Magnet Myths and Misconceptions

[Newton II]

Dear Milehigh sir,

I appreciate your patience in replying to ignorant questions of ignorant people like me.

An ignorant person may think that head is full of ear wax which comes out of hoels in ears or it is full of mucus which comes out of holes in the nose (nostrils) just like water comes out of a pipe connected to a overhead tank.    There is nothing wrong in the logic.  But learned people like you should tell them that there is brain inside the head and these things come out of some other place.

I feel blessed if you consider me as your 'old' student, take pain in answering my ignorant questions and help me in getting rid of my ignorance.

1) When dirac spoke about 'anti matter' other scientists suggested psychiatric treatment for him. But later his theory  was proved
    experimentally.     When something called as 'anti matter' exists, what is wrong in thinking that corresponding 'anti-field' also exists? 

2) Lenz's drag (as mechanical force) comes into picture only when there is physical relative motion between coil and magnetic field. Since
    both coil and magnetic field are rotating along with sphere with no relative motion between them, there is no chance of lenz's drag (as
    mechanical force) in that scheme.   

3) The equation shown in the image - does it refer to a charge moving under the influence of electric potential (voltage) or it applies to a
    charge moving under the influence of a mechanical force also?   Please confirm.
 
    Sun is a huge positively charged sphere rotating on its own axis and completes one rotation in 26 days. Considering  the size of the sun,
    the velocity developed at its outer surface should be very high.    Does  sun  develope a huge  magnetic field  around it due to this
    motion or high temperature of sun prevents it from producing magnetic field?

4) I don't think that a moving charge under the influence of mechanical force developes a magnetic field at all. A rotating charged sphere
    developes kinetic energy due to its mass and not magnetic field.   Only a charge moving under the influence of electric potential
    developes a magnetic field.    Can you please clarify?

5) I don't see anything great in humans building bridges and skyscrapers becuase even birds and insects are capable of  building
    nests/hives to an engineering class just by intuition.  Intelligence in humans is also a form of intuition and they have to thank God for
    giving them that intuition.


             

[Turbo]

And yet, we "know it alls" (who don't actually pretend to know it "all" like you do) are able to use our "nothing" knowledge to engineer, build stuff, predict how it will work and see our predictions validated by experiment. Our knowledge allows us to observe, describe, control, and predict reality in a coherent, universally understood manner.

You are making a classical error in understanding here and for once i will point you to your error in understanding which is as follows:

To know how to use something is not necessarily the same as knowing how something works.

You can know how to drive a car without knowing how it actually works, as many do and luckily we got many great mechanics and engineers around that do know how a car works..

In dielectricity this is unfortunatly not so.

Yes you can predict how something will work and if you do the calculations correctly it will do that, but it is not the same as knowing what it actually does or how it produces your 'predicted' results there is a distinct difference and when you go into the territory outside of your predictions, your just speculating about what you think or what seems to be the best match according to your specific knowledge.

So in essence you draw on what you have learned and assume it to be correct, but you know verry well as i do that most people havent got a clue when it comes to the underlying phenomena.

That said i like to adress another point RE: The Kick wire
It is a bit sad to see you draw your set of conclusions on that one thing that is shown to you.
Do you really think that was the only experiment performed?
It was not and i think it's naieve to think that.
There were done many, many experiments including those related to 'bodily capacitance'
It is of utmost importance not to imediatly try to explain away something you observe by comparing it to your personal knowledge base simply because if your knowledge base is faulty, so will be your explenation.

In stead try to explain it from what is called the 'know nothing' state and you will receive the correct questions in stead of the faulty answers.

Go ahead, forget Ohm's Law and Maxwell's Equations and start over. When you can use YOUR idea of magnetism to design and build a CRT that can display an image... and that is somehow different than the ones we "know it alls" have designed... be sure to let me know. But I'm not going to hold my breath, waiting for you to put your words into actions, because I know that you cannot.

Go ahead, Turbo, educate us. Show us something that Steinmetz predicted that isn't completely covered by the standard modern theory of quantum electrodynamics. Be sure to include your YouTube video of the apparatus, and explain fully why the modern description of events isn't adequate or is wrong.

Again, I'd say there is a immerse difference between trying to explain something away by modern assumptions and what is really going on it is the most logical step to take the route that fits best but this does NOT mean it is therefore correct error, error.
It is wrong simply because what is really going on does not even come close to what is assumed that is going on how hard can it be to understand the fact that most people are not actually sure about what is going on and there is a rather large chance the applied theory could be wrong, or in the best, incorrect.
Moreover, many 'old' and forgotten experiments show and confirm this but no, old stuff can never be as advanced and correct as the latest ideas, right?
So as a result i would say that the old is even so more correct then the new, which actually shows the direction as to where we are heading.
And i am a pointer, not an educator i remind and point you to your errors and to these facts that once you leave the calculated part you are just guessing and bringing up fancy names doesn't help because they still end with 'theory' which is based on well you know what it means.
Comparing Steinmetz to modern quantum electrodynamics is like comparing a cow to a chicken i am not sure how you would do that.
Also i give you reference to people whom studied these areas of interest with a different view, a view that will force you to re think what you actually know thus by comparing what you know to what they left in their writings your view will be expanded, often in another direction and as a result, you will start to see different pictures, pictures you had not seen before.

I really do not know what to say in stead of the above and i am not interested in this or that discussions i only want the people to know that there are other sources with different probably more logical material available.
The funny thing is that if you go back in history you will find that people were actually closer to the beginning in the beginning but drifted away in the wrong direction so moving actually away from beginning to understand and well ending where we are at today which is basicly knowing how to make it work without knowing how it works its a visual circle actually an endless loop as we call it and unless we go back to fix our errors the questions remain the same. 

[minnie]

If you could explain what "dielectricity" actually is it would be a great help
  'cause I can't start understanding 'til I can master that one word.
    Many thanks,in anticipation,
                           John.

[Turbo]

Well John when it comes to the magnetic field we all seem to understand it has a fibrous structure.

Most have seen the magnet + iron fillings or even ferro fluids mark the shape of the field lines.
Mose have heard the Barkhausen snapping noise,
and most know about magnetic saturation. 

But when it comes to the dielectric part they all of a sudden start to speak in terms of 'charge' or 'potential difference'
How many know the actual structure of the dielectric field?
Look at a corona discharge or at a spark or lightning or the crackling noise when you wave your hand over a charged crt.
The dielectric field is also fibrous but it does not paint the same picture.
Magnetic field lines are closed whereas dielectric field lines are open.
What does this say about dielectric saturation?
How many people here work with dielectric fields in stead of endlessly waving coils past magnets, magnets past coils?

You know about the current carrying wire giving rise to a magnetic field, you know what happens to the magnetic field between two current carrying wires running in opposite direction.
But what do you know about the dielectric field that exists between these two wires?
Or between the dielectric (fibrous) field lines between the plates of a vacuum tube?

No then all of a sudden we start to mumble about charges and moving electrons ? 

So if they are both fibrous in nature then why does it have to be particles and charge in one and field lines in the other?
How about we swap them?
Magnetic particles and electron lines?
The magnetic cloud around a (hot) permanent magnet?

Why not just use lines of force for the both of them, closed magnetic lines, open dielectric lines, which have a certain influence on each other.
That's right, drop the electrons, from now it's only moving field lines open and closed forming interference patterns.
What can we do with that?

What happens with a hot piece of iron or magnet? loses strength? holds less field lines? Curie point?
We all know about that right.
The electron cloud around the hot cathode, what does it mean in terms of field lines? we dropped the electron remember.
More field lines? or less what can be said about the existence of a dielectric 'Curie' point?
Who knows ?
So what is assumed to be boiled off electrons, escaped into the electron cloud, less binding force surface electrons etc. may very well be something entirely different but at the same time something remarkably common when compared to it's magnetic lines of force brother, but just having a different pattern.
The vacuum cathode is a bad example just the dielectric field lines between two opposed charged insulated conductors will do.
Because you need  two. why? well open lines remember that means FROM - TO and not AROUND as in closed magnetic lines and that .......could actually mean something.

But they said " it doesn't do anything so let's throw it away".
Little could they know.
And now we are left only with the magnetic part, waving coils past magnets, magnets past coils..

And you are asking me to explain what it actually is whilst i am thinking, if Magnetic is field lines, if Dielectric is field lines, then what about Gravity? Fibrous structure or not? i mean we already got two that are.

I hope that will help you somehow.

There are some good books and videos around if your willing to look for it.

[bboj]

Would you mind compiling a short list.