Science contradicts itself..Questions

[Charlie_V]

@ Keon1,

A magnetic equivalent of a capacitor as in a component that stores flux,
even though one does not exist in reality, should theoretically also lack
such an active region and only have passive field lines.

Isn't that what a coil does?  It stores a magnetic field like a capacitor?  What would you consider an electret material - a material that holds a permanent electric field.  They don't usually last as long as a magnet, but they can last 20 years or so.  Electrets are found in microphones. 

Just throwing that out there,
Charlie

[scotty1]

Keon...Ed's work is completely simple to understand....How anyone cannot understand is beyond my understanding!!
All of the things you are talking about right now and drawings pics of....I have already fully examined and tested with practical models......
It makes me piss myself laughing to hear you talk about your beloved electron......
By the way....monopoles (if the exist) are in constant motion...running one kind against the other kind, they are not just sitting around waiting for Paul Dirac to come along.
Keon...Do you know why the scientists NEEDED the + 1/2 and - 1/2 spins of the electron?
They NEEDED IT....THEY HAD TO HAVE THAT THEORY.
Before I had even studied the 1/2 spins I made a prediction using Ed's theory....and my prediction was correct.....except that when the scientists did the test, they came to the 1/2 spin conclusion.
I don't have any physics education....i'm an engineering woodworker (Patternmaker)....maybe that is why I can see the errors......
If I knew about physics then i suppose i could make a motor using Ed's notes...but so far i have not, and maybe I never will, so that is why I am writing everything into a larger volume.
Then...if someone who knows about physics reads it....he might see the application where i could not....I'm trained to copy from instructions...not so good at innovation.
That is not to say that I don't have designs, or am not building, which I am....but i have that feeling that i'm missing something that i should be seeing.  (which annoys me)
When Ed's work is applied to science...then science never had the electron.....the results of J.J. Thompson would be differernt....and then the results from the 1/2 spin experiments would be different too....in fact they would not even need to be done, as the results are easily predicted using Ed's notes.

Physics says that I can take an electron out of a valence shell/band? and that empty space behaves as a positive charge and can attract another electron?
If i roll hundreds of golf balls accross the green...one may go in the hole....but the hole never attracted anything...Maybe that is how Tiger does it?
The scientists can show an electron cloud, and say that somewhre in there the electron might be...but if the electron moves away... the space left behind is called a pos charge.?
In other papers the electron is only one of 3 quarks?
In the newest theory (CPH theory)...everything is made of CPH and the electron is not of much importance.
The scientists don't like a monopole particle idea because of the magnetic vector potentiol A...and on and on it goes..... it's everywhere.
--------------------------------------
The reason why the scientists NEEDED the electron 1/2 spins is found in the chemistry books.
I don't think we can ever see the individual N and S pole magnets...they are far too small.
For a moment...lets say light was a particle...then the individual N and S pole magnets would be far smaller still......smaller than every known thing.....the Higgs Boson maybe...

After 5 years of research, I have not found any solid reason against Ed's work.....but I have used Ed's work to explain many things not clearly explained by science......and if I can do it anybody can.
This weekend I will try to do an experiment for Charlie V.....I'll make it so that you can see everything as clearly as i can......
If it works the way i think then i'll put it on you tube....
Scotty.....

[Koen1]

Keon...Ed's work is completely simple to understand....How anyone cannot understand is beyond my understanding!!

It's not a matter of it not being simple enough. It's a matter of it being too simple.
Now it's been a while since I last read the Leedskalin stuff, but I do not recall any clear practical implementation of his
claim that current consists of "north" and "south" "pole magnets". I also do not see you present any.
In any case, if you understand so well what Leedskalin was doing, then perhaps you can enlighten us as to the method
he used to lift the huge stone blocks and how he used a simple car battery to do so?
I quiver in anticipation of this great revelation.

All of the things you are talking about right now and drawings pics of....I have already fully examined and tested with practical models......
It makes me piss myself laughing to hear you talk about your beloved electron......

Really? Why? Doesn't seem very sanitary...

By the way....monopoles (if the exist) are in constant motion...running one kind against the other kind, they are not just sitting around waiting for Paul Dirac to come along.
Keon...Do you know why the scientists NEEDED the + 1/2 and - 1/2 spins of the electron?
They NEEDED IT....THEY HAD TO HAVE THAT THEORY.
Before I had even studied the 1/2 spins I made a prediction using Ed's theory....and my prediction was correct.....except that when the scientists did the test, they came to the 1/2 spin conclusion.

Well then why don't you tell us why they needed it so badly, if you feel you are so great and know what "the scientists"
do not? And why do you believe they are wrong?

I don't have any physics education....i'm an engineering woodworker (Patternmaker)....maybe that is why I can see the errors......

Rofl yeah right. Or maybe that's why you don't get why Leedskalins stuff doesn't make sense? David Hamel was also a carpenter instead of
someone with a physics background, and he spent years building a magnet-powered UFO (that didn't fly)...
In any case, it seems to me that a person first telling me he pisses himself while reading what I say about electrons, suggests he knows it better,
only to continue to say that he doesn't have any physics background is the real joke.
If you feel you have a better understanding of the thing, then you can try to explain it so we get it too.
But you only seem to be saying "haha you don't get it omg it's so simple" while not explaining one bit.
That may serve to make you feel better about yourself, but it does not contribute anything to the discussion.
Point out where you think I'm wrong and please explain to me why exactly?

If I knew about physics then i suppose i could make a motor using Ed's notes...but so far i have not, and maybe I never will, so that is why I am writing everything into a larger volume.

Ah so what you're saying is "haha you don't get it omg it's so simple, but nevertheless I can't come up with any practical applications myself"?
Jeez man...
So you wet yourself because you think you understand Leedskalins story, but in the mean time you can't come up with implementations?
What the hell are you laughing at then?

Then...if someone who knows about physics reads it....he might see the application where i could not....I'm trained to copy from instructions...not so good at innovation.
That is not to say that I don't have designs, or am not building, which I am....but i have that feeling that i'm missing something that i should be seeing.  (which annoys me)

Sorry but I just have to grin here...
So first you laugh at me for saying that I do not find Leedskalins stuff clear enough to work out any devices besed on it,
and then you admit that you feel you're missing something? hehe

When Ed's work is applied to science...then science never had the electron.....the results of J.J. Thompson would be differernt....and then the results from the 1/2 spin experiments would be different too....in fact they would not even need to be done, as the results are easily predicted using Ed's notes.

Ok now can you please just elaborate on that a little bit? Please explain exactly what you mean by this statement? Why would there be no electron,
how would the Thompson results be different, etc? This is the interesting part.

Physics says that I can take an electron out of a valence shell/band? and that empty space behaves as a positive charge and can attract another electron?
If i roll hundreds of golf balls accross the green...one may go in the hole....but the hole never attracted anything...Maybe that is how Tiger does it?

Ah of course, because everyone knows golf balls carry a charge opposite to that of the hole, right? That doesn't make much sense, man...

The scientists can show an electron cloud, and say that somewhre in there the electron might be...but if the electron moves away... the space left behind is called a pos charge.?

Sort of... your question seems to come down to the matter: are charges absolute or relative? Well from what we have
seen so far they are both. Charge changes can only occur in minima of quanta, units of 1 quant. Relative differences in charge give rise to a subjective
scale in which we call the highest relative charge concentration "the negative charge" and the lowest charge concentration "the positive charge".
There's no black and white there.
Is that perhaps the problem you run into? That in our subjective world we use relative differences instead of absolute distinction when talking about charges?
That the situation is in fact a great big palette of shades of grey, instead of clear black and white 'particles' or 'charges'?

In other papers the electron is only one of 3 quarks?

Pardon? The electron is never one quark. Impossible.

In the newest theory (CPH theory)...everything is made of CPH and the electron is not of much importance.
The scientists don't like a monopole particle idea because of the magnetic vector potentiol A...and on and on it goes..... it's everywhere.

What do you mean to say here? You seem to be saying "scientists don't like the monopole particle because of the A field" and that does not
make sense. Scientists don't like monopoles because they are impossible to build from dipolar fields, and all fields we can make and think we
understand are dipolar. Not because they don't like the A field. And what do you mean with "on and on it goes, it's everywhere"??

The reason why the scientists NEEDED the electron 1/2 spins is found in the chemistry books.

While you seem to find it very intriguing and important, you still haven't told us what is wrong with
that view, in your opinion.

I don't think we can ever see the individual N and S pole magnets...they are far too small.

And I don't think we can ever see individual N and S pole magnets because they don't exist.
After all, magnetism needs two "poles" to "run between". If one of the poles is not there, the other
is not there either. It is impossible to split the S pole from the N pole, because of the nature of the
magnetic field. I'm going to use an analogy of tiny arrows to represent these tiny magnets;
It is not a matter of a lot of tiny "S" arrows and a lot of tiny "N" arrows hooking up
to form a field, it is a matter of a lot of tiny arrows that do not have any "S" or "N" distinction that
align to form the field.
And that is also why, if you break a permanent magnet in two, you are left with two permanent
magnets that both have a "S" and "N" pole, instead of being left with one "S pole" and one "N pole" magnet.

After 5 years of research, I have not found any solid reason against Ed's work.....but I have used Ed's work to explain many things not clearly explained by science......and if I can do it anybody can.

Well, then I invite you to please present your Leedskalin explanations to some of these things that cannot be explained by science.
I would really like to see that. I wonder if it is really a matter of being able to explain things science cannot explain, or if it is rather just
a way of looking at things that can shed a different light on things...?
In any case, I have not found Leedskalins stories very helpfull in that respect at all, and I would like to see how they are
helpfull that way in your view. There is always a chance I just overlooked something that you did not overlook.

This weekend I will try to do an experiment for Charlie V.....I'll make it so that you can see everything as clearly as i can......
If it works the way i think then i'll put it on you tube....

Well that sounds interesting. Please do. Can't wait to find out what it is.

[Koen1]

@ Keon1,

Isn't that what a coil does?  It stores a magnetic field like a capacitor? 

Nope. A coil generates a magnetic field when current is fed to it, and it can "intercept" a magnetic field and induce a current in the wire
that way. But it does not "hold" the flux inside to release it at some later point in time. A capacitor does do this: you feed some charge
to the one plate and take some off the other, and as long as you keep the plates isolated they will hold that charge until you connect
them via a conductor again. Magnetic flux is different, it is not like charge that can be accumulated and dissipated on a conductor.
You cannot "split" magnetic flux into a "positive" and a "negative" "flux charge" and hold them on a magnetically isolated material
until you reconnect the opposing "flux charges" with a ferromagnetic "flux conductor". Flux is not a flow of some sort of "charge"
from a high to a low concentration, like electrical charge is. Flux is a spin field, current is a flow of charge. Different.
And that's why a flux capacitor is impossible: there are no opposing "flux charges" that can be stored.
Or at least, that is the generally accepted view.

What would you consider an electret material - a material that holds a permanent electric field.

Yes good one.
Actually, the electret is the electrical version of the magnet. The battery is slightly different in its operating principle and
in that it generates an actual electrical current, a continuous forceful flow of electrical charge between the poles...
So yeah, ok, you got me there. Mea culpa mea culpa I did not include that in my story while I should have I guess.

[Charlie_V]

A coil generates a magnetic field when current is fed to it, and it can "intercept" a magnetic field and induce a current in the wire that way.

This is true, but the generation of the magnetic field is actually a form of energy storage - just like a capacitor.  A capacitor can like-wise intercept an electric field and induce charge in nearby conductors (aka electrostatic induction). 

But it does not "hold" the flux inside to release it at some later point in time.

This is not so true.  The flux can be maintained, or "held", as long as current is flowing.  The energy stored in the flux of the coil is not utilized by any load in the electrical system.  This flux can then be released when the current is stopped. The magnetic field collapses, generating a flow of current which a load can then consume.  A capacitor stores stationary charge, a coil stores moving charge.  They are both energy storage devices, a mechanical equivalent for a capacitor and coil would be a spring and flywheel, respectively.  The spring stores stationary (or potential) energy, the flywheel stores moving (or kinetic) energy. 

Haven't you ever seen that experiment where they have a light bulb in parallel with an inductor?  Here's a website that demonstrates it:
http://www.magnet.fsu.edu/education/tutorials/java/backemf/index.html

I was trying to point out the way the field lines interact with the environment in a magnet vs a capacitor.  They are both lines of force, but they are not the same, since an electric flux will not repel or attract to a magnetic flux.  Magnetic flux creates a loop, on the outside of the magnet or coil, the flux travels north to south, on the inside of the magnet or coil, the flux travels south to north (the reverse).  Charged conductors' electric flux travel in a single direction - they do not create a closed circular path.  This is why the divergence of the B field is equal to zero in the Maxwell/Heaviside equations. 

A battery is more like a capacitor within a capacitor, so yes the flux lines in the center will be in the opposite direction of the terminals, but these lines DO NOT interact with the environment - they are contained within the battery and cannot be altered by external E-fields.  In a magnet, the internal field lines CAN be altered by outside forces, and that I believe may lead to great things. 

Flux is not a flow of some sort of "charge"
from a high to a low concentration, like electrical charge is.

I bet Flux is what happens when the universe takes a crap. 

Flux is a spin field, current is a flow of charge.

Nope, its a galactic poopy    Seriously though, you can make current flow without producing a magnetic field.  Wind a coil in one direction then reverse the direction and wrap it the other way.  Plug a battery to it and you'll find current flows but the magnetic field is canceled.  So what happens to the energy that would normally be put into the field?  I THINK the answer is that the energy that would normally go into the magnetic field, is free to be consumed by the load. 

Actually, the electret is the electrical version of the magnet. The battery is slightly different in its operating principle and
in that it generates an actual electrical current, a continuous forceful flow of electrical charge between the poles...
So yeah, ok, you got me there.  Mea culpa mea culpa I did not include that in my story while I should have I guess. 

Electrets are pretty freaky.  I don't know much about them other than you can find them in pre-polarized microphones and that they don't last nearly as long as a magnet.