Faraday's Paradox experiment

[gravityblock]

@Gravityblock
I did not mean to offend you and I did not mean to attack you personally and if I did then I am sorry, I did however intend to criticize the validity of your experiment. I hope you can understand my point, I only ask that you consider the experiments that I have performed and outlined in my second last post in relation to the one you posted on youtube. You can then decide which experiments you believe would give a more accurate result, Im not here to offend you or tell you what to believe I am just stating what I know as fact, that is my opinion.
As well what I have stated as my opinion in regards to magnetic fields is based on the work of Ampere,Faraday,Maxwell,Tesla,Einstein,Feynman and others who have stated that there are no lines of force in reality. Ampere and Maxwell went so far as to state that the magnetic field should be considered as completely independent of the source magnet however any external force applied to the field must translate back to that source. My experiments were simply a continuation of this concept as well as the Faraday Paradox and I personally found that the magnetic field does not rotate.
I would also like to make the point that your difference of opinion with mine is not a bad thing in any way and the more people who are willing to openly debate the issues and question the validity of things the better. I can only hope that my posts may raise enough curiosity in people that they do the experiments for themselves to prove the matter for themselves as that is the only way real progress is made.
Regards
AC

You're still trying to prove to me that there are no lines of force in reality, even after I corrected that issue just to satisfy you.  In reality Shylo used that term, so I used the same term that I knew he was familiar with. As far as I am concerned, I don't care if someone uses, "lines of force", "tubes of force", "magnetic field", "field lines", "field", "B-field", etc. If my memory serves me correctly, then I believe some of the people highlighted in bold above used the terms "tubes of force" or "lines of force".  I know what the hell they are talking about regardless of which words they choose to convey their thoughts with.  One phrase doesn't make it anymore or anyless of a reality than any of the other phrases. You started your first post to me with, "I mean no offense but.......", and now you want to apologize. LOL.  I would accept your apology if I knew you were sincere and it wasn't done intentionally, but I just don't see how you could be sincere when you knew I would be offended to begin with.

GB

[argona369]

Faraday waves.
Though 2d this can easily be converted to 3d (spherical),,

"Couder’s group reports its most startling discovery. If the vibrating fluid bath is also rotating, a walking droplet will lock into an orbit determined by the troughs of its wave. The notion that a subatomic particle has only a few allowed orbital states is called “quantization,” the very phenomenon that gives quantum mechanics its name."
http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-10-fluid-dynamics-insights-quantum-mechanics.html


On this you tube you can see a stable hole, which took energy to create,
Think of quantum foam for the cornstarch. A wave set , stationary in the Dirac sea.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVkjP5d6ulc


Magnetism is a pseudo force of  moving charge.
Imagine a electron  (a charge carrier, but not a charge btw) passing you, it forms a magnetic field,
But if you could run along/beside the electron, ? No magnetic field.

Btw , magnetic fields are “disconnected” from magnets. The distortion in in space/time and frame
Like dragging a stick through mud perhaps..

Cliff,

[gravityblock]

@Gravityblock
I would disagree, in physics it is well known that these lines of force are imaginary and used only as a form of notation. That is they do not exist in reality and are simply a magnetic phenomena which misled many people in the past. Here is an experiment, take two iron rods and place them under a magnetic north pole and you will find a south pole is induced in each rod thus they repel one another. Next move one rod downward in relation to the other and you will find at some point they will attract thus we see the real reason why the iron filing experiment has misled so many people. The lines of supposed force depicted by the iron filings experiment are not real lines of force they are a simple magnetic phenomena associated with the iron filings themselves. That is the forces of attraction and repulsion tend to form lines in ferromagnetic materials due to the nature of the material and not the source of the field.
In physics the magnetic field is known as a scalar field gradient which has a magnitude at any given point, a force, but no direction intrinsic to each point. If you look at it like water pressure I think it will make much more sense, water pressure is a gradient intrinsic to each point in the gradient and the force applied to it.
Regards
AC

The iron filing experiment is showing the effects of the H-Field and not the B-Field. So what's your point?  The B-Field isn't real because the phenomena is associated with the iron filings themselves?  Just because the phenomena is associated with the iron filings themselves, doesn't make the H-Field, B-Field, lines of force, or whatever the **** anymore or anyless real. LOL

GB

[gravityblock]

When you put a train on circular track with a circumference of the train's length. And install speakers on each wagon which all emit the same sound and turn them on. If you close your eyes you won't tell if the train is moving or not. From the outside this looks like a static phenomena just due to the superposition fact. But when you are on the wagon you clearly see the sound waves being emitted by each speaker separately and they are clearly moving with the source. Because if the train was on a straight track the sound would increase when as the train passes and fade out when it goes farther into the distance.

Just because it looks "stationary" doesn't mean it is. Yes we can say it has the same effect on our ear as if it were stationary but we can't conclude from that that it actually is stationary. I think this has a fancy mathematical name, paradoxical deduction?

I agree.  Well said.

GB

[gravityblock]

@allcanadian,

Although for many purposes it is convenient to think of a magnet as having distinct north and south magnetic poles, the concept of poles should not be taken literally: it is merely a way of referring to the two different ends of a magnet. The magnet does not have distinct north or south particles on opposing sides, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnet#Two_models_for_magnets:_magnetic_poles_and_atomic_currents

As you can see, there is no such thing as North and South poles in reality either, just like there is no such thing as "lines of force" in reality.  How can we say that a north pole will attract a south pole, if the north and south poles do not exist in reality.  Does this mean there is no attraction because the north or south poles aren't real?  Of course not.

GB