Science contradicts itself..Questions

[Koen1]

@Scotty: It's surprising how many people come rocking up wih Leedskalin inspired remarks,
but when push comes to shove there doesn't seem to be anybody who has managed to
build a working device based on Leedskalins stories of "north" and "south pole magnets" in
electricity...
To me his entire story sounds like a version of the concept that is currently known as
"spin current", basically the realisation that electron spin is a form of magnetism and
moving electrons thus carry a form of magnetic polarisation. Of course we already knew
that, for the observation that a circular magnetic field surrounds a moving electron shows
this already, as did the Hall-effect. Recently the quantum-Hall-effect proof has given us
an even clearer view of this situation, and oppositely spin polarised electrons separate
into two distinct currents under the influence of the magnetic field induced in the conductor
by one "normal" current of electrons.
Although that seems to give some credibility to Leedskalins stories, it is obvious Leedskalin
used a theoretical model in which the elements of magnetic and electric field "orientation"
were taken to be the crucial elements and the concept of electrons was not adopted
exactly as the scientific establishment sees them; this is why Leedskalin can easily
jump from current to magnetic monopoles in his story, without the problems that established
scientific "dogma" would immediately bring up, such as the theoretical impossibility and
absence of any observation of the magnetic monopole (according to generally accepted view).
We know that, if we had monopoles, we could do all kinds of things that current scientific
"dogma" says are impossible. It is no coincidence that many OU/FE researchers have
mentioned the concept; according to a fairly straighforward interpretation (as described above),
it might be possible to create them and they should indeed generate some "asymmetry" that
should allow for actions that cannot take place if monopoles are not possible.
So in my opinion, even though the entire concept of the monopole is a fascinating idea and
exercise in mental modeling and insight, and even though it may very well be worth experimenting
with different interpretations of monopole theory, the Leedskalin stories are interesting but
not nearly clear enough to get the message he is apparently trying to convey. I find his style
of writing about the subject quite vague and his terminology not always clear and sometimes plain
confusing. He may have had a great mental picture of what he was trying to convey, but
I feel he doesn't really get the message across very clearly, and it does not lead to practical or
usefull insights as to how the theory he tries to explain can be applied in real life.
Otherwise I am not entirely sure what you intended to say, so I'll leave it at this...
Perhaps you can be a bit more direct in adressing the matter you want to bring to
our attention? Just say what you mean, instead of a collection of quotes?


@GeoscienceStudent:

Koen:

Even with new tech., everyone can't just change over in a day.  It will take time to buy new cars all over the world that uses the newer technology, so we still need oil.  With present dollar being worthless, and people are struggling now and possibly we will get a huge tax hike, I sure can't go out and buy a new car. I'm still paying for my school loan for my first 2 degrees, office management and nursing,[working on my 3rd]  my house, two teenagers and their big appetites and their future college, medical payments, etc.  (I've heard the truckers are planning a strike because of the deisel prices, so stock up)  Also, other things are made from petroleum besides gasoline:  plastics, medicines, lubricants to name a few.  So we still need it.  According to 2001-2005 statistics, we have enough oil to last about 40 years...but that doesn't take into account loss, increase of use (China increased theirs by 6 x over the last ten years), exponential population increase and demand, (US uses a little more than 25% world's energy consumption by 4.6% of the world's population, just to show how glutonous and developed countries work) increased demand due to developing countries, burning of some fields by people like Sadam Hussein, oil spills, etc.  Then of course, you can't extract every little bit out.    So maybe about 10 years would be more like it...Oh...at the grocery store, to save a tree...paper or plastic?  I made mine cloth. [Walmart cloth bags made in...China]

Lol ok ok I'm not saying "stop using petrochemically based products NOW!"
But I am saying we should strive to move from petrochemical combustion fuels for personal and commercial transportation to electrical power, because
we have much more means of producing the latter than the former, and quite a few of them do not have the ecological disadvantages of oil.
And yes, of course things are getting more expensive...
But on the other hand, the petrol prices in the States are still quite a bit lower than they are over here in the Netherlands, and have been at almost
a third or less of our prices for about a decade and a half... Seems to me that the US has actually been getting very cheap fuel for quite some
time, and now that the price goes up to a more realistic level all of a sudden the US people discover how expensive life was in most of the world
during those decades... The rest of the world, you know those 95% of the world population that had to make do with 25% of all produced energy,
already knew that. That's why there's such a huge "anti-globalisation" movement in the world. Nobody is actually opposed to "globalisation" in the
sense that the world gets smaller due to better communication lines, internet, better and more infrastructure, or global trade. What all of those
people are opposed to is the "take what you can and screw the rest" attitude of most multinational companies, and this very crooked balance
where a minority of the world population basically consumes the majority of fuels and goods, while the majority of the world population is
left to suffer poverty and starvation.
Now don't get me wrong here, I am not saying "we", as in "the West" should stop trying to live a comfortable life, or should stop using energy...
But I am saying that we could actively work towards a situation where more of the world population has the same quality of life and basic
necesseties, such as not just food, shelter, and medical aid, but also a peacfull place to live, and a certain minimum level of comfort.
And we could make sure there's enough energy to go around and to power a large number of water desalination and filtration plants,
and large scale semi-automated food production powered largely by this energy. This way the prerequisites for any world region to
actually develop into an economically active and relatively self-sufficient region could easily be met, and a great many of the worlds
problems would disappear, as most of the worlds problems can be traced down to scarcity of certain basic goods or services.
That should also help decrease animosity in the world as regions don't necessarily have to compete with eachother over basic
resources such as food and energy. Ok, I'm finished with the treehugging hippie speech, you can open your ears back up now.

Yes, as a realtively cost effective temporary solution shale refining ("retorting") is an option. But preferably we should stop
burning fossil fuel. For plastics petrochemicals are still usefull, and perhaps we should only use them for plastics...
Although we can already make plastic-like polymers from organic molecules too. I seem to recall the only real reason
petrochemical polymers were originally adopted was the extremely low cost of the crude oil...

The probability of ....uncertainty. 
It is estimated that 5 volcanoes going off at the same time (not necessarily exact same time ) could lower the Earth's temperature 5 degrees Celcius,  an ice age.  Several are being watched right now...one in the Cascades,  Indonesia...Composite types, not shield types like in Hawaii...That blow particles in the air that is caught in wind currents blocking the sun and putting harmful gases and particles in the air that can kill animals and humans but usually dissipate within a year or so.

Now think about it... we've raised our temp about 0.6 degrees Celcius to 1.0 degrees (depending on source) mainly in the Northern Hemisphere over the past 100 years and it made this much difference.  What would happen if we reduced the temp 5 degrees?  How much food can you grow?  What did the tree rings do in Ireland during 1400's to 1700's?  What happens during La Nina in the equator, or just a little away from it like Ethiopia, Somalia, Kenya? (Is why there is 2008 drought and famine now but fossils in Ethiopia show there used to be tropical rain forest and lower elevation but the plataeu is rising, so theory is that is why the consistent poor rain situation now, not global warming, though some argue it's global warming. They do get orographic rains in West side of Ethiopia though goes to near the mid-country)  You need the heat for convection to create the Hadley cells.  Less heat = less rain in that territory.  BUT...There are difference issues when you are in monsoon areas, or west coast or orographic rain from mountains, etc. You also need the foilage from forests because they put out alot of water, too, so cut down the trees and???

Sorry, your point is? That there is too much incertainty to conclude global warming is our own doing? Or too much to conclude global warming is necessarily bad?
That there are several theories on climate change and they don't all accord and don't all support the global warming is evil plot?
Well of course there is a huge amount of uncertainty. But in the mean time governments around the world are increasing "eco" taxes, increasing air fuel taxes,
increasing anti global warming campaigns, stimulating people to use less energy and water "because of the climate change problem", wasting their valuable agricultural land on biodiesel crops that realistically don't contribute to the "fight against climate change" at all, etcetera etcetera, and in most countries the anti-climate change and
anti global warming ideology is used to play the population like puppets, use the populations fear of the system of society breaking down due to large ecological
disasters such as famine, tornados, tsunamis etc to consolidate the power base of the ruling regimes and industial-military complex.
It's the same old technique and it still works: make the people afraid, make them believe you are keeping them and their way of life safe and secure, then coerece
the people into slavery by painting a picture of even greater hardship if they don't listen. Machiavelli couldn't have done it better.

I guess the main problem is the same as it has always been: most people in positions of power are there because they want power, and not because they want
the best for the people. And most people who elect the people in power are too naive to consider that when the time comes to vote.

Guess I'll quit rambling now.

Lol ok, then I'll stop rambling too.

PS  Can you count the "science claims" contradictions in this post (including with what you may have heard against some of these claims)? 

Sorry, are you asking me to list them for you or was it just for laughs?

[Koen1]

@CharlieV: Here is the pic of the field lines thing I promised.
Legend:
A1) shows a normal electrostatic capacitor. As you can see, there is only one
plate with positive and negative charge, and the field lines always run from
the positive to the negative. That indeed does mean that the field lines outside
the capacitor run parallel to those inside if you look at it the way you drew them,
but also that the field lines per plate run oppositely (as I drew the one line there).
A capacitor only stores the charge that was put in.
A2) shows a battery as an electrical charge source. As you can see, there are two
processed going on in a battery. The internal process is a chemical reaction that
causes electrons to accumulate on one "pole" and makes sure these charges cannot
easily flow back through the internal medium. So they have to go through the external
medium. In a way there are two seperate fields at work: the internal electrochemical
reaction, and the external electromagnetics.
A battery actually produces and absorbs charges from the external medium, it is an
active process taking place. Not electrostatic, electrodynamic.
B2) now shows a normal magnet as a flux source. The field lines run identical to those of a battery,
except that they are of course now B-field lines and not A-field lines.
Again, an active process, where the magnetic material causes the internal flux, and
this causes the external flux. So basically a "flux battery" if you like...
B1) shows the magnetic equivalent of a capacitor, a flux storage device.
These do not exist in reality. That's why the "flux capacitor" often occurs in sci-fi stories and
movies (like Back to the Future etc).
If they did exist, they should show a similar field geometry as an electrical capacitor has.

That's my view. Sort of.
So yes, you are right that the field geometry and orientation of a capacitor and a magnet
are different, but it seems to me that you forgot to take into account that a magnet and
a capacitor are not actually equivalent. A magnet is much more like a battery than it is
like a capacitor, and the field lines of a magnet are similar or identical to those of a battery.

I hope this clarifies the fairly vague statements I made on the subject before.

[Charlie_V]

So yes, you are right that the field geometry and orientation of a capacitor and a magnet
are different, but it seems to me that you forgot to take into account that a magnet and
a capacitor are not actually equivalent. A magnet is much more like a battery than it is
like a capacitor, and the field lines of a magnet are similar or identical to those of a battery.

Well not exactly.  Check these websites out (both wikipedia). 

Magnetic Field:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Solenoid.svg

Electric Field:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Electric_dipole_field_lines.svg

They have a good picture, I couldn't post them here because of the 50KB limit.  These show the differences between the electric and magnetic field very well.  They are using a coil instead of permanent magnet, but the permanent magnet will be the same.

A battery is like a capacitor except the the charge is being generated chemically.  You are correct that there is an electric field on the inside that goes in the opposite direction of the outside field.  However it is a double layer, the E-field in the opposite direction is way smaller in magnitude than the electric fields at the double boundry layer of the metals.  These are in the same direction as the outside E-Field.  The E-field configuration of a magnet is slightly different from a capacitor, but it is still totally different from a magnet (since the magnet's field makes a circle - check out the websites.)  I drew all the fields inside a battery.  Again, from the electrodes' perspective, the internal E-field is the same as that of the outside.

[Koen1]

Dude, read what I wrote again and you will see
that what I say is exactly what the battery drawing also
shows, and what those websites say.


On the flux capacitor thing, I think I may have put the "N" and "S"
in the wrong places...

The entire point is that a battery is not at all a capacitor, because of
the active region between the "poles" where the "free electrons" are
originally generated by galvanic reaction.
A capacitor does not have such an active region, it only has passive field lines.
Similarly a magnet cannot be compared to a capacitor, but is much more
like a battery, because it also has an active region between the "poles" there
the "flux" is generated (by the magnetic material).
A magnetic equivalent of a capacitor as in a component that stores flux,
even though one does not exist in reality, should theoretically also lack
such an active region and only have passive field lines.
In both the magnet and the battery the field lines have a similar or identical
pattern, and so do they in both the electric and the magnetic capacitor.
Please. Trust me.

[GeoscienceStudent]

I'm beginning to think we should rename this post to "Student Tutoring"