Magnet Myths and Misconceptions

[MarkE]

@MarkNot dissatisfied as they have taken it as far as they are able and answered many questions and in the process raising many questions. I was dissappointed that it devolved into wonderland as it often does. How does a particle popping in and out of existence violating the conservation of mass and energy make sense?... I do not know.

A rose by any other name.  You are still promoting an argument from ignorance.  You object to your understanding of QED and appear as a result intent on tossing everything else that has been described about electrodynamics.

I would agree just as a virtual particle and wormholes are just idea's.

The statement applies to any idea.

Oh I conflate many things however I do not believe this was one of them. Is analysis not a belief?, we observe and measure things and hope what we are seeing is real however some other person with better data may reject our analysis. Potatoe Potato Tomatoe Tomato, in many cases we reject what is different not because it is right or wrong but simply because it is different.All this math is confusing me, lol, I like history versus popular opinion because it depicts real people instead of legends.

I said analysis methods  you are conveniently rephrasing to imply "analysis conclusions".  The means of travel is distinct from the destination.

I mean it is mind boggling just how completely messed up the greatest minds of science were. They were womanizers, drug addicts, alcoholics, psychopaths, sociopaths and the list of mental disorders just goes on and on and on. They were people who had the greatest contempt for their peers which is seldom if ever mentioned in the textbooks. Yes they were the greatest minds in science however they did not reach that status by towing the party line, they cut it with a freaking hatchet. As I said I like history.

If you enjoy history, and if you respect history, then kindly don't misquote others, including me.

From the greatest scientist in history--
"To myself I am only a child playing on the beach, while vast oceans of truth lie undiscovered before me.", Isaac Newton


AC

[MarkE]

There in lies the problem--one day your imperial system will be long forgotten.

So what?  MH's analogy is perfectly valid in the context that he offered it.  Do you really think that there ar e competent auto mechanics in Australia who do not know the difference between metric and imperial unit wrenches?  Do you think that there is a single competent mechanic who would look at a 1/4" box end wrench and wonder why something that looks close to a  6mm wrench has those markings on it?

Here in australia you would be hard pressed to find any new car that has imperial fixtures(nuts/bolts etc) ,as we went digital quite some time ago.

And your point with respect to MH's analogy is what?  How does the fact that most cars use digital engine controls alter MH's analogy that had nothing to do with digital engine controls?

Year after year,the old is forgotten,and the new arives. To assume that our children will be taught something that no longer exist is just incorrect. ask any chiled today what and how an analog phone worked,and they would ask-whats an analog phone. But ask the same question about digital,and wether there a digitech or not,they'll give you more than you bargained for.

Again, which has what to do with MH's analogy? 

Just to refresh your memory:  MH postulated that EMJ's failure to describe the behavior of an inductor when connected to a simple ideal voltage source betrays a very poor understanding of inductors by EMJ.  MH offered as an analogy that EMJ's failure would be akin to an auto mechanic being unable to distinguish between metric and imperial sized tools.  For whatever reason, EMJ did not answer MH's simple query.  He had the opportunity to demonstrate basic aptitude on the subject matter at hand but did not do so.  If it was because he could not, that does not bode well for anything unusual that he claims, because not understanding basic behavior he would be unlikely to know what is normal and what is unusual.  If it was because he was just screwing with MH, then who else is he screwing with?  One minute he said that he had a COP of a specific value:  1.7, and the next he refused to state how he obtained that value and declared that he didn't want anything to do with measurements.

[allcanadian]

@Mark

Just to refresh your memory:  MH postulated that EMJ's failure to describe
the behavior of an inductor when connected to a simple ideal voltage source
betrays a very poor understanding of inductors by EMJ.  MH offered as an analogy
that EMJ's failure would be akin to an auto mechanic being unable to distinguish
between metric and imperial sized tools.  For whatever reason, EMJ did not
answer MH's simple query.  He had the opportunity to demonstrate basic aptitude
on the subject matter at hand but did not do so.  If it was because he could
not, that does not bode well for anything unusual that he claims, because not
understanding basic behavior he would be unlikely to know what is normal and
what is unusual.  If it was because he was just screwing with MH, then who else
is he screwing with?  One minute he said that he had a COP of a specific value: 
1.7, and the next he refused to state how he obtained that value and declared
that he didn't want anything to do with measurements.

Using that same logic we could also say one who proclaims to understand physics but doesn't understand what the Primary Fields are would be akin to a mechanic not understanding what a car is. Sure the mechanic could look to the manual to fix something with his two sizes of wrenches but for some very strange reason he would not understand what it is he was working on fundamentally. Why I could ask the mechanic, what are you working on and he might reply... an engine in this thing but I do not know what this thing is.
Very strange.

AC

[MarkE]

@MarkUsing that same logic we could also say one who proclaims to understand physics but doesn't understand what the Primary Fields are would be akin to a mechanic not understanding what a car is.

LOL, no that reducto ad absurdum example is silly.  In order to repair a car the mechanic needs to be able to:  Remove and replace components without damaging the car or the new parts, follow a set of procedures to determine which parts to remove and replace.  The mechanic does not for example need to have a deep understanding of combustion dynamics.

Sure the mechanic could look to the manual to fix something with his two sizes of wrenches but for some very strange reason he would not understand what it is he was working on fundamentally.

How many mechanics can you say "understand what they are working on fundamentally"?

Why I could ask the mechanic, what are you working on and he might reply... an engine in this thing but I do not know what this thing is.
Very strange.

AC

I find your tortured analogy very strange.

[Cap-Z-ro]

LOL, no that reducto ad absurdum example is silly.  In order to repair a car the mechanic needs to be able to:  Remove and replace components without damaging the car or the new parts, follow a set of procedures to determine which parts to remove and replace.  The mechanic does not for example need to have a deep understanding of combustion dynamics.How many mechanics can you say "understand what they are working on fundamentally"?I find your tortured analogy very strange.

I picture this doosh playing a bit part in a 'B' western movie...either riding side saddle or facing backwards perched upon the saddle horn, wearing a tutu and a satisfied smile.

Regards...