  If it moves between the iron atoms, then
there it should create friction and slow down, even if it takes several spins.

Another point is, when you induce electricity into a wire, according to science
the streams of electrons moves forward because it is pushed from behind by
pressure.

Not really. They move forward because of this "pressure" a bit,
but they also experience a "pull" from the oppositely charged anode toward which they flow.
It's a matter of potential difference. You should know that.

But here inside the PMH once you disconnect the coils - there should
not be any pressure from behind, so what can convinced the electron to move
forward ?

Nothing. And, as I said several times already, they don't.
When the keeper is on and the wires are connected to eachother, there is zero flux
change and zero induction, and zero electron flow in the coil wire.
When the flux is changed by removing the keeper, the flux no longer has a neat
closed loop path and the magnetic field collapses, and this changing magnetic field
induces a current in the coil that should be near equal to the current that was used to
magnetise the setup in the first place. So you get out almost what you got in.
That is not surprising because there was no current in the coil during the time the
magnetic field was present, so there was no resistance to the flow of electrons to decrease
the current, and this is why the input energy was not lost. Not because electrons in
the coil magically move forever. Not because of perpetual motion of the electrons.

Doesn?t it sound more ?down to nature? that two attracting particles are running
in streams, one against another ?

No, it does not. More complex explanations are not at all necessarily more "down to nature".
In fact, we commonly use a rule that is in direct contrast with that statement: Occams Razor.
It sounds more "down to nature" to not invent more complicated systems to explain things
that we can already explain using less complicated systems, unless the more complicated
system actuall managed to explain those things better and allows us to actually
produce predictions that the simpler system could not produce.
Again I ask you, where is an example of Leedskalnins ideas that cannot be explained
by established em theory, and that does produce a replicable effect which does not
accord with established theory? WHERE? SHOW IT!
So far there are none.

Charlie_V said :
? That isn't true. Science will tell you it will hold the magnetic field as long as the magnetic loop path is closed. It doesn't matter whether it is hard steel or soft, as long as the loop is closed the flux will flow in the loop indefinitely?

- Did you mean it will hold magnetic field or electricity ?

Obviously Charlie is talking about flux! That means magnetic field.
Do you really know what you're talking about if you have to ask what "flux" means?

- If you meant magnetic field, so what science will say when the keeper was raised and
   all (or much of) the magnetic field tuned to electricity ?

Well I told you several times above, but here
it is once again: the magnetic field collapses, the coil "sees" a changing magnetic field, and all coils that
"see" a changing magnetic field produce a current and that's what we call induction. So the
collapsing magnetic field induces a current in the coil which should be slightly smaller but nearly equal to
the current that was originally applied to magnetise the material and produce that magnetic field.
It's quite simple and has nothing to do with perpetual motion.

Let's try an analogy, perhaps that'll help illustrate what I mean...
When you fill a bottle with water, then put a cork in it, then hold it upside down, the water will stay in
untill you pull the cork out. When you do that, the water will start gushing out the bottle with almost
as much force as you used to fill the bottle. Would you now conclude there must be perpetual motion
going on because an equal amount of water comes out of the bottle as near equal speed, so
something has kept the speed of the water flow constant all the time the cork was on the bottle?
Would you conclude you have captured "perpetually moving water flow" in your bottle?
No of course you wouldn't, that would be silly!
Yet that seems to be what you're doing with the simple coil+magnet+keeper setup...

What I?m after, is showing that no matter how you look at electricity and electron,
it cannot go that far, and cannot ?exists? without magnets (though magnets can exists
without electrons?). 

Do you have any sources at all that support this statement,
besides Leedskalnins assumptions? Please show me proof that magnets can exist without
electrons, but not the other way around? Because that is in direct contradiction with
commonly accepted theories. According to the great majority of established science,
what you said there is not true. So where did you get it?
If that's really what you're after, please show lucidly why and how elecrons cannot exist
without magnets yet vice versa is possible?

Correct me if I?m wrong, but as much as I know, science cannot explain it.

Yeah well, as far as I know science can and has explained it... And as far as I know and
can see, Ed Leedskalnin is the one who did not explain anything really, nor did he
prove anything, he just presented and wrote down his own assumptions and interpretations
of his very normal em observations, without actually being very critical about not mixing
his own unproven assumptions into those interpretations and explanations.
If I assume the world is flat, then the rising and settling of the sun could be interpreted as
confirmation of my assumption, since obviously a lamp rising and settling over the surface of
a flat table will show similarities. But that doesn't mean the world really is flat. It just means
that my unproven assumption cannot be taken as a fact if we wish to avoid such stupid
mistakes. So instead of blindly taking the assumption as a fact which it isn't, we should
be smart enough to see that even though there are indeed certain characteristics that appear to
accord with the theory, in fact the entire assumption remains unproven and therefore not
valid as a fact in our path of reasoning. A more correct conclusion would be that there is
indeed such a thing as the rising and settling of the sun over the earth surface, and that this
surface of the earth appears to be flat, but that we can't actually conclude with any degree
of certainty that the earth surface truly is flat, so we mustn't jump to that conclusion.

It's amazing how many people do, and how excited they can get in their defense and
protagonism of the totally unfounded assumptions Leedskalnin dreamt up.

@Charlie_V: LOL! looks like we just posted largely the same kind of reply in our own words.

[rangerover444]

Thanks Charlie for your response,

I?m glad your brought up the point of magnetic flux ?filling? the PMH.
Science view magnetic flux in terms of induction, in other words it?s
a ?product? of a magnetic field that move in 90 degrees to the direction
of the filed. Which is not accurate, first it?s the same magnetic field that
?found? a conductor and channel through it. So why calling the first one
Field and the second one Flux ?

Then if we have Flux filling the PMH (and circulating inside), then you
have energy moving through matter (we are talking about EXCESS magnets,
since in it?s natures soft iron cannot hold magnetism), so this excess is not
part of the iron, therefore it?s a free circulating energy, that can perform work
when the keeper is raised and the magnets induced back into the coil.

You said you disagree with science that this flow inside the PMH have no
power, therefore it can circulate endlessly. And you are right, I can build
a 10 ft. PMH, induce it and when you raise the keeper (which may weight
more then a ton), you could get electrified from the ?powerless magnetic
field?.  So it does have power, but still orbiting forever.  So the law
of energy conservation IS apply here, but it?s BREAKING this law at
the same time?

Also science claim that there is no movement inside the PMH. Well, of
course there is movement. It can be verified with Ed?s test, that you raise
the keeper side of the PMH (it have to lay flat) and above it there are
hanging (horizontally) magnetic needles that swings according to the motion
of the two magnetic stream inside. It?s a very similar test to this one :
http://www.leedskalnin.net/test-6.htm but instead of copper wire there
is the keeper.

And the most obvious thing of all is of course :
1. Magnets where induce into the coil (around the PMH).
2. The coil induced the magnets into the PMH core.
3. Magnets circulate inside the PMH after the coils were disconnected.
4. Magnets were induced back into the coil when their orbit broke (keeper raised).
5. Magnets flew back through the wire to lit the bulb.

Did anyone saw any electrons here ?

What I said about the ?pressure? or voltage inside the PMH, is that science do not
agree the ?electricity? actually run by itself inside the PMH, but like you said
it view it as magnetic field. So there are two funny things here :
1. If a goat is going out of the coral to eat in the field - you don?t call it a donkey.
     And when the goat back to the coral, you call it a goat again?LOL.
2. How comes the PMH was induced with ?electricity? and it was orbiting the
     PMH, without any pressure (or voltage), after the first induction was disconnected ?

Let me know what you think,

Cheers.

[Charlie_V]

To me, "the field" is the force we call magnetism, what this is exactly, I don't know.  I've always found it odd that there are invisible "force fields".  To me, "flux" (in particular "magnetic flux" - since there are other forms of flux out there) is the measurement of this "magnetic force field" in a given area of space. 

I disagree with magnetic fields having no power and doing no work.  In present systems (including the PMH) the magnetic fields are doing no work and thus science is right.  The problem is that because no one has developed a system that uses the magnetic power, science has jumped to the conclusion that magnets have no power at all - this is what I feel is wrong.  Like I've said before, if you row your canoe on one side only all you'll do is go in circles.  If everyone rowed on one side, people would claim canoe's can ONLY go in circles - the trick is to row the canoe on both sides, then you'll really get somewhere.

The "power" that lights up the lightbulb you are confusing with the magnetic field because the field disappears when you remove the keeper.  The magnetic field does nothing more than act like a tool, the power lighting the lighbulb comes from YOU MOVING THE KEEPER - just like the power to drive a nail doesn't come from the hammer, it comes from the person swinging the hammer.  Get a U shaped magnet, place coils on it just like the PMH.  Then take an iron rod, soft or hard doesn't matter, and move it off and on the U shaped permanent magnet just like you do with the keeper.  If you have a lightbulb connected to your coils, you will see the light bulb turn off and on, just like in your PMH.  The ONLY difference is that the flux in the U-permanent magnet does not go away.

The flux that leaves the PMH you are thinking is being converted into "electricity", its NOT.  The flux is leaving for a different reason.  If you cut the coils off, then pulled the keeper off, the PMH would still lose its magnetism and no electricity would ever be produced.  These devices are only using the magnetic field as a tool (like a hammer or a screw driver), the energy still comes from the operator manually changing the field. 

If you want to make this a true perpetual motion hold, use a bar and U-shaped permanent magnet (for both the keeper and core respectfully) and figure out a way that allows you to remove the bar with extremely small amounts of energy, yet still gives a large change to the magnetic field.  If you can create a large change in the magnetic field with a very small amount of energy - then you will have an overunity device.  This is not as easy as it sounds.  You will find that the coils will always try to balance any access energy placed into the system - and all your gains will become 1 to 1 (ignoring losses of course).  In all the devices we have today, the change of the magnetic field is directly proportional to the energy put into it making that change (the value is 1 to 1, actually less).

I personally feel that you can create a system that negates this balancing act.  I think you can create energy too, but it takes energy to create energy.  The main problem science has is that it can't account for the energy that is in the universe.  There is the big bang THEORY but that does not explain anything as far as the creation of matter and time.  They assume that you can't have one without the other and thus the two can come into existence - as long as they do it together.  This is completely illogical since nothing we observe just comes into existence.  There is always a cause and effect. 

The easier solution is that energy can be created since it is all around us EVERYWHERE in the universe.  The main problem with my solution is that no one has observed the creation of energy and everything we do seems to be balanced 1 to 1 if not a little worse.  If you really think about the laws of conservation though, really nothing in the universe should exist - since these laws claim there is no ordering in the universe, only disordering.  But we can see that there is some order in the universe, otherwise we wouldn't be sitting where we are right now!  This leads me to believe that we are in equilibrium between order and disorder.  Thus, there is an ordering mechanism conflicting with a disordering mechanism - both are balanced.  We know what the disorder is (entropy).  What we haven't found is the ordering counterpart.  And unfortunately, no one wants to seriously look for it, since it would greatly upset the current foundation of science. 

[rangerover444]

Charlie said :
?The "power" that lights up the lightbulb you are confusing with the magnetic field because the field disappears when you remove the keeper. The magnetic field does nothing more than act like a tool, the power lighting the lighbulb comes from YOU MOVING THE KEEPER - just like the power to drive a nail doesn't come from the hammer, it comes from the person swinging the hammer. Get a U shaped magnet, place coils on it just like the PMH. Then take an iron rod, soft or hard doesn't matter, and move it off and on the U shaped permanent magnet just like you do with the keeper. If you have a lightbulb connected to your coils, you will see the light bulb turn off and on, just like in your PMH. The ONLY difference is that the flux in the U-permanent magnet does not go away?.

Well, when you lift the keeper, the orbit in the PMH is broken and the magnets that circulate
inside - are free to go in any direction they want.  But since the two coils are wrapping around
the prongs (in 90 degrees to the motion of the orbiting mags.), most of the mags. will ?drain?
or channel themselves through the coils, since they run much better through copper wire then
air.  Though some of the mags. Just will go to the air.

So there is no confusion here, in fact it?s very logical.  Your example (w/ the u-shape magnet)
Is missing the point that mags. Can be stored in a soft iron ?ring? and circulate indefinitely until
the orbit is broken.

If you cut off the coils while the PMH is ?loaded? and then raise the keeper, of course no
electricity will comes out, since the mags. Have no channels anymore.

You are right about the U-shape magnet and the keeper - it will posses perpetual motion, but
again, the big deal here w/ the PMH, is to show that the magnets are individual entity that
occupied the PMH until the orbit is broke.

Ed said that the atom works on the same principles, of orbiting N & S pole individual pole
magnets orbiting the NPM (Neutral Particle of Matter) and in acid / zinc battery the acid
breaking the orbit of the zinc atoms and the free N & S magnets are channeling themselves to
the terminals, which are equivalent to the two coils in the PMH.

Also you are right about the OU machine, that by ?moving the keeper? at less energy then the
energy output will gives us perpetual motion. And the reason for that is that whenever you
break the orbit of the u-shape magnet, some of the mags. Will eject away from the system, and
if you have coils around it, naturally these mags will channel through it.  But it?s because you
break the orbit, which science described it vaguely ?changing the magnetic field? which is only
partially true.


Charlie said : ?I personally feel that you can create a system that negates this balancing act. I think you can create energy too, but it takes energy to create energy. The main problem science has is that it can't account for the energy that is in the universe. There is the big bang THEORY but that does not explain anything as far as the creation of matter and time. They assume that you can't have one without the other and thus the two can come into existence - as long as they do it together. This is completely illogical since nothing we observe just comes into existence. There is always a cause and effect.?

Well, science have many problems, and the first and for all (the outcome sub-problems) is
that ?IT DEOS NOT HAVE THE RIGHT BUILDING BLOCKS OF THE UNIVERSE?. 
It literally took the electron and now it dress it with all kind of cloths and shoes, make it
dance Debka, cover it?s face with makeup and BUILD ALL IT?S EXPLANATIONS AROUND A
MODEL? instead of ?BUILDING A MODEL ACCORDING TO OBSERVATIONS? - that?s the
big difference here.

The Big Bang theory is a Big Bluff theory.  If science will observe nature, it will realized that
in nature there is a constant transformation, some things are in destruction cycle (matter going
out, like our sun for instance, or when a plant is dying) and other are in construction cycle (basically
everything that growth in this universe, including our planet and my nails?).  It?s silly in the first
place to look for a point in time when the universe was created.  It?s like to enter a stadium in the
middle of 10,000 meter running race and try to understand where the runners started the race.
even if there is such a place - you cannot tell (unless you ask the spectators) - The story of the
Universe revolves around perpetual transformation - go look for that.

* The visible light is one of the vehicles to transfer matter, but there are more?


Cheers.



Koen, forgive my late response to your post, I will get to that soon.

[rangerover444]

Thanks Koen for your detailed response,

Koen said : ?But what exactly is moving perpetually, I ask you?
I see a magnet that remains magnetic until you 'cut the flux lines' by removing
the keeper??

I completely understand why you don?t see any movement inside the PMH,
I can also understand why you don?t see any movement around a permanent
magnet, unless you are using detectors or magnetized needles if you will, that
can detect the movement and it?s direction?.So I?m sure you can see it if you want.
Magnetic field - is not a static field, it have two poles, it have circulation between
the poles and N stream of magnets runs against S stream of magnets (look at
my drawing on Page 2 of this thread), and this is part of the misconception.

Koen said : ?The magnetism present in the magnet and the keeper does not require
the electrons to perpetually flow through the coil wire, and they don't.
After all, if they did, you should be able to tap that flow without ever having to remove the
keeper at all, as the perpetual flow should continue??

No one said that the electrons or magnets are moving perpetually through the coil?
It was said that when the keeper removed, then they channel out of the system through
the coil.

If you can tell me how to tap to a perpetual orbit of electrons or magnets, you?ll be the
first? But neither me nor anyone else said that?

Koen said : ?So in my opinion this is one of the examples of Eds "close but no cigar" ideas,
as his conclusion that there must be perpetual motion going on is not supported
by his observations. No matter how often he repeats his assumptions, repetition
of assumptions is not the same thing as proving them. There is no perpetual motion.
There is magnetism. Yes, if you take Eds monopole assumptions as a fact instead of
the assumption that it is, then you could formulate an interpretation that concludes
that these hypothetical monopole flows must be perpetually flowing in the material
in order to maintain the magnetism, and this could be interpreted as a perpetual flow.
But that's all just a matter of semantics and unproven assumption?.

Ed proved that through his tests, not only with the hanging needles over the PMH
but also the way magnets are traveling in the wire.
when you keep repeating ?there is no perpetual motion, there is magnetism?, it explained
your concept about magnetism.  So maybe that?s what missing here.
And it is not a matter of semantic, it?s a real life series of tests?  Just to clarify :
- do you think there is a circulation in a U-shape magnet ?
- and if you think there is or there is non, can you explain ?
- how do you suggest to prove that (tests) ?
- do you think the "magnetic field" is made of particle, or you view it as one entity ?

Koen said : ?Not really. They move forward because of this "pressure" a bit,
but they also experience a "pull" from the oppositely charged anode toward which they flow.
It's a matter of potential difference. You should know that.?

Good points.  What are the opposite charge from the anode, made of ?
How come the electron is the dominant player in electricity, and then suddenly
a positively charged particle comes to it?s aid to cross the wire to the other side ?
In many explanation of potential difference, they bring gravity to help visualized what
it is. It says that when you lift load upward you create ?work? and when a load is
moving down - there is no ?work? happen.
It seems to me that this potential difference idea came only to explain the electron
model, it did not came from observation?  It?s like a woman that want to have children
but do not find a husband, so she adopting one?

I?m asking you as a smart man, why nature will create the building blocks of the universe
made of one gender only ?    We are not talking here only about electricity, but the whole
universe, that made of atoms, waves, light, living creatures, dynamic relations, life, death,
creation, transformation, destruction....   much more then electricity or magnetism   
Put aside all you learned (including Ed?s ideas) for a second and ask yourself this
simple question. Just your common sense.

I will continue to answer your post.

Cheers.