Science contradicts itself..Questions

[Charlie_V]

Well, I can't find the article in the Yahoo News section since it is too old.  But it was in Yahoo where they said the mantle was a green solid substance - either that or I imagined it.  Anywhere here is a link that describes the missing section of crush in the Atlantic ocean.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070301103112.htm

[rangerover444]

Mr. Wallace Thornhill wrote a very profound and encompassing article, which describe
the approach to gravity over the years and I personally thanks him for his courage, curiosity
and understanding.   http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=89xdcmfs

This is what he wrote about Faraday :

Electric Gravity
In 1850, Faraday performed experiments trying to link gravity with electromagnetism that
were unsuccessful. However, his conviction remained: ?The long and constant persuasion
that all the forces of nature are mutually dependent, having one common origin, or rather
being different manifestations of one fundamental power, has often made me think on the
possibility of establishing, by experiment, a connection between gravity and electricity
?no terms could exaggerate the value of the relation they would establish.?[12]

Faraday?s estimate of the importance of such a connection still stands. Today, there are a
number of scholars pursuing this obvious line of inquiry. After all, the electrical and
gravitational forces share fundamental characteristics?they both diminish with the inverse
square of the distance; they are both proportional to the product of the interacting masses or
charges; and both forces act along the line between them.?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That was a close call by Faraday, but not on target. And the reason for that is that Faraday
?missed the junction? between magnetism and matter by ?bridging? it with Electricity.
In other words, it was and it still today very difficult to find the direct relation between
magnetism and matter. On the other hand Electricity or Charge are much more ?user friendly?
for scientists, to perform tests, since the effects of electricity on matter are much more easy
to detect then magnetism. Also electricity could be made to run as a stream in a wire or
in the air and through other materials and it?s much more manageable then magnetism (which
can ?hardly be controlled?). And the short cut was to turn magnetism into electricity, so further
tests could be done and conclusions could be drawn easily..

In order to respect magnetism, Faraday called it Electromagnetism, since he could not
separate between the two (which no one could do so far). And because of this ?bridge? over
this "junction" between magnetism and matter, Gravity remained a mystery until today.

Even more courage required here, ?to be the one before Faraday?.

Cheers

[Koen1]

Are you heading somewhere with this?

And by the way, if it was such a mistake of Faraday to suggest a coupling between
electricity and gravity, then how come the electrogravity effect noted by mr T.T. Brown,
which involves applying extremely high potentials to a capacitor which then effectively
decreases in mass, is real and does work??
And where is the device or experimental setup that does this by means of magnetism alone?
Right. There is none. (Even the Searl Disc involves a rotating magnetic contraption and everyone
knows that spinning magnets produce electrical fields and effects, so that is really an electrical
device as well.) Yet the Electrogravity/Electrokinetic effect has been replicated in several forms
by many people.
Perhaps Faraday was right, and perhaps there indeed is a link between the forces of gravity
and electricity? And perhaps he was not mistaken in calling it the electromagnetic force
at all?
After all, where exactly then is this "bridge" or "junction" you speak of, and where are these suggested
forms of magnetism that cannot be linked to electricity, and what role do they play?
Seems to me that someone is trying to make Faraday look bad for jumping to conclusions,
without actually giving any better or more usefull explanation of anything... ?
But then again I may be missing the point somewhere.

[rangerover444]

 Koen,

No worry, I think Faraday contributes a lot to the exploration in this field, and was an
open minded pioneer.  In fact I?m very much in agreement with what he was after :
?The long and constant persuasion that all the forces of nature are mutually dependent,
having one common origin, or rather being different manifestations of one fundamental power,
has often made me think on the possibility of establishing, by experiment, a connection
between gravity and electricity?.

Beside his last twist ?gravity to electricity?, I?m very much in agreement with him.
What I?m suggesting is if he could show that electricity is two opposing magnetic currents
of N & S pole magnets and then show a chemical reaction that produce these two opposing
magnetic currents, then the road to show the tie between magnetism and matter, would be
opened for him.

That does not mean he would figure out gravity, though it would bring him much closer, since
he could pursue the direction of the atom structure that made of magnets. Which make more
sense that gravity (magnetic force) affect atoms that made of magnets.

The T.T. Brown lifter, cannot work in vacuum, which means it works on thrust (at least that?s
what they showed in ?Mythbusters?).

I think you had witness some tests and literature on this thread that shows how electricity is
made by magnetism, or at least you had the chance to do those tests yourself and verified their
result, or maybe you are waiting to see a miraculous device works in a way you never seen
before, well, these are all around you already, but you think they work on electricity?

Cheers

[Koen1]

No worry, I think Faraday contributes a lot to the exploration in this field, and was an
open minded pioneer.  In fact I?m very much in agreement with what he was after :
?The long and constant persuasion that all the forces of nature are mutually dependent,
having one common origin, or rather being different manifestations of one fundamental power,
has often made me think on the possibility of establishing, by experiment, a connection
between gravity and electricity?.

I like that idea too. I just got the impression you
disagreed. Misunderstood you there

Beside his last twist ?gravity to electricity?, I?m very much in agreement with him.
What I?m suggesting is if he could show that electricity is two opposing magnetic currents
of N & S pole magnets and then show a chemical reaction that produce these two opposing
magnetic currents, then the road to show the tie between magnetism and matter, would be
opened for him.

Ahh, now I see where you're aiming. Yes, if Faraday (or any of the other classical pioneers)
had shown electricity to consist of two opposing "magnetic currents", and if he had shown
these same "currents" to come into play in certain chemical reactions, then he would indeed
have shown the reality of these alleged "magnetic currents", and he might have been able
to link electricity to magnetism via matter interaction in a "magnetic current" model,
possibly allowing for a broader insight into the relations between matter and energy.
But he didn't, nor did any of his contemporaries, nor any of his successors.
Only a few off-the-grid autodidacts have stuck with their idea of "magnetic currents" and
none of them have been able to prove their existence as far as I know. A common
tendency is to use circular reasoning, taking the assumption of "magnetic currents"
as a fact, and reinterpreting very common observed effects in this light. None of that is
actual proof, it only shows that such a circular argument appears to be sound.
And that is a characteristic of good curcular arguments, but not at all proof of their
validity.

That does not mean he would figure out gravity,

Lol I was just going to point that out.

though it would bring him much closer, since
he could pursue the direction of the atom structure that made of magnets. Which make more
sense that gravity (magnetic force) affect atoms that made of magnets.

And that is clearly an assumption. Why do you feel that makes more sense?
Because magnets attract and gravity attracts too? I hope that's not your reasoning here,
as it is obviously not that simple.
I agree that there is a possibility that gravito-electric interaction might be interpretable
in a "magnetic current" model, but the reality of that remains to be proven, and in fact
we should be able to formulate that in a "normal" electromagnetic model as well. After all,
Maxwell did show how scalar potentials are possible using his quaternion-based system,
even though Heaviside mutilated this grand insight after poor Maxwell died. That's why
in the Heavidide-edited "Maxwellian electrodynamics" such scalar potentials are considered
naught since their vectors add up to zero and no effects are measurable with classical
measurement devices. But Maxwell himself did not discount them, he worked out complex
quaternion maths in order to make it more "tangiable". Too bad we are taught fake "Maxwellian"
electrodynamics in our schools; we are actually taught what the mathmatically ungifted
Heaviside managed to understand of his teacher Maxwells genious work. He simply edited
the more complex stuff out when he published Maxwells last book. Scalar potentials and fields
are real and Maxwell knew it. If you use scalar electrodynamics, you don't really need a
"magnetic current" model, as it can describe the same thing. Only in normal electrodynamics terminology,
no need for "N pole current" and "S pole current". This is partly what I have been trying to point out
all along: we can "translate" "magnetic current" models into a form of the "standard" electrodynamics
model without losing anything, and vice versa the "magnetic current" models in my opinion are
just a different and by the way very unprecise way of describing such a model which is not really
necessary as the same concept can be included in extended versions of the "standard" model.

The T.T. Brown lifter, cannot work in vacuum, which means it works on thrust (at least that?s
what they showed in ?Mythbusters?).

And like is so often the case in Mythbusters, they got it wrong.
Those guys get things wrong more than half the time. According to them, "ice bullets" can never work,
you always get less wet when you run through rain, etc. But in reality, the US army actually developed
ice-shooting guns for arctiv environments, and at least two seperate universities had shown that
on average you tend to get less wet when you walk through rain, depending on the amount of
rainfall and the size of the drops of course. And those are only two examples.
But to get back to the Lifters, it is a recurring misconception that they do not work in high vacuum.
They most certainly do work in a high vacuum. They just work a little less well. But they still work.
Check it out: http://jnaudin.free.fr/lifters/ascvacuum/index.htm
And please keep in mind that, although that test did not use a perfect vacuum, the high vacuum
of 1.72 x 10^-6 Torr they used in those tests is almost as close to the perfect vacuum as we can get,
and certainly comparable to the type of vacuum found in interstellar space. So yes they work in space.

I think you had witness some tests and literature on this thread that shows how electricity is
made by magnetism,

No, what I keep getting presented are versions of the same old Leedskalnin papers, and
none of that "literature" shows that electricity consists of opposing "magnetic currents".
Yes, those "theories" do claim and/or suggest that that is the case, but there is
still zero proof for them. Yes, you can observe effects and you can claim there are "magnetic currents"
responsible for the effect, but you cannot prove that claim to be true by merely observing the effect.
You should, if the "theory" is correct, be able to predict the outcome of an experiment based
on the theory, and should if possible do that in such a way that existing theoretical interpretations
did not predict that same effect. Then you may have a theory that is worth more than the old ones.
So far I have seen none of that, I have only seen replications of classical observed effects which
were already predictable using existing theories.

or at least you had the chance to do those tests yourself and verified their
result,

Yes, and I did, and I verified that they do not show any "magnetic current".
Worse even, I replicated the "magnetic battery" effect and concluded quite satisfactorily
that it does not work if one uses a proper dielectric and that I get similar voltages from
a stack of the same two metals without using any magnets. Funny though, quite a few
believers in the "magnetic current" ideas did replicate the initial setup of a couple of nickel
coated magnets in combination with other metal and a piece of paper, and immediately
see it a conclusive proof for their belief, but hardly any of them go on to the next step
in the empirical process and see if it still works when we use a proper dielectric.
Well if one doesn't see that paper is an ok dielectric for quick and dirty tinkering but
not if you want a real dielectric, then I feel I am allowed to wonder how much
one really understands of what one is talking about. Oh, and I'm not talking about you here
so please don't be offended, I'm talking in general.

or maybe you are waiting to see a miraculous device works in a way you never seen
before, well, these are all around you already, but you think they work on electricity?

Really? Can you give me an example? And can you prove, even theoretically, that they work
on "magnetic current" and that electricity does not have anything to do with it? Or are you
just saying that you believe that electricity consists of "magnetic currents" and therefore
all electrical devices are "magnetic current" devices, in your belief?

Yes, I would like to see a design for a device that cannot produce output according to
established electromagnetic theory, but that can do so according to a form of "magnetic current"
theory, and that actually does work and produce that output.

I have tried to offer a potential design that uses the Leedskalnin "principle" of imbalance
between the amount of "N" and "S" flow by hooking two magnetic cores (with magnets in them)
together with a 3rd magnet as a "bridge", which should, it seemed to me, result in
more "N" flow in the one core and more "S" flow in the other. Coils around the cores could then
"collect" the "excess monopole flow" and should "see an electric current". But that doesn't work.

If you have any design that does work, based on "magnetic currents", and that cannot be explained
by "standard" electrodynamic theory, I would love to see it. If it's not too complicated I will probably
test it.
I've heard so many people insist that "magnetic currents" are real, but I have seen zero proof so far,
so if I can build a test device that produces effects that are impossible according to em theory,
but that can be explained with the "magnetic current" theory, then I just have to try it. If I can build it,
that is.

Best regards!