Magnet Myths and Misconceptions

[tinman]

The problem with that analogy is that the water displaces from the middle in all directions.  The differential is between the point where the pebble strikes and everywhere else.  Here, you are showing that north and south form from nowhere, go away from each other when they are supposed to attract and come back to each other.  What is the basis for the singularity where they supposedly form and why do they go away from each other when they supposedly attract?So is that a yes on linear superposition?Are you contending that the "magnetic wind" of an electromagnet is fundamentally different in its behavior than the "magnetic wind" of a permanent magnet?That is not true with superconducting magnets.  They go on and on and on all by themselves.  I am trying to get clarity on your ideas so that we can get to a point where we have a testable hypothesis that we can run experiments against.The comb, the air, and the paper are all dielectrics.  They are all capable of greatly resisting the flow of charge.

Why dose the current magnetic modle insist that unlike charges flow in the same direction?-in through the south,and out through the north. This is suppose to show direction,but direction of what? Now take my theory,and see you now have the two charges of opposite potentials flowing out of the creator(the magnet),and when free they turn and meet due to opposite charges attracting one another.
Before there is union,there must be creation. Two opposite charges must flow in opposite directions before they can be united. Its all well and good to say if we mix hot water and cold water,we get warm water-->but first we must create the hot and cold water.

[tinman]

Tinman, the above example concerns both divergent and convergent waves.  Are you positing that magnetic waves might have both of these properties?

I am just asking as I do not know the answer.  I was just going with your bucket example above.

Thanks,

Bill

When you drop a pebble into a bucket of water,you are basically showing the effects of an omnidirectional antenna. This sends a signal out in all directions,and recieves a signal back from all directions. If we do indeed have charges sent out from the magnets pole or a positive or negative potential,then the material that recieves that charge must also then have an opposite charge to send back to the magnets pole that induced it in the first place. It is said that a piece of iron/steel etc will carry a magnets field. Now ,if we stick a piece of iron to the end of the magnet,then it must have the opposite or a neutral polarity/charge to that of the pole of the magnet it is stuck to,as like poles repelle-so it cant have the same polarity or charge.

So you have convergent and divergent waves,or you have positive and negative charges-but only opposites or opposites and neutrals attract.

[MarkE]

No,i am not. What i am saying is why use power to seek power when we have the same effect without the use of power in the PM.

Well good, if you are comfortable that the magnetic field from one behaves the same as the magnetic field from the other then we can try and get insights by looking at them both.  Fair?

And yet the distance between the comb and piece of paper before the charge diferential becomes active,and the paper jumps up to meat the comb,is about the same distance a piece of feromagnetic material jumps up to meet a decent PM.

I am sorry but the forces that we could develop electrostatically or magnetically are both all over the map.

Lets look at this from current science's point of view. What explanation do they have as to why a magnetic field can exert a force on magnetically active materials?. As far as i know,they dont have one. What force/particles that have no mass can exert a force on a mass.

Permeable, IE magnetically active materials present a low resistance (reluctance) to flux.  In a given field magnetic flux concentrates in permeable material in a similar fashion to given some pressure drop and parallel pipes, more water flows through larger cross-section area pipes than the smaller cross-section area pipes.  Common magnetic materials have permeabilities, IE lower reluctance per unit length compared to vacuum of a thousand or more to one.  Imagine the difference in fluid flow between a 16" pipe and a half inch pipe.  When the pipes are aligned to the flow there is no torque against them.  Similarly, when a permeable material is aligned in a magnetic field there is no torque against it.  If we turn either a pipe or a piece of permeable material versus the flux a torque develops.

To me,this means that there current modle of the magnetic field is incorrect. This is like knowing how the internal combustion engine work's,but cant explain as to why it gets hot.

Well, the fact is that as TK says, we have been using this model to build all manner of machines to high degrees of precision for over 100 years now.  We reliably predict just how "hot" they get, what kind of mileage, torque etc.  So, we must be doing something right.  I appreciate that is little consolation to you and your genuine interest in developing an intuitive understanding of how this stuff works.  But it should afford you some confidence that we don't have things completely cocked-up.  If you ignore all the math, and start around page 100, this publication offers a pretty thorough explanation of how common electrodynamic machines work based on conventional theory:

http://multimechatronics.com/images/uploads/mech_n/Electromechanics.pdf

The facts are
1-Unlike charges attract-north field is attracted to south field.

Well there is an assumption there of a north and a south field, IE magnetic monopoles.  Do we agree that where one or more magnetic dipoles exist that opposite poles attract?
I am going to break your 2 here into its several separate statements:

2a-Both positive and negative charges are attracted to neutral charged materials-

No, protons are not electrostatically attracted to neutrons and neither are electrons.

2b-both north and south fields are attracted to feromagnetic materials,

Again you have to establish that the idea of separate north and south fields exist for this statement to be valid.  Do we agree that ferromagnetic materials are strongly attracted to the poles of a magnet?  Do we agree that you see that attraction as either pole acting like gravity on a mass?  If it could be shown that a test ferromagnetic object placed between two magnetic poles was stable in any position between those poles that you would be willing to rethink this idea?

2b-i. of which may have a neutral charge,or a lower positive or negative charge than that of the magnets two poles-->
2b-i-1. this may be those materials that show a weak magnetic reaction to the PM's fields.

If we take say bismuth,which is diamagnetic,we may assume that this material creates a mirror charge(like charge) to the charge that induces it.This causes the two like charges to repelle each other. This could be one of the material needed to make our !magnetic field solar panel!. Or even better-pyrolytic graphite,-but how hard is this to get?.

So lets switch this around Mark,and you tell me what science has to say about the ability of the magnetic field to exert a force without that force having mass.

ETA:  Just to let you know where I am trying to take you. 

The conventional view is that force on a permeable object (ferrormagnetic) is proportional to the gradient of the flux density (the torque on our large pipes turned away from the parallel in the water flow analogy).  So where the flux density is uniform, there is no net mechanical force (IE no torque on our pipes when they are parallel to the water flow).  With an ordinary bar magnet, near each pole the field curls a lot, so the flux density gradient is high and so is the force.  There the "water flow" is anything but straight and the closer we get to a pole the more curved it gets, so one might perceive as you do that it's the distance from the pole that gives rise to the mechanical force in a way that is similar to electrostatic or gravitational forces.

But, if we could set-up a test where we have a decent sized region where the flux were absolutely straight and uniform, even at the poles things would be quite different.  We could then tell whether its the gradient that causes the force as conventional theory tells us, or distance from the pole "charges" as you believe.  Under those circumstances, I think you would expect that a little piece of iron would still be subject to rapidly increasing force close to each pole, whereas according to conventional theory it would not.  If in the same test we can also have a region where the field curves then according to conventional theory we would be able to see the force change quite a bit going from a region of little or no flux density gradient to a region with a large flux density gradient.

[sparks]

    Physicists resort to imaginary particles that travel from the primary of a transformer to the secondary of the transformer.  These are called virtual photons.   Other virtual particles travel from somewhere unknown that create the charge of an electron or proton.  These virtual particles are responsible for the magnetic field.   Following this line of reasoning/bs then an isolated electron sits at the center of a magnetic monopole as does a proton.   There is absolutely no way to tell if the two particles are reacting due to the magnetic field or the electric field as the two appear to be produced by the same flow of virtual particles.

[MarkE]

    Physicists resort to imaginary particles that travel from the primary of a transformer to the secondary of the transformer.  These are called virtual photons.   Other virtual particles travel from somewhere unknown that create the charge of an electron or proton.  These virtual particles are responsible for the magnetic field.   Following this line of reasoning/bs then an isolated electron sits at the center of a magnetic monopole as does a proton.   There is absolutely no way to tell if the two particles are reacting due to the magnetic field or the electric field as the two appear to be produced by the same flow of virtual particles.

You seem to be mangling concepts from QED, and circuit theory alike.  SR accounts for magnetic fields pretty nicely.