Magnet Myths and Misconceptions

[EMJunkie]

Chris:

There is a backdrop to your narrative.  Everybody on the site knows that some people on here really know their stuff.  MarkE is one of them.  There are some very experienced and knowledgeable people around here.  Some of them are in the stratosphere.

Far be it from me to ask anyone to do an experiment, but how about you do an experiment that you think demonstrates something new?  The rhetoric is dysfunctional at this point so how about an experiment instead?

At this point for me most of your links now are to legit sources and you are blindly thinking that they are backing up your arguments when in fact hey are refuting your arguments.  You need to start eating Spice.

MileHigh

MileHigh - Just like youre Pshudo Science A Vector Potential? Keep it up!

Just so others can see what Piffle you talk:

URL: http://overunity.com/14974/magnet-myths-and-misconceptions/msg431878/#msg431878

Keep up the Piffle or you wont get paid!

[MileHigh]

Yeah back to the bozo talk.

Je Suis Charlie.

[allcanadian]

@Mark
I find it quite ironic that anyone who espouses the virtues of an open mind supports rejecting reliable evidence in favor of BS that has been utterly and completely refuted.  If EMJ's got Bloch walls then where are his unaligned domains?  "Unaligned domains? We ain't got no unaligned domains. We don't need no unaligned domains. I don't have to show you any stinkin' unaligned domains!".   We see the same response for the supposed curl.  EMJ points to one of Professor Lewin's lectures for support.  But the lecture rather than supporting EMJ's claims includes three demonstations that each refute his claims.  I find it remarkable that anyone can consider that when evidence incontrovertibly refutes a claim, but the claimant adheres to their claim that the first person considers the claimant open minded.


So really what you seem to be saying is that Chris is not open minded because he will not believe what you do, is that it?. To be honest I get it that people think I'm picking sides but I don't believe a word that anyone here has to say completely. I understand you may take the norm as gospel your religion logic but to think I must in some way be compelled to believe your flavor of logic and reality is just inconsiderate in my opinion.


So yes you have jumped to conclusions which are in no way based in reality if you think I believe anything said here by anyone. I am an individual, a responsible adult, and I would think I could decide the matter for myself. Now let's ask the most relevant question I can think of concerning the topic of debate. Do you know what a magnetic field is fundamentally, not what you think it normally does but what it is?. In which case I would presume you have no idea and no idea where to even begin, why do you think that is?. I mean logically speaking, logic should just roll one concept into the next and everything should make perfect sense. However your hooped aren't you, I mean I think you probably have nothing in regards to what the Primary fields are, those peculiar fields which dictate the action of everything in the known universe.


So do not presume to know what I think nor what I believe. I like to encourage creative thoughts so I might be more creative and when someone thinks something unexpected I would hope I might learn something from them one way or another. Running in circles making no progress is just not my thing Mark I need constructive feedback as I think we all do.


Just ask yourself the question, why do I not understand how things work on the most fundamental level, why does nothing make sense and I do not even know where to begin?. You see a foundation is built from the ground up not vice versa and you are arguing simple phenomena which always occur after the fact which have no real foundation.


I mean I agree, I find it ironic as well.


AC

[MarkE]

@Mark
I find it quite ironic that anyone who espouses the virtues of an open mind supports rejecting reliable evidence in favor of BS that has been utterly and completely refuted.  If EMJ's got Bloch walls then where are his unaligned domains?  "Unaligned domains? We ain't got no unaligned domains. We don't need no unaligned domains. I don't have to show you any stinkin' unaligned domains!".   We see the same response for the supposed curl.  EMJ points to one of Professor Lewin's lectures for support.  But the lecture rather than supporting EMJ's claims includes three demonstations that each refute his claims.  I find it remarkable that anyone can consider that when evidence incontrovertibly refutes a claim, but the claimant adheres to their claim that the first person considers the claimant open minded.


So really what you seem to be saying is that Chris is not open minded because he will not believe what you do, is that it?.

I am saying tht Chris is closed minded because he rejects reliable, incontrovertible evidence that refutes his claims.  Often it is evidence he himself has cited.

To be honest I get it that people think I'm picking sides but I don't believe a word that anyone here has to say completely.

My comment had nothing to do with "sides".  It had to do with the idea that one would praise another for being open minded when the subject of their praise demonstrates an intractable set of fixed ideas to which no reliable evidence brings them enlightenment.

I understand you may take the norm as gospel your religion logic but to think I must in some way be compelled to believe your flavor of logic and reality is just inconsiderate in my opinion.

Everyone is entitled to their opinions.  Here you assert that I am following a "religion logic".  Do you understand the difference between religion and science?  The answer is one espouses a set of beliefs that must be accepted independent of evidence for or against those beliefs.  The other insists that what we believe must come from reliable evidence.  It is no small irony that you heap praise upon EMJ for holding onto his fixed beliefs despite the reliable evidence that destroys those beliefs while asserting that it is I who use "religion logic".

So yes you have jumped to conclusions which are in no way based in reality if you think I believe anything said here by anyone.

Again, you heaped praise for an alleged "open minded" behavior when facts demonstrate that behavior to be anything but open minded.

I am an individual, a responsible adult, and I would think I could decide the matter for myself.

You are free to express opinions as others are free to express their objections.

Now let's ask the most relevant question I can think of concerning the topic of debate. Do you know what a magnetic field is fundamentally, not what you think it normally does but what it is?.

I am afraid any answer to that belongs to the philosphers.  We mere mortals are limited to observing how things behave and developing ideas that hopefully accurately predict how things will behave under given circumstances.  The great question of absolute whats or fundamental whys may never be answered.

In which case I would presume you have no idea and no idea where to even begin, why do you think that is?. I mean logically speaking, logic should just roll one concept into the next and everything should make perfect sense.

Absolute declarations of how things are tend to come from religious zealots.  Why should you expect such things from people such as myself who profess to engage in science?

However your hooped aren't you, I mean I think you probably have nothing in regards to what the Primary fields are, those peculiar fields which dictate the action of everything in the known universe.

That is a nice and irrelevant red herring.

So do not presume to know what I think nor what I believe.

I addresssed your statements as you made them.  Feel free to clarify if you feel misquoted or misinterpreted.

I like to encourage creative thoughts so I might be more creative and when someone thinks something unexpected I would hope I might learn something from them one way or another.

Does not learning rely on interpreting reliable evidence?  If learning occurs without relying on reliable evidence, then what else can serve as an adequate substitute?

Running in circles making no progress is just not my thing Mark I need constructive feedback as I think we all do.

Funny, because I view the comment that I made as quite constructive.

Just ask yourself the question, why do I not understand how things work on the most fundamental level, why does nothing make sense and I do not even know where to begin?.

But we do know where to begin.  Western science got that part figured out hundreds of years ago with the development of the Scientific Method.  The journey may have no end, but the Scientific Method is the road forward.

You see a foundation is built from the ground up not vice versa and you are arguing simple phenomena which always occur after the fact which have no real foundation.

You have just chained a set of declarations together.  Anytime you like feel free to support any one of them with facts.

I mean I agree, I find it ironic as well.


AC

Well, then you can commit yourself to do better in the future.

[tinman]

Up until now, I have seen no evidence that supports a looped field. I have seen far more that supports my figure 8/peanut shaped field. So far I have seen the results of one test here, and done by some one that is pretty handy with electronic equipment. This some one also said before his test, that I was not seeing what others were trying to show me-the looped field. After his test-with a hall sensor as suggested many times by the big guns here-turns out the field was shaped like a peanut-whats the chances of that.
But we know the onslaught of why the test failed to show correct results is just around the corner. This is when the big guns get to explain why the test they recomended didnt show a looped field from one end to the other.

This thread is a hoot
TK-where you at ?