Science contradicts itself..Questions

[Charlie_V]

The magnetic field could be made of particles, or it could be a disruption in the substance that we call "the vacuum".  The problem I see with particles is that in a homopolar generator, you can have a plate of copper sandwiched between two magnets.  If you keep the magnets stationary and you spin the copper, you'll produce a voltage between the center and the edge of the copper.  If you spin both the copper and the magnets, the same thing happens.  But if you spin only the magnets, and you leave the copper stationary you get nothing.

How does Ed's theory explain the homopolar generator?  If the magnetic field were made of particles, then the case of leaving the copper plate stationary and spinning the magnets would of produced a voltage on the copper - shouldn't it?  Ed was a smart man and he verified most of the EM experiments that they had been done by 1930 - by himself without training which I feel is a great feat.  I welcome his interpretation too, he adds detail to some experiments that get overlooked.  Whether he was correct in saying that everything is made up of magnetic particles and neutral matter, who knows and does it really matter?  Ed's setups still suffer from back EMF (which no one on this forum seems to ever understand correctly). 

Our goal should be decoupling back EMF from the prime mover, not wasting time arguing whose EM field model is most correct.  In my eyes they are all wrong. 
Take this excerpt I found on a Physics Lecture online:

"Note that the symmetry cannot be "perfect" in that the direction of the current that is induced in the loop due to the externally maintained torque must be opposite to the direction of current that would create a torque in that direction. This is necessary due to energy conservation. If the effect happened as in our first case (externally maintained current), then more current would go through the loop and the induced torque would increase. This violates energy conservation as the change in angular position due to the external torque would induce still more change in angular position. Hence we note that if the effect of induced current does take place, the current must be induced in a direction that opposes the external torque that causes it."

Back torque is NOT due to energy conservation, theres much more to it than this.  When people finally open their eyes and see that there is an ordering mechanism in our universe, perhaps they will abandon this stifling law.

[GeoscienceStudent]

koen:

I've recently been reading a book (two actually) that  brings up alot of interesting points in oil.  I thought I might pass this on.

Hubberts Peak:  The Impending World's Oil Shortage

and
After Oil

By Kenneth S. Deffeyes...Geologist, professor at Princeton University, formerly worked with Shell Oil, also known as Dutch Shell Oil Co.

He brings up things as to why oil companies don't necessarily drill in all areas that they obtain permits, and what it takes to have oil, how old it really is, etc. etc. not to mention that US reached its peak in 1970 on oil production and the world in 2005.  Using the equation of Hubbert,  a geophysicist, it was predicted from mid 1960's to 1970's for the US, and 2004-2008 for the world. 

He also explained why the US had lower costs, yet are now starting to rise to reach the rest of the world.  Described laws passed and some things some oil companies tried to do to make more money using these laws, unlawfully.  Texaco trying to claim that the same source already previously used for oil was a new resource, thus could be sold for the highest bid, for example, when old resources were supposed to be kept at a current controlled rate.  Read the book to get the actual explanation.  It's full of whimsical manners of explaining things...sense of humor and an easy read.  Strange that these two books are our text books for my "Energy" class  GEOL-G 400.

He discusses other energy options, but I noticed he did not mention fusion.  However, I got some more information and education tools from ITER. 

I'm going to have fun this semester writing research papers ( I intend to bring up some things being researched on as well as what is considered already in working progress.)

By the way, I don't know if I mentioned this, but a company is buying leases around here for obtaining gas out of oil shale.  The land has gone up 6X in tax assessments, and I'm wondering if the two are related.  I found out many banks have 100 year mineral rights to alot of the land around here, and due to "Imminent Domain," they could just take it from the people. 

Notice the oil pipeline going through Georgia...Russia now in there, US interested, though some of the Americans recently escaped (from Ossetia) said the Georgians were attacking them...then suddenly the interviewer shuts them off...some politician calls the claim "ridiculous..." no one listens ..sounds like pre-Iraq again.  A former Marine who had worked for years studying weapons in Iraq kept telling congress there were no weapons and they Shang Hied him.  No one listened.  They tried to tear him down. I can't help it, but,
I'm a little skeptical here, and hope they diplomatically deal with this instead of getting war happy.
from wikepedia:
" Georgia became part of the Soviet Union in 1922 and regained its independence in 1991. Early post-Soviet years were marked by a civil unrest and economic crisis. Georgia began to gradually stabilize in 1995, and achieved more effective functioning of state institutions following a bloodless change of power in the so-called Rose Revolution of 2003.[4] However, Georgia continues to suffer from the unresolved secessionist conflicts in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Relations with Russia remain tense over these issues as well as Georgia?s aspiration of NATO membership.[5] As of early August 2008, Georgia is engaged in armed conflict with separatists in the Ossetia Province and the Russian Federation."


Beck

[Koen1]

Hmm...
Well the Georgia situation is presently more prominent in my thoughts than
the oils shale and other energy solutions except for my own energy research...

It's actually quite scary, even though the world media don't seem to have been
explained this yet so they are only halfheartedly reporting on it.
But the situation is this:
- Georgia has a major pipeline running through it from Russia to Turkey, which
already gives the Russians quite some power in that corner of the world.
- the disputed region is smack bang in the middle of Georgia and clearly the Russians intend
to occupy that so they have full control over the region and over Georgia.
- the Russians started the conflict by shooting down a Georgian fighter jet over the disputed
region, and then they denied doing so
- the Russians have militarily obliterated Georgian defense forces after signing a cease fire
and retreat treaty. They are still mucking about, blowing up military installations, stealing Georgian
radar equipment, and roaming the region.
- the Russians said they responded with "peace keeping troops already stationed in Ossetia",
but when interviewed the tank drivers and soldiers said they had been driving for 3 straight days
to get to Ossetia from Chechnia, which means the Russians apparently knew they were going to
need these "defense forces" in 3 days and gave the order with such great timing that the tanks
actually arrived only half a day after the Georgians invaded and occupied their own rebellious region...
That seems quite impossible unless the Russians somehow knew shit was going to hit the fan,
three days in advance...
And that makes the entire story a bit less credible, don't you think?
- Similar pipeline situations are currently present in Northwestern Europe, which is largely dependant on
Russian gas imports. Which is a risk of course. Just look at what the Russians did to Ukraine asome time
ago: they simply shut down the pipeline when Ukraine complained about the high price. Scary situation.
- Russia has broken with NATO and Bush has been threatening to kick Russia out of the G8 and the WTO.
Scary shit. What is Bush thinking? That kicking them out will make them more lenient? Yeah, sure, that's
something history has shown, right? Not. Or is Bush trying to make the next presidents life a living hell,
by poking the angry snakes that were finally starting to calm down with a stick?

... interesting times, indeed...

[GeoscienceStudent]

Hmm...
Well the Georgia situation is presently more prominent in my thoughts than
the oils shale and other energy solutions except for my own energy research...

It's actually quite scary, even though the world media don't seem to have been
explained this yet so they are only halfheartedly reporting on it.
But the situation is this:
- Georgia has a major pipeline running through it from Russia to Turkey, which
already gives the Russians quite some power in that corner of the world.
- the disputed region is smack bang in the middle of Georgia and clearly the Russians intend
to occupy that so they have full control over the region and over Georgia.
- the Russians started the conflict by shooting down a Georgian fighter jet over the disputed
region, and then they denied doing so
- the Russians have militarily obliterated Georgian defense forces after signing a cease fire
and retreat treaty. They are still mucking about, blowing up military installations, stealing Georgian
radar equipment, and roaming the region.
- the Russians said they responded with "peace keeping troops already stationed in Ossetia",
but when interviewed the tank drivers and soldiers said they had been driving for 3 straight days
to get to Ossetia from Chechnia, which means the Russians apparently knew they were going to
need these "defense forces" in 3 days and gave the order with such great timing that the tanks
actually arrived only half a day after the Georgians invaded and occupied their own rebellious region...
That seems quite impossible unless the Russians somehow knew shit was going to hit the fan,
three days in advance...
And that makes the entire story a bit less credible, don't you think?
- Similar pipeline situations are currently present in Northwestern Europe, which is largely dependant on
Russian gas imports. Which is a risk of course. Just look at what the Russians did to Ukraine asome time
ago: they simply shut down the pipeline when Ukraine complained about the high price. Scary situation.
- Russia has broken with NATO and Bush has been threatening to kick Russia out of the G8 and the WTO.
Scary shit. What is Bush thinking? That kicking them out will make them more lenient? Yeah, sure, that's
something history has shown, right? Not. Or is Bush trying to make the next presidents life a living hell,
by poking the angry snakes that were finally starting to calm down with a stick?

... interesting times, indeed...

Half hearted reporting...tell me about it.
Our secretary of state gave a speech that it was not 1958 when Russia could just go in to a country, cut off major roads and capital and overthrow a government without consequences.  When asked about is not that just what the US did to Afghanistan and Iraq, she waffled.  This makes us sound hypocritical and most Americans agree, that the Middle East interest to the US is mostly due to ...guess...

OIL!  From the way Russia can get their troops ready and their organization capability, the US should be very careful about trying to shake that stick at the snake.  We have to him haw a bit in Congress before we get moving and our troops are dispersed and busy in the Middle East right now, and in spite of what some politicians who are in denial keep saying otherwise, our military had been reduced alot during the Clinton years, and is right now stretched to its limits.   Scary indeed.  Yes, the next president may just well have his hands full.  But what occurs here, often has an effect across the world.

Have you seen about the "drills" in Kuwait to prepare against Iran.  Several European and UK troops have been sent (armada, they called it) and US troops also.  Still being called just a drill presently.  I've got a bad feeling about this.  Notice, another OIL country.

[Charlie_V]

Yup, oil sucks.  Replace oil with something else, people will just find something else to fight about.  There have been wars since the beginning and there will always be wars.  Whether its oil, land, revenge, etc. there is always an excuse to kill someone.  But if you ask me, we should try to develop clean, renewable ways of killing each other.  Then atleast the earth will not die with us.