Faraday's Paradox experiment

[KWP]

From what I read on the paper, it looked to be quite accurate to me.
Usually some of the cases are left out, but this paper covered them all and the same thing is always true. If it generates a current flow then there is an opposing force generated also.

Some of the things discussed in the paper are accurate.  The best way to tell a lie, is to dress it up in half-truths.

[gravityblock]

Hi guys. Here's my tuppence worth.  I think that ohmage values relates to the resistance of a metallic structure.  I have not been able to measure any ohmage on any of my permanent ferrite magnets.  Not even when I line them up in a 'string'.  They're all small disc structures so the string is effectively an 8 guage wire. But I COULD measure an ac voltage.  Therefore I would conclude that if resistance is zero and voltage is greater than zero then- no matter WHAT I do, I will not extrapolate usable energy from the magnets themselves.  Unless I apply heat - in which case I destroy the magnetised condition of the structure.

However.  When the magnet induces a magnetic field in juxtaposed inductive/conductive materials - then I can definitely measure a voltage and most inductive/conductive materials have an associated ohmage value.  Therefore if resistance is greater than zero and if there's a measurable voltage then I can get usable energy from that structure. 

The difference between the two structures is perhaps this.  The atomic 'domains' in a permananet magnet are fixed and do not correspond to the flux lines extruded from the magnet.  In magnetisable material they are not fixed and they do correspond.  Since - unlike the permanent magnet - the inductive/conductive material is able to generate heat then I would conclude that ohmage and heat are related.  But it first requires the application of changing magnetic fields which is managed by turning a rotor with attached magnets - for instance.  This varies the material structure of the induced field.  It does not vary the structure of the permanent magnet.

The question then is what is the property of Ohmage that also allows for this heat?  I would propose that it is related to the crystalline structure of that inductive/conductive material and that it is a measure of the organised or disorganised  state of its crystalline abodes.  The more disorganised the greater the consequent heat.  Inductive material is more disorganised than conductive.  Therefore inductive will generate greater heat than conductive.

The relevance to this is that the extruded magnetic fields in conductive/inductive material - that result from proximity to permanent magnets is then related to that crystralline structure.  And this is what actually determines the usuable properties of Inductive Laws.  Magnets of themselves are not usable.  Magnetisable materials are also - by themselves not usable.  It requires an interaction of both - and, more to the point, the 'breaking' of those flux lines in that magnetisable material - which is measured as voltage - to generate anything usable. 

Therefore.  Inductive Laws require the application of both permanent and induced flux to generate work.  And magnet on magnet interactions from two or more permanent magnets do NOT result in an electromagnetic interaction precisely because there is no discernable resistance in the material structures of either magnets.  They conjoin at an angle of 180 degrees - but any variation to that angle of interaction allows for a complete break in their conjoined lines.  This much evident in GB's tests.  This may induce a marginal positional adjustment in space - of the entire magnet.  But it will invariably  then default to a preferred 'joined' state as allowed and subject to vagaries of their positions in space.

In as much as the magnetic field from a permanent magnet does not rely on a continued electric interaction, therefore is there the possibility that a magnetic field can be seen as a fundamental force existing without the application of an electric field.  And a continued electromagnetic interaction relies on a flux that is changing its position in space.  Else - without that changing position of flux - the material interaction defaults to a preferred 'rest state'.  Interestingly the angle of interaction at 180 degrees determines a magnet on magnet interaction.  An interaction at 90 degrees determines an electromagnetic interaction.   

That's my tuppence worth.   Sorry it's a bit ponderous.
Regards,
Rosemary

Very well said.

GB

[KWP]

Nikola Tesla -- "Experiments with Alternate Currents of Very High Frequency and Their Application to Methods of Artificial Illumination" -- (Delivered before the American Institute of Electrical Engineers, Columbia College, N.Y., May 20, 1891):

"""
...
About fifteen, years ago, Prof. Rowland demonstrated a most interesting and important fact; namely, that a static charge carried around produces the effects of an electric current. Leaving out of consideration the precise nature of the mechanism, which produces the attraction and repulsion of currents, and conceiving the electrostatically charged molecules in motion, this experimental fact gives us a fair idea of magnetism. We can conceive lines or tubes of force which physically exist, being formed of rows of directed moving molecules; we can see that these lines must be closed, that they must tend to shorten and expand, etc. It likewise explains in a reasonable way, the most puzzling phenomenon. of all, permanent magnetism, and, in general, has all the beauties of the Ampere theory without possessing the vital defect of the same, namely, the assumption of molecular currents. Without enlarging further upon the subject, I would say, that I look upon all electrostatic, current and magnetic phenomena as being due to electrostatic molecular forces.
...

"""

Since the Earth is both rotating and revolving around the sun, and simultaneously the solar system is moving towards the constellation Leo, we have to assume that all charges have magnetic fields.

Imagine if you will, a sole electron traveling through space-- it will have a magnetic field.  That field, would look like concentric rings (like when you drop a pebble in a pond), but since the electron is moving, and it takes time for the ripples to expand out, the ripples would follow more a cone-shape that follows behind the electron (much like the wake of a boat traveling in the water, but in 3 dimensions).

Now, in your mind, create another electron that is traveling a parallel course-- say separated by 1 millimeter from the first electron.  The second electron also has magnetic-wake following behind it.  But, in this case, the magnetic ripples will have a tendency to combine together-- so the cone-shape is a sequence of ever-larger ellipses rather than a sequence of ever-larger circles.

Now, in this same thought experiment, add even more electrons-- maybe thousands of them-- all traveling in the same direction, and all very close to each other.  These will produce an even more powerful magnetic-wake behind the group of electrons.

Now, imagine a string of electrons traveling in the same direction-- while each electron will have a cone-shaped "magnetic wake", to an outside observer it appears as though there are only concentric rings around the line of electrons.  This is what we might measure as a "magnetic field" around a wire.  If we form that wire into a coil, the individual magnetic wakes constructively combine in a manner that we see as the magnetic field, complete with "lines of force" [LOF]-- a pattern that can be shown with ferro-fluid or iron filings.

Now, imagine a permanent magnet, that has a lot of unpaired charges, and these charges are all revolving around a very tiny circle.  Each unpaired charge will produce a corresponding magnetic field, and when you combine billions and billions of them (aligned in the same direction), the individual fields combine in a manner that creates what we see as the total magnetic field.  The individual ripples (or LOF) combine constructively in such a manner that they appear to bunch together into LOF that are so large that we humans can actually see them with the aid of ferro-fluid or iron-filings.  So, the LOF (which are only ripples in the aether) are no longer "tied to" or "associated with" the individual unpaired charges that originally created them.

So, [and this is where I am going with this], the magnetic field is only 3-dimensional "ripples" in the aether-- and once the ripples are created, they continue on as an entity of their own-- expanding out into infinity until they become so small that they are no longer measurable or significant.  If you turn an electron on the axis in which it is traveling, there is no reason to believe that the magnetic-wake that is following it will also turn.  The magnetic field of a permanent magnet is nothing more than the combined "wake" (in the aether), with the "ripples" in the wake interfering constructively.  And now we get into the weirdness of quantum electrodynamics-- when you rotate a chunk of mass, the velocity of the electron whirling around the nucleus does not change-- (the angular velocity and orbital velocities of the individual particles in the atoms are preserved), so the individual atoms in the chunk of mass will not "rotate" at all, but they will translate around in a circular motion about the axis of rotation of the chunk of mass.  The same logic applies to an aggregate of billions and billions of unpaired charges as it does to a single free charge-- spinning the aggregate on the axis of charge revolution will not affect the magnetic-wake produced be each individual charge, and by extension the aggregate magnetic-wake will not be affected.  This is also true for the equivalent magnet made from a coil of wire with a current flowing in the wire-- rotating the coil of wire (or solenoid) on it's magnetic axis will also not affect the magnetic-wake that the coil of wire is creating in the aether.

[lumen]

So, [and this is where I am going with this], the magnetic field is only 3-dimensional "ripples" in the aether-- and once the ripples are created, they continue on as an entity of their own-- expanding out into infinity until they become so small that they are no longer measurable or significant.  If you turn an electron on the axis in which it is traveling, there is no reason to believe that the magnetic-wake that is following it will also turn.  The magnetic field of a permanent magnet is nothing more than the combined "wake" (in the aether), with the "ripples" in the wake interfering constructively.  And now we get into the weirdness of quantum electrodynamics-- when you rotate a chunk of mass, the velocity of the electron whirling around the nucleus does not change-- (the angular velocity and orbital velocities of the individual particles in the atoms are preserved), so the individual atoms in the chunk of mass will not "rotate" at all, but they will translate around in a circular motion about the axis of rotation of the chunk of mass.  The same logic applies to an aggregate of billions and billions of unpaired charges as it does to a single free charge-- spinning the aggregate on the axis of charge revolution will not affect the magnetic-wake produced be each individual charge, and by extension the aggregate magnetic-wake will not be affected.  This is also true for the equivalent magnet made from a coil of wire with a current flowing in the wire-- rotating the coil of wire (or solenoid) on it's magnetic axis will also not affect the magnetic-wake that the coil of wire is creating in the aether.

So then, if the magnetic field generated by the moving electron is separate in space from the electron, how can the same electron be moved by another magnetic field?

[KWP]

So then, if the magnetic field generated by the moving electron is separate in space from the electron, how can the same electron be moved by another magnetic field?

The same way a surfer rides a big wave on the ocean.  The magnetic fields can destructively or constructively interfere, but because the charge is affected by the field, they tend to "meld together" in mutual constructive interference.  If you go back to the two electrons in space thought experiment, you will immediately realize that the two electrons (both being negatively charged) want to push each other apart due to the electric field-- but the magnetic-wave action between the two electrons wants to push the electrons together-- so there is a battle, but some equilibrium is reached and maintained.  It's kind of difficult to put into words, but that is what I think may be happening...

It is highly likely that some kind if similar action is happening with electric fields, but they are orthogonal to magnetic fields, so an even more bizarre explanation will be needed to explain that.  Eric Dollard has a theory that there are no electric monopoles-- that all electric charges are connected to a companion charge (somewhere in the universe-- either very near or even far away)-- which can be easily accomplished by adding an extra dimension-- (the electric charges are connected together by what might be described as a wormhole).  If this is true, then the equations for the electric and magnetic fields in Maxwell's theory become symmetrical-- and I like that (symmetry is more simple and beautiful)...

This also might explain inertia-- as a mass (made of charges) is accelerated, a magnetic-wake is set up (which takes energy to make)-- but once set up, the frontal wave on the wake pushes the mass along (like the surfer in our analogy above).  Any change in velocity, orientation, or direction of the mass will have to fight against the frontal wave of the magnetic-wake, but once enough energy is input to the system to make the desired change, an equilibrium is reached, and the mass continues in the new direction (or velocity or orientation).  For this to be true, a neutral particle (like a neutron) would have to be made up of an electron and a proton-- but I don't know if this is the case-- I am not a theoretical particle physicist.  (It would be great if someone familiar with that world would chime in here).

I'm just thinking out loud here...