Magnet Myths and Misconceptions

[tinman]

Your statement is wrong.  Most electromagnets have an electric field.  Superconducting electromagnets have no electric field.  What difference in magnetic behavior can you demonstrate between an electromagnet and a permanent magnet?

Well after repeated tries,i will let you describe the difference in way of a question.
Dose an electromagnet need a power supply to produce magnetic fields?. Dose a PM need a power input to produce magnetic fields?.

Because when comparing behaviors we need only know what is the same and what is different between those behaviors.

Couldnt be more wrong. Reserch is required to show as to why the two behaviors are different. Only when that understanding come apparent can we move forward.

Now you have pegged the Archer Quinn memorial bull shit meter

I think it is more a case that you have no room for change Mark,even though your theory cannot explain the force a magnetic field applies on a magnetically active material.

Again you are being non-responsiven .  I asked you to show that your self-proclaimed revolution in science can predict an ordinary behavior correctly as the science you disdain is easily able to do.

Once again,another faulse accusation(Again you are being non-responsiven),and also backwards.
As i have asked time and time again-how,why and what dose your science say is the force that reacts against a magnetically active material,dose it have mass?-if not,how dose it apply a force?.
And here i present a theory that accounts for that force,what,how and why it reacts against a magnetically active object-and yet you dispell it as rubbish,even though your modle cannot account/explain  the force applied to a magnetically active object by a magnetic field.

I have asked only that you apply your ideas to a simple problem that conventional theory has been used to accurately solve for many decades.

A theory is not a solution or a complete understanding. Quote: In the world of science, however, a theory is a broad explanation of a phenomenon or phenomena that is testable and falsifiable.

Electrons are attracted to protons by electrostatic force.  Are you now disputing this and claiming that it is magnetic?  Seriously, what are you drinking

I am using your water hypothesis-what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Are you saying that the atom is not magnetic? Dose not the electrostatic charge show exacactly the same principles of my field theory,and what,how and why a magnetic field exerts a force on magnetically active materials.

[MarkE]

Well after repeated tries,i will let you describe the difference in way of a question.
Dose an electromagnet need a power supply to produce magnetic fields?. Dose a PM need a power input to produce magnetic fields?.

Just as hard magnetic material retains its magnetization once magnetized without additional input energy, a superconducting electromagnet retains its magnetization without additional input energy.

Couldnt be more wrong. Reserch is required to show as to why the two behaviors are different. Only when that understanding come apparent can we move forward.

First there has to be an observed difference in behaviors.

I think it is more a case that you have no room for change Mark,even though your theory cannot explain the force a magnetic field applies on a magnetically active material.

This refusal to acknowledge explanations offered time and again is getting quite tiresome.  Are you interested in finding out what is real, or just deflecting examination of the ideas that you have developed?

Once again,another faulse accusation(Again you are being non-responsiven),and also backwards.

Kindly point to the on point response then.

As i have asked time and time again-how,why and what dose your science say is the force that reacts against a magnetically active material,dose it have mass?-if not,how dose it apply a force?.

The electric force does not depend on mass.  Neither do either the strong or weak nuclear forces.  The formal explanation for magnetic force in modern physics comes from application of special relativity to moving electric charges, which are subject to the electric force.

And here i present a theory that accounts for that force,what,how and why it reacts against a magnetically active object-and yet you dispell it as rubbish,even though your modle cannot account/explain  the force applied to a magnetically active object by a magnetic field.

Again it is getting quite tiresome when I have explained this multiple times.  I have offered an experiment proposal that would delineate between the view you espouse and conventional physics.

A theory is not a solution or a complete understanding. Quote: In the world of science, however, a theory is a broad explanation of a phenomenon or phenomena that is testable and falsifiable.
I am using your water hypothesis-what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Are you saying that the atom is not magnetic? Dose not the electrostatic charge show exacactly the same principles of my field theory,and what,how and why a magnetic field exerts a force on magnetically active materials.

For a testable theory you seem to be avoiding discussion of the proposed experiment.  You assert that your theory is superior but decline to show that it is able to make the same testable predictions of the established theory that is deadly accurate, but you claim is flawed compared to yours.  You assert claims that have been irrefutably disproven by laboratory experiments:  For example you falsly claim that charged particles attract uncharged particles.  My patience is waning.  If you want to get down to cases, offer comment on your expectation of the experiment diagrammed below according to your theory.  My expectations according to my interpretation of conventional theory is shown.

[tinman]

. 

Just as hard magnetic material retains its magnetization once magnetized without additional input energy, a superconducting electromagnet retains its magnetization without additional input energy

.
They have room temperature super conductors?

First there has to be an observed difference in behaviors.This refusal to acknowledge explanations offered time and again is getting quite tiresome

Is the observed difference not apparent-one needs a power input and one dose not. If there is no room teperature super conductor,then the power input is in the way of cooling.

Are you interested in finding out what is real, or just deflecting examination of the ideas that you have developed?Kindly point to the on point response then

.

I am very interested in finding out what is real,but the problem i have is those that appose the idea because it dosnt follow theoretical science. Here we have a situation where i offer a theory that explains how,what and why a magnetic field can exert a force on a magnetically active material,but you insist that i follow or believe a theory that cannot explain how,what or why a magnetic field applies a force on a magnetically active material. I show you that this works in the very same way as static charge attraction/repulsion,but you dismiss it just as easly.

The electric force does not depend on mass.  Neither do either the strong or weak nuclear forces.  The formal explanation for magnetic force in modern physics comes from application of special relativity to moving electric charges, which are subject to the electric force.Again it is getting quite tiresome when I have explained this multiple times

Are you saying that the PM has an electric force,or maybe a nuclear force?. If it has neither of these two,then how is the magnetic force explained?.

For example you falsly claim that charged particles attract uncharged particles

I am unaware of any such claim. My claim was that either positively or negatively charged particles are attracted to neutrally charged materials(materials with unseperated charges),or particles of opposite charges.

I have offered an experiment proposal that would delineate between the view you espouse and conventional physics.For a testable theory you seem to be avoiding discussion of the proposed experiment.

I have not avoided anything,in fact,the opposite is true. I asked how one would set up this test,and i also asked how my theoretical modle would show different results to that of the current magnetic modle-->and i got no reply on the later.

You assert that your theory is superior but decline to show that it is able to make the same testable predictions of the established theory that is deadly accurate,

I have given you examples of how my modle work's-the comb and paper,static charge attraction and repulsion. And once again,your deadly accurate theory cannot explain as to what or how a magnetic field can apply a force on a magnetically active material-->and once again,my theoretical modle dose.

My patience is waning.  If you want to get down to cases, offer comment on your expectation of the experiment diagrammed below according to your theory.  My expectations according to my interpretation of conventional theory is shown.

I know what you mean. It is often very hard to get a horse to drink,even though you can quite easly leed it to water. I see a diagram that shows electromagnets-once again,i am dealing with PM's. Can you redraw your diagram useing PM's insted of electromagnet's,and then tell me why my theory would be any different(show anything different in the test) to that of the conventional theory.

I am begining to see why man is still stuck with the inefficient internal combustion engine that burns fossil fuels,that pollute our planet.

[MarkE]

.
They have room temperature super conductors?

Do magnets have to work at room temperature.  You're special pleadings are getting silly.

Is the observed difference not apparent-one needs a power input and one dose not. If there is no room teperature super conductor,then the power input is in the way of cooling.

See above.

.

I am very interested in finding out what is real,but the problem i have is those that appose the idea because it dosnt follow theoretical science. Here we have a situation where i offer a theory that explains how,what and why a magnetic field can exert a force on a magnetically active material,but you insist that i follow or believe a theory that cannot explain how,what or why a magnetic field applies a force on a magnetically active material.

That is utter BS.  I am really tired of this crap from you.  I have very patiently asked you question after question to get you to articulate your ideas and distill them down to where we can conduct experiments and you just keep repeating this insulting shit.  In the past dozen or so exchanges it has been a matter of pulling teeth to get you to make a statement that is not already disproven by countless experiments and stick with it.  Note this nonsense where you insist first that all electromagnets must consume power, then when that doesn't fly you resort to more special pleadings concerning temperature or whether the magnet can go into a toy or not.  In all of this you have failed to state any magnetic difference between EMs and PMs.  I am about done putting up with this.

I show you that this works in the very same way as static charge attraction/repulsion,but you dismiss it just as easly.

I have done no such thing, I have asked you specific questions such as how these "magnetic charges" form across a singularity and appear to repel away to each other at the point of creation while accelerating towards each other at the same time.  You have not answered this with any kind of explanation that makes any sense.  You have instead fought tooth and nail to try and claim that there is a fundamental difference between EMs and PMs without articulating any magnetic difference.

Are you saying that the PM has an electric force,or maybe a nuclear force?. If it has neither of these two,then how is the magnetic force explained?.

The conventional explanation of a PM is that a majority of the atoms are electron spin aligned.  At the macro level the electric and nuclear forces are confined to the individual atoms.

I am unaware of any such claim. My claim was that either positively or negatively charged particles are attracted to neutrally charged materials(materials with unseperated charges),or particles of opposite charges.

Neutrons are not neutral?  This is getting bizarre.

I have not avoided anything,in fact,the opposite is true. I asked how one would set up this test,and i also asked how my theoretical modle would show different results to that of the current magnetic modle-->and i got no reply on the later.

Bull shit.  I explained specifically the expected differences.

I have given you examples of how my modle work's-the comb and paper,static charge attraction and repulsion. And once again,your deadly accurate theory cannot explain as to what or how a magnetic field can apply a force on a magnetically active material-->and once again,my theoretical modle dose.

Again BS.  You have been ignoring the explainations.

I know what you mean. It is often very hard to get a horse to drink,even though you can quite easly leed it to water. I see a diagram that shows electromagnets-once again,i am dealing with PM's. Can you redraw your diagram useing PM's insted of electromagnet's,and then tell me why my theory would be any different(show anything different in the test) to that of the conventional theory.

Again the special pleading.  Show that the field in the gap would be any different using two U cores with a PM in the bottom.  You can't.  You are FoS.

I am begining to see why man is still stuck with the inefficient internal combustion engine that burns fossil fuels,that pollute our planet.

[sparks]

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

SR?