This is pretty old but do you think theres any truth to it? just to clarify i am NOT interested in peoples views on the whole conspiracy theory or the alleged threats made toward this guy, i am also not interested in anyones uncles grandmas cat that got killed in mysterious circumstances when they discovered one either, i am only interested in peoples views on the actual monopole itself.
http://pesn.com/2004/06/05/HighEnergyMagneticMonopole/
Sort of.
Quotei am also not interested in anyones uncles grandmas cat that got killed in mysterious circumstances
Well then.....
That disqualifies most of us from responding to your post. Thanks alot!
TS
well this was actually a two pronged post. the first prong was obvious. the 2nd was to see how many people responded considering i said i didnt want any responses about consipracies etc.
quite amusing.
@doug
sort of?! thats barely a sentence nevermind response lmao :P
Well, there's your problem. Your post has prongs on it.
But then, so do monoples.
TS
Is there anywhere I can find out more about this magnetic monopole concept without reading all that junk about
government suppression?
I want to know more about it, I don't quite understand what a magnetic monopole is supposed to be.
Or how to make use of one once it is constructed.
hello GestaltO,
The person involved in your link, James Fauble has been a member here since 2005 (though was active till last year).
His member name is BushWacker on this Forum.
His topic is here on Harmonic Oscillating Power Electric Generator: http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=358.0
Unfortunately, his claims proved to be exagarated as far as I could conclude.
I did not know about his monopole magnetic materials: The materials of which I am referring, were (high energy magnetic monopole materials) with resistive forces of at least 10 to 20 tons per square meter x 1/4" thickness.).
If such materials already really exist, then it is not a mere unluck we have no any news on them. Hopefully sometimes in the future we shall learn and use them... But if they do not exist, then hopefully further research can create such materials.
rgds, Gyula
oh cool, thanks Gyula.
@abbarue
best bet is to type in magnetic monopole into google. wikipedia has some relevant information too.
Basically a magnetic monopole is a magnet with only one pole.
imagine if you cut a bar magnet in two direct in the center and instead of getting two smaller dipole(north and south) magnets you got 2 monopole magnets 1 south and 1 north. the effect would be that the north monopole magnet would repel other north sides of any magnet however it would not attract the south pole of a magnet as any dipole magnet would.
the uses are many, but mainly that you could construct a generator very very simply using only magnets to propel it making a true perpetual motion device.
Quote from: GestaltO on November 09, 2008, 02:34:10 PM
oh cool, thanks Gyula.
@abbarue
best bet is to type in magnetic monopole into google. wikipedia has some relevant information too.
Basically a magnetic monopole is a magnet with only one pole.
imagine if you cut a bar magnet in two direct in the center and instead of getting two smaller dipole(north and south) magnets you got 2 monopole magnets 1 south and 1 north. the effect would be that the north monopole magnet would repel other north sides of any magnet however it would not attract the south pole of a magnet as any dipole magnet would.
the uses are many, but mainly that you could construct a generator very very simply using only magnets to propel it making a true perpetual motion device.
You really don't need or want a monopole magnet. The common magnet with a North and South pole is what you need. A North pole by itself is useless without a South pole to seek. A South pole is useless by itself without a North pole to seek.
Consider this analogy.
Imagine, having only a positive terminal of a battery or power supply. Then expecting to run an electromagnet with it that has two wires (one plus, the other minus). It is about the same thing.
QuoteBasically a magnetic monopole is a magnet with only one pole.
Which is a misnomer of sorts, as such descriptor becomes wholly inadequate at the particle level. A magnetic field is a closed system of RH and LH spinning strings which maintain symmetry. Forcing a field separation breaks symmetry allowing a cascade of useful energy. This is what happens at EM induction in a field coil, with commensurate losses. Once one has proved to his or her satisfaction that the field model as taught at all levels of 'education' is incorrect and that virtual photon flow does not emanate from the N pole to the S pole but from both poles, each to the other.....more creative efforts may result.
Surely there's more than one way to "cut" field lines...
TS
@liberty
with respect you are incorrect 1 monopole magnet plus a dipole magnet has significant industrial merit with respect to perpetual motion generators.
@techstuff
i see your point however the earths magnetic field is not a standard 2 pole magnet and the effects of it suggest that its actually 2 monopole magnets, which would explain why they are bale to move independantly from one another.
also it's worth noting with regard to "permant" magnetic fields nothing has actually ever been "proven". it is a theory at the particle level based on observation and measurements of electromagnets. the theory in it's most basic from is that it comes from the orbits of the electrons. this may or may not be true.
Quote from: GestaltO on November 09, 2008, 06:25:17 PM
@liberty
with respect you are incorrect 1 monopole magnet plus a dipole magnet has significant industrial merit with respect to perpetual motion generators.
@techstuff
i see your point however the earths magnetic field is not a standard 2 pole magnet and the effects of it suggest that its actually 2 monopole magnets, which would explain why they are bale to move independantly from one another.
also it's worth noting with regard to "permant" magnetic fields nothing has actually ever been "proven". it is a theory at the particle level based on observation and measurements of electromagnets. the theory in it's most basic from is that it comes from the orbits of the electrons. this may or may not be true.
Perhaps I am incorrect, it wouldn't be the first time. But I use nature as a model to predict how other things might act and I find that it is often correct. A battery doesn't work with only one polarity. The potential is there but no current can flow without a difference in potential to flow to. The magnetic force operates in the same fashion. Without a difference in potential, there is no attraction or repulsion. If what techstuff says about the LH and RH spirals in a magnetic field are accurate, it would make sense that it is a closed loop due to a difference in potentials. It would also make logical sense that a monopole magnet would not exist in nature without an opposite potential to flow to. And if the opposite potential was available, it would be a closed loop system again, unless you could cause separation between magnets and harvest the energy before it meets it's other potential. (A conductor between magnets in motion resulting in an alternator or generator). It is possible to use EM induction to capture this potential between magnets, but we know that a change in magnetic field at the point of the conductor is necessary to cause this field separation resulting in EM induction power flow. It appears that power input is required to extract this energy.
If motion can occur without extra external energy input by the use of permanent magnets and their potential difference in the form of a motor, then this energy from magnets can be extracted and converted into electrical power by using a generator efficiently. This is the reason I have designed a permanent magnet motor instead of trying to just harvest the energy directly out of a permanent magnet closed loop system.
But if a monopole does exist, it would make things a bit easier.
Sort of was not ment to be vague.
I do not believe such a single material could be self supporting but that a series of conditions could by chance be arranged to mimic a dipole. Since some where on here there have been links to the study of magnetic fields and mapping of fields in 3-D imaging maybe some one ells can reference to those links. I can only recall the images for myself in my head. One image showed that both north and south poles are found on both sides but only one is dominant on each side which behaves as if each side is either north only or south only. This was predicted by Ed Leedskinin from his notes. The guy who built Coral Castle.
He also made a few devices like his permanent magnet holder. Which stores electric in the form of a magnetic field in a U shaped magnet with a bar across the ends of the U and the windings on each leg of U connected so as to allow the electric to flow around the coils to energize it or for the magnetic field to flow around the U by way of the cross bar until released which produced a current even after many months of sitting.
It had passed my thoughts at one time what use this might play in his mind and what the heck it could be used for in conjunction with his collection of stuff.
After looking at all the magnet mapping images for a number of hours I had to return to a task for which i was being payed. I was working on putting some materials together for sound proofing a loud electric motor.I was using the same method practiced in sound canceling headphones which use the incoming sound waves against themselves. In turn nullifying the noise. The thought i was having was why not do the same thing with a magnetic field from a permanent magnet but only to cancel the lesser component completely by trapping/blocking it and turning it back onto itself using an electro magnet. Then I would imagine the two remaining north's or south's would become additive. I also remember reading how to fields can not do that very easily and a bunch of models why and tons of over speak but that it could happen and had happened in one case but it had something to do with a cyclotron.
How ever they did not account for the information of the mapping and gave no consideration to the two Ns Sn being on the same ends of a field on a permanent magnet.
So if you know what Ed's PMH looks like imagine placing a donut shaped magnet on each leg of the U placing the bar back on top and energizing the coils. Maybe it it could trap the lesser in the coils draw from the conservation of energy law by thwarting the drag caused by the other wise un-noticed opposite but lessor field. I think what prevents a dipole is the other field but in nature or the vacuum it somehow cancels it out which we can not observe. This might also apply to the earth battery and the Hanz Cooler gizmo and another one I cant remember the name of it but it is a rod with a coil and a pipe with a coil over the rod and two of them feed each other some how but no one ever got it work.
Even a simple bifiller coil could be almost doing the same thing but it loses it by not maintaining a field long enough on the second wind. The back emf obviously has quite a bit of power but i do not think it actually needs a greater amount of power then the primary field since it is the lessor which is to be blocked. Maybe this obscure second opposing field keeps the magnet from flying apart or destroying itself.After all something must be providing a means by which it has a thresh hold limit other wise it would just keep growing as more material was added to it until it was able to suck in every bit of iron near by.
So yes ,sort of.
I also found some reading material on magnetic shielding by use of tiny particles of magnetic materials bound in a non conducting binder for emf fields associated with sensitive electronic circuits which is kind of on the same page but not the same use. they want to prevent stray voltages caused by inductive coupling. So I would have to think if you can get such a strong magnetic field from such a small amount of material as the first post points to in the link you would have to create a pure or nearly pure dipole like magnet.By some means you have to get rid of that pesky other field that acts like a honda civic dragging an empty dumpster.
QuoteWithout a difference in potential, there is no attraction or repulsion. If what techstuff says about the LH and RH spirals in a magnetic field are accurate, it would make sense that it is a closed loop due to a difference in potentials. It would also make logical sense that a monopole magnet would not exist in nature without an opposite potential to flow to. And if the opposite potential was available, it would be a closed loop system again, unless you could cause separation between magnets and harvest the energy before it meets it's other potential. (A conductor between magnets in motion resulting in an alternator or generator). It is possible to use EM induction to capture this potential between magnets, but we know that a change in magnetic field at the point of the conductor is necessary to cause this field separation resulting in EM induction power flow. It appears that power input is required to extract this energy.
If motion can occur without extra external energy input by the use of permanent magnets and their potential difference in the form of a motor, then this energy from magnets can be extracted and converted into electrical power by using a generator efficiently. This is the reason I have designed a permanent magnet motor instead of trying to just harvest the energy directly out of a permanent magnet closed loop system.
But if a monopole does exist, it would make things a bit easier.
You've a good headstart it seems, Liberty. Your thinking is nearing perpendicularity to accepted ideas....
Let us look at physical history for a moment:
The english language is permeated with curious etymology regarding the nature of physical reality. Various forms of the word "Spiral" are found from man's beginning to his end. He is born and begins respirating, He dies and expires, shuffling off his mortal coil. Even his word for all that is, Universe, simply means: 'Single Curve'. Nothing in this reality is truly straight.....and spiral/arcuate forms comprise the smallest of discernible matter, DNA, etc.....all the way up to Galaxies and beyond.
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.worldofstock.com%2Fslides%2FSMB1040.jpg&hash=21151f3c7257d1040526141fc0af35e50ef47cba)
Consider that each pole sends out bundles of flux quanta in spiral strings which, due in part to a kind of friction, stack up over one another, forcing an arcuate path until they can stitch themselves together in spiral fashion ad infinitum. 'Cutting' these strings with a variety of metal medium induces "eddy currents" for lack of a better term. Ask yourselves why the field models in the science halls are still being depicted in erroneous fashion....easily proven false by a number of elementary school level demonstrations?
Unfortunately, considering the egregious level of idiocracy being displayed by the powers that be, the amazingly simple revelation of free energy in the hands of greedy, cwhoreporate america would no doubt hyper accelerate our shared misfortune.
Blessings,
TS
hmmm interesting about everything in life being spiralled or curved. very astute observation...i like it ;)
I note that liberty stated about harnessing the energy from a magnet...i don't believe this can be done either the motor idea is the best we will get but like i previously stated a monopole is the way to do this perfectly. its 5am so i havent read ppoperly all your comments but i will tomorrow and post a more in depth reply.
Appreciate your responses guys. glad i came here. nice to have intelligent open minded conversations. thought i was insane til i joined here lol
Quote from: TechStuf on November 09, 2008, 11:00:49 PM
...the field models in the science halls are still being depicted in erroneous fashion....easily proven false by a number of elementary school level demonstrations?
like?
Quotelike?
Like.....the fact that N/N and S/S poles exhibit identical repulsion characteristics, for one. Ask your local physics professor how this fact is reasonably explained by the dumbed down collegiate model.
TS
I feel that magnetic lines of force spin on their axis.When magnetic lines repell each other their spins are opposite of each other.When they attract each other their spins are similar.Could it be that magnetic lines of force are a form of matter?Since they come from the atom anyway?
triffid
Sorry guys I need to work more on my theory.I made a better model today and can't explain what I found.Its not as easy as I thought!?!triffid
Quarks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark) are monopoles, they make up the neutrons and protons of an atom and they interact strongly with hard photons.
Eliyahu Comay, is an Israeli theoretical physicist, who published fundamental discoveries in the area of classical electrodynamics, quantum mechanics and particle physics. His main works contradict the Standard Model and did not receive worldwide acceptance.
Comay's model explains magnetic monopoles (quarks) using a basis which differs from Dirac's formulation, provides an alternative model for the strong force, has an alternative explanation of the Aharonov Bohm effect, explains the quantum states of Delta++ and Omega- without color force, explains the proton spin crisis, explains the hidden momentum, has mathematically shown how the higgs boson doesn't exist, easily explains many QCD contradictions, and has provided a proof that QCD has been constructed on an incorrect Basis.
The Regular Charge-Monopole Theory and Strong Interactions (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=filetype%3Apdf%20site%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.tau.ac.il%2F%7Eelicomay%2F&source=web&cd=10&ved=0CFwQFjAJ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tau.ac.il%2F%7Eelicomay%2FRCMT.pdf&ei=JB79Tuu7N4zsggej-qCvAg&usg=AFQjCNFS8nOdLiTxdGE6nt4YbRHb8Cr3gA&cad=rja)
Comay's website: http://www.tau.ac.il/~elicomay/ (http://www.tau.ac.il/%7Eelicomay/)
The Role of Magnetic Monopoles in Physics: http://www.tau.ac.il/~elicomay/mono.html (http://www.tau.ac.il/%7Eelicomay/mono.html)
Comay's model vs. Standard model: http://nohiggs.wordpress.com/2010/06/28/comay-model-vs-the-standard-model/ (http://nohiggs.wordpress.com/2010/06/28/comay-model-vs-the-standard-model/)
List of all publications indexed by google on Comay's website: http://www.google.com/search?q=filetype%3Apdf+site%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.tau.ac.il%2F~elicomay%2F&hl=en&biw=1012&bih=570&num=10&lr=&ft=i&cr=&safe=off&tbs= (http://www.google.com/search?q=filetype%3Apdf+site%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.tau.ac.il%2F%7Eelicomay%2F&hl=en&biw=1012&bih=570&num=10&lr=&ft=i&cr=&safe=off&tbs=)
Wiki - Eliyahu Comay: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliyahu_Comay (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliyahu_Comay)
Gravock
Quote from: gravityblock on December 29, 2011, 07:10:39 PM
Quarks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark) are monopoles, they make up the neutrons and protons of an atom and they interact strongly with hard photons.
...
Gravock
That's well researched Gravock. But there are also quarks assumed to be neutral. How do you explain that? And more to the point, particles can also be monopoles. And even more to the point a monopole is simply the absence of a single charge. That can be artificially engineered within a construction of magnets. The monopole is not at all elusive. It's just rather underused.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on December 30, 2011, 12:26:15 AM
That's well researched Gravock. 1.) But there are also quarks assumed to be neutral. How do you explain that? 2.) And more to the point, particles can also be monopoles. 3.) And even more to the point a monopole is simply the absence of a single charge. That can be artificially engineered within a construction of magnets. The monopole is not at all elusive. It's just rather underused.
1.) Could you please provide references to quarks being neutral.
2.) A quark is an elementary particle, so what is your point about
particles can also be monopoles?
3.) Please let me know how to artificially engineer a monopole within a construction of magnets. If you're referring to a Halbach array where one pole is external and the other pole is
mostly internal, then this isn't a magnetic monopole. If it directly interacts with an electric charge, then it's not a magnetic monopole.
Below is a brief summary of the results derived from Comay’s equations. For more information please see Unit 5 of "What's inside the Proton", which can be downloaded
here (http://www.overunity.com/downloads/sa/downfile/id/488/). For those who would like the complete version containing all of the Units, please send me a PM and I will send you the private download link.
An electric charge does not interact directly with a magnetic monopole. A photon interacts with both electric charge and magnetic monopole.
A spinning electric charge creates an axial magnetic dipole (according to Maxwell equations).
A spinning magnetic monopole creates an axial electric dipole (which is dual to the
previous point).
A magnetic monopole interacts with another magnetic monopole. It interacts with a
polar magnetic dipole but not with an axial magnetic dipole.
An electric charge interacts with another electric charge. It interacts with a polar
electric dipole but not with an axial electric dipole (which is dual to the previous
point).
The elementary unit of the monopole is a free parameter.
According to Comay’s theory, quarks carry one unit of a negative magnetic charge and anti-quarks have one unit of positive magnetic charge.
Gravock
It's taken me a day to get back here. Something's very wrong with Harti's new system.
Quote from: gravityblock on December 30, 2011, 09:19:12 AM
1.) Could you please provide references to quarks being neutral.
My dear Gravock, since you ask so nicely - by all means. The first point is this. With the possible exception of the 'up' quark - the existence of quarks has not been proved. They were postulated - I think by Murray Gell-Mann - to answer certain questions related to the profound structure of those more stable particles including the proton and the neutron. The proposal is that a combination of various quarks defined as 'up' 'down' 'pink' and so on - comprise the material of hadrons. Well. We know that the proton is positively charged in relation to the electron. We also know that the neutron - as its name suggests - is neutral - in relation to both the proton and the electron. Therefore either the combination of quarks comprising the neutron - is neutral - or the quarks themselves are neutral. The existence of a neutral potential is therefore both implicit and required. My own authority on this is the Quark and the Jaguar - written by Murray Gell-Mann. Very good reading. I would strongly recommend it.
Quote from: gravityblock on December 30, 2011, 09:19:12 AM
2.) A quark is an elementary particle, so what is your point about particles can also be monopoles?
A quark is NOT an elementary particle. A quark is a PROPOSED element within an elementary particle. But ALL particles are ELEMENTARY. By definition. I'm not sure of your point here. My reference to this is that stable particles - which ONLY include the proton, electron and the photon - are postive, negative and neutral - correspondingly. All three are ASSUMED to be monopoles? So? Why are you questioning this? I might add that all other known particles have a rather questionably relevant life spans. But they ALL fall into one of those charge categories. Therefore not only CAN they be monopoles - they actually ARE monopoles.
Quote from: gravityblock on December 30, 2011, 09:19:12 AM3.) Please let me know how to artificially engineer a monopole within a construction of magnets. If you're referring to a Halbach array where one pole is external and the other pole is mostly internal, then this isn't a magnetic monopole.
The Halbach array has NOTHING to do with a monopole. It's an arrangement of magnets designed to effect a perfectly neutral 'charge' condition - if I can use the term 'charge' in that context. And NO - I'm not about to detour this already confusing thread to a discussion of how to bury a second pole inside anything at all. But it most certainly is doable. And as for this...?
Quote from: gravityblock on December 30, 2011, 09:19:12 AMIf it directly interacts with an electric charge, then it's not a magnetic monopole.
What exactly do you mean? Does an electron interact with another electron? I think there's an acknowledged force of repulsion required by Pauli - which insight also formed the basis of our periodic table. So? On what do you base that extraordinary statement of yours? An electron itself is ASSUMED to be a magnetic monopole. AS IS A PROTON.
Quote from: gravityblock on December 30, 2011, 09:19:12 AM
An electric charge does not interact directly with a magnetic monopole.
This is the kind of statement that makes my toes curl. Define 'electric charge' and we can discuss this. I believe that the confusions of the standard model are such that there is the ASSUMPTION that electric charge comprises the flow of electrons. Sadly - that's a widely held assumption, which is also entirely FALLACIOUS.
Quote from: gravityblock on December 30, 2011, 09:19:12 AMA photon interacts with both electric charge and magnetic monopole.
IF photons interacted with electric charge then we would see light coming off every single wire carrying an electric current. Not sure that this is the case.
Quote from: gravityblock on December 30, 2011, 09:19:12 AMA spinning electric charge creates an axial magnetic dipole (according to Maxwell equations).
Maxwell was not even alive when the quark was proposed - is the first point. And what - in God's good name - is 'an axial magnetic dipole'? Or indeed an 'axial electric dipole'? And on and on. What is a 'polar magnetic dipole'? And what is a free parameter other than a license to speculate rather freely and somewhat illogically on anything at all. Which makes the the following statement 'the elementary unit of the monopole is a free parameter' - somewhat fanciful - at best.
Quote from: gravityblock on December 30, 2011, 09:19:12 AM
According to Comay’s theory, quarks carry one unit of a negative magnetic charge and anti-quarks have one unit of positive magnetic charge.
If, as you say, Comay's theory requires that ALL quarks are negatively charged - then there is NO WAY under God's Sun - that they can also form the parts of a proton. Assuming, obviously, that quarks exist at all.
Gravock - I am not sure that any of us are enlightened by any science that's presented without clear definitions. For starters - what is an electric current? Define that and then move on from there. Otherwise science tends to become somewhat absurdly pretentious - with respect. When one can seriously propose a little foray into 'free parameters' then surely our speculations are just rather nonsensical attempts at trying to sound just so awfully clever. Bamboozling by BS. I think we've all had a bellyful of this.
Regards,
Rosemary
Quote from: triffid on December 29, 2011, 06:16:09 PM
Sorry guys I need to work more on my theory.I made a better model today and can't explain what I found.Its not as easy as I thought!?!triffid
the spins lockup when they dissimilar, kinda like gears.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on December 30, 2011, 11:05:19 PM
It's taken me a day to get back here. Something's very wrong with Harti's new system.
My dear Gravock, since you ask so nicely - by all means. The first point is this. With the possible exception of the 'up' quark - the existence of quarks has not been proved. They were postulated - I think by Murray Gell-Mann - to answer certain questions related to the profound structure of those more stable particles including the proton and the neutron. The proposal is that a combination of various quarks defined as 'up' 'down' 'pink' and so on - comprise the material of hadrons.
Quarks were introduced as parts of an ordering scheme for hadrons, and there was little evidence for their physical existence until deep inelastic scattering experiments at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center in 1968.
All six flavors of quark have since been observed in accelerator experiments; the top quark, first observed at Fermilab in 1995, was the last to be discovered. (Reference: Quarks-wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark)). Since it's obvious you don't read the references I include in my posts, then I have included a snapshot of the wiki page below.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on December 30, 2011, 11:05:19 PMA quark is NOT an elementary particle. A quark is a PROPOSED element within an elementary particle. But ALL particles are ELEMENTARY. By definition. I'm not sure of your point here. My reference to this is that stable particles - which ONLY include the proton, electron and the photon - are postive, negative and neutral - correspondingly. All three are ASSUMED to be monopoles? So? Why are you questioning this? I might add that all other known particles have a rather questionably relevant life spans. But they ALL fall into one of those charge categories. Therefore not only CAN they be monopoles - they actually ARE monopoles.
A quark is an elementary particle and a fundamental constituent of matter. Quarks combine to form
composite particles called hadrons, the most stable of which are protons and neutrons, the components of atomic nuclei. Not all particles are considered elementary by definition. Protons and neutrons are by
definition considered to be composite particles. (Reference: Quarks-wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark)). See image below.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on December 30, 2011, 11:05:19 PM
Maxwell was not even alive when the quark was proposed - is the first point. And what - in God's good name - is 'an axial magnetic dipole'? Or indeed an 'axial electric dipole'? And on and on. What is a 'polar magnetic dipole'? And what is a free parameter other than a license to speculate rather freely and somewhat illogically on anything at all. Which makes the the following statement 'the elementary unit of the monopole is a free parameter' - somewhat fanciful - at best.
If, as you say, Comay's theory requires that ALL quarks are negatively charged - then there is NO WAY under God's Sun - that they can also form the parts of a proton. Assuming, obviously, that quarks exist at all.
I said, "A spinning electric charge creates an axial magnetic dipole (according to Maxwell equations)." This statement is in regards to electric charges, which has nothing to do with Maxwell being alive or not when the quarks were first proposed. Rose, I know you have bad eyesight, but your reading comprehension is even worst.
An axial magnetic dipole is created when electric charges move in a loop or when an electrically charged particle has a spin. Two dipoles apply forces on one another. The direction of the force depends on the exact setup of the dipoles and it generally does not coincide with the line connecting them. This kind of force is called a “tensor forceâ€. (Reference: "What's inside the proton (http://www.overunity.com/downloads/sa/downfile/id/489/)", page 105) Again, you obviously didn't read this reference I provided in my earlier post. If you had, then you wouldn't be asking these questions.
A polar electric dipole is created when two opposite electric charges are positioned one next
to the other and the sum of the charges vanishes. When observed from a distance, the electric
charges of two objects nearly cancel each other out and they behave similarly to an axial
dipole. (Reference: "What's inside the proton (http://www.overunity.com/downloads/sa/downfile/id/489/)", page 105) See attached image below (For those who refuse to take a look at the publication itself).
Therefore, just as an electrically charged, spin 1â,,2 electron creates an axial magnetic dipole, the magnetically charged spin 1â,,2 quark creates an axial electric dipole. Based on the equations Comay developed, the quarks carrying the monopoles do not apply an electrical force directly on the electric charges. It is rather the force exerted by one axial electric dipole on another. That is to say, protons and neutrons can be considered as axial electric dipoles exerting tensor force on one another.
I never said, "Comay's theory requires that ALL quarks be negatively charged". Where did I say this? This is what I said. I said, "quarks carry one unit of a negative
magnetic charge and anti-quarks have one unit of positive
magnetic charge." You're confusing the quark's electrical charge with the quark's magnetic charge. I clearly made the distinction between magnetic and electrical charges in my statement.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on December 30, 2011, 11:05:19 PMGravock - I am not sure that any of us are enlightened by any science that's presented without clear definitions. For starters - what is an electric current? Define that and then move on from there. Otherwise science tends to become somewhat absurdly pretentious - with respect. When one can seriously propose a little foray into 'free parameters' then surely our speculations are just rather nonsensical attempts at trying to sound just so awfully clever. Bamboozling by BS. I think we've all had a bellyful of this.
Regards,
Rosemary
Rose, It seems that in order to support your convictions, you tend to ignore facts that do not go smoothly with your own model. For starters - Don't reply to my posts if you haven't read the references submitted while being open-minded, even if they may go against your own model. You're the one who is trying to bamboozle and hoodwink everyone with your BS model. The science I presented does have clear definitions (You would have known this if you had actually read Comay's work or the references I provided).
Let's settle this issue. Here's a link to all of the Units contained in the publication titled, "What's inside the Proton (http://www.overunity.com/downloads/sa/downfile/id/489/)"(Complete Version), and you read it all the way through. Then we'll both be on the same page and can have a rational discussion without all of the BS. If you want clear definitions and terms, then read the publications and references provided. If not, then don't reply to my postings.
Thanks,
Gravock
Hello Gravock
What an interesting post. Delighted to see that you've done some research. And just a tad concerned that you've not mentioned the 'monopole' which was, after all, our bone of contention. If I didn't know better I'd be inclined to think that you were seriously attempting to duck the issue.
I had no idea that those quarks had all be found. Golly. But nor am I that impressed. And. Come to think of it - I should have guessed at this. There are absolutely NO particles that have been postulated that have NOT been subsequently DISCOVERED. It was a source of some considerable embarrassment amongst some of our greats. When one such was discovered - about the 210th - Pauli famously asked 'who ordered that?'. lol. It was then referred to as the particle zoo. The point is this. The particle accelerators rely on the forceful impact of one or more particles against another or more - in order to disturb them and see what, if anything, comes out of the mix. My own contention - for what it's worth - is that as a result of that impact, they are also disturbing the hidden particles in a magnetic field. Theoretically therefore, there are an infinite number of potential emanations of these particles within the field. But, with the exception of our stable particles, they all decay back into 'the void'. So. By and large - I'm actually not that impressed. This method of analysis is as crude as firing a double barreled shot gun at an ant to determine it's atomic structure - or bombing an elephant to determine it's skeletal structure. Just a tad inappropriate. But that's just my own opinion. As always, there's the outside chance that I may very well be wrong.
Regarding your reference to hadrons as composite particles. I know this. I've already mentioned it. I'm glad to see that you took the trouble to check out the fact. And I think you're right. Technically the proton and neutron are both hadrons.
And regarding your statement that my 'reading comprehension' is somehow impaired. I'm sure you're right. If the concept of an axial magnetic dipole is enshrined in the tomes of wiki - then - unquestionably, it MUST be acknowledged as part of the standard model. Who am I to gainsay wiki. Same goes for a 'polar electric dipole'. Again. If I didn't know better I'd have thought that Comay - like so many of you - are desperately trying to make sense of the evidence of a dual charge potential in electric current flow. My own proposal is simply to use a magnetic dipole in the magnetic field. But I realise that such a solution is way too simple.
And here's where you reference Comay's proposal that a proton comprises anti matter.
Quote from: gravityblock on December 30, 2011, 09:19:12 AM
According to Comay’s theory, quarks carry one unit of a negative magnetic charge and anti-quarks have one unit of positive magnetic charge.
Gravock
Gravock. It's as meaningless - to me - as saying that an elementary unit of the monopole is a free parameter. Just a jumble of clever sounding terms 'signifying nothing'. I am tired, really tired, of reading ever more complex explanations for the abundance of questions posed by ... so much - in physics. The more so as most of these questions are comprehensively answered by using nothing more than Faraday's lines of force. It's pretentious nonsense. But. Who am I to argue? I get it. I really do NOT have the qualifications to comment. And it is very unlikely that I have any solutions. But spare me that nonsense about a quark's electric OR magnetic charge. (edit) Please. If that's what Comway's proposing based on an analysis of the spin of a quark - then it seems that all and sundry can propose anything they want - WITHOUT DEFINITION - in a veritable orgy of free association. Sorry. I think the term is 'free parameters'.
Quote from: gravityblock on December 31, 2011, 10:23:12 AM
Rose, It seems that in order to support your convictions, you tend to ignore facts that do not go smoothly with your own model.
I am not sure that I made any reference at all to my model. SO. I'm also not sure that the following statement is justified.
Quote from: gravityblock on December 31, 2011, 10:23:12 AM
For starters - Don't reply to my posts if you haven't read the references submitted while being open-minded, even if they may go against your own model. You're the one who is trying to bamboozle and hoodwink everyone with your BS model. The science I presented does have clear definitions (You would have known this if you had actually read Comay's work or the references I provided).
But if it helps you to rant. Feel free. And as for this...
Quote from: gravityblock on December 31, 2011, 10:23:12 AM
Let's settle this issue. Here's a link to all of the Units contained in the publication titled, "What's inside the Proton (http://www.overunity.com/downloads/sa/downfile/id/489/)"(Complete Version), and you read it all the way through. Then we'll both be on the same page and can have a rational discussion without all of the BS. If you want clear definitions and terms, then read the publications and references provided. If not, then don't reply to my postings.
I'll pass - if you don't mind Gravock. If your wiki references are anything to go by - then I'm not sure of the authority.
Kindest regards, and happy new year
Rosemary
EDITED 'or'
AND TOMBS TO TOMES, Not sure that 'tombs' wouldn't have been more appropriate.
Quote from: triffid on December 29, 2011, 01:01:34 AM
I feel that magnetic lines of force spin on their axis.When magnetic lines repell each other their spins are opposite of each other.When they attract each other their spins are similar.Could it be that magnetic lines of force are a form of matter?Since they come from the atom anyway?
triffid
And triffid - for the record. I'm with you on this one. I think you're bang on.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Rose,
Condemnation before investigation is folly. You condemn Comay's model without investigating his work. What a way to be, lol.
Gravock
My dear Gravock,
I'll be more than happy to approve any theory that endorses a magnetic field comprising the material property of magnetic dipoles that moved at 2C and that are responsible for all the forces. Until then - I'll simply depend on my own thesis. It has the dubious merit of being a self-consistent argument, the unarguable merit of NOT conflicting with the standard model - and the supreme merit of being experimentally evident. At this stage all it lacks for wide acceptability is the ENTIRE LACK of confusing, pretentious and obscure terminologies. And, of course, its promulgation by some well educated young man, as opposed to an entirely ignorant old woman. ;D
Regards, again
Rosemary
My workings of the 'repel' side of magnet.
Rose,
If you won't study or even entertain Comay's model in the least bit, then by what authority does this give you to make a rational comment either for or against his model? IMO, absolutely 0. You are way out-of-bounds.
Gravock
Quote from: gravityblock on January 01, 2012, 01:12:39 AM
Rose,
If you won't study or even entertain Comay's model in the least bit, then by what authority does this give you to make a rational comment either for or against his model? IMO, absolutely 0. You are way out-of-bounds.
Gravock
lol. Gravock - when you're God then you can tell me what I may or may not comment on or by what authority I can comment at all. Until then I think I'm entitled to the usual rights of 'freedom of expression'. It is my considered opinion that anyone who proposes that the proton comprises anti matter is entirely MISTAKEN. Quite apart from which I find those analyses fraught with confusing and ill defined terminologies. Added to which, I'm not sure that I'm under any obligation to either study or believe in the absurd postulates and posturings of anyone at all - least of all those recommended by you. Any more than you're obliged to study my own thesis. And more to the point. This thread is TRIFFID's. Give the guy a BREAK. I think we've monopolised this discussion for way too long. It really is interesting to read Triffid's posts. On so many levels. Let's get back on topic.
And triffid. Abject apologies. I will - as Loner puts it - go back to 'lurking'. I've been dipping into this thread for a while now. It really intrigues me.
Regards,
Rosemary
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on January 01, 2012, 01:29:15 AM
lol. Gravock - when you're God then you can tell me what I may or may not comment on or by what authority I can comment at all. Until then I think I'm entitled to the usual rights of 'freedom of expression'. It is my considered opinion that anyone who proposes that the proton comprises anti matter is entirely MISTAKEN. Quite apart from which I find those analyses fraught with confusing and ill defined terminologies. Added to which, I'm not sure that I'm under any obligation to either study or believe in the absurd postulates and posturings of anyone at all - least of all those recommended by you. Any more than you're obliged to study my own thesis. And more to the point. This thread is TRIFFID's. Give the guy a BREAK. I think we've monopolised this discussion for way too long. It really is interesting to read Triffid's posts. On so many levels. Let's get back on topic.
And triffid. Abject apologies. I will - as Loner puts it - go back to 'lurking'. I've been dipping into this thread for a while now. It really intrigues me.
Regards,
Rosemary
The keyword you conveniently left out is "rational" along with overlooking the conditional "if" at the beginning of the statement I made in my previous post. How can you make a
rational comment on Comay's model in which you haven't studied? You can't. This is why you need some kind of authority in order to make rational comments on something in which you know nothing of. Is God writing your posts for you? Case Closed! You're free to express your ignorance if you like, but this does the forum no good. I think most will agree with this.
Gravock
Quote from: poynt99 on January 01, 2012, 12:25:30 PM
Indeed. :)
.99
Hello Poynty. :D
And a Happy New Year to you too.
How can you seriously propose I'm in love with Harvey when I'm entirely in love with you??? Here's another little tribute I've composed in your honour.
Enjoy.
Rosie Posie
:D ;D :-*
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2011/12/217.html