Science contradicts itself..Questions

[rangerover444]

Koen

Thanks for the test and your thoughts.

Koen : ?on the subject of the iron "bubble", that is again not proof of anything Ed said,
and it is entirely understandable why a piece of molten iron with current running
through it can and likely will show some form of spiral pattern if the molten iron
is stretched and worked like a glass-craftsman works molten glass.
It is a neat little trick, but it is no proof of any monopoles, nor of anything else
in Eds theory.?

- The whirling molten iron should indicate that ?something? cause it whirl?. which
    I could not understand from your notes, what it is (and would like to hear, if you will).
- If I?m not wrong, it is the molten iron that keeps spinning (and slowing down), due
   to the motion of the magnets in the contact point, that ?took? with them small particles
   of iron and throw them (together with the magnets) as sparks.
   But if there is a better explanation, I would like to listen to that.
- The bubble at the end of the test is approx. 10% of the observations. I wonder if you have
    any thoughts about the rest of test (why there is attraction ?   Why copper is different then
    iron ?   Why there are sparks ?  Why most of the sparks are thrown in those direction and
    not other ?  Why a bubble is formed ? Etc.).
- There are many aspects to this little tests and all should fit each other.


By the way, I?m under the impression that your keep rejecting Ed?s model explanations by
saying ?but it is no proof of any monopoles, nor of anything else in Eds theory.?
I think the point is not about Black or White - 100% confirmed / 0% confirmed, but if it
make sense or it doesn?t.  Like you mentioned before - ?since we cannot see them, we have
to observe them indirectly?, which I?m 100% with you on that.  So the point is more about
?could it be that magnets are doing all that ?   Or it?s out of question?.



Koen : ?there is no "conversion" of electrons into magnetic fields or vice versa.
I thought it would be clear enough the way I put it;
Magnetism is a relativistic phenomenon, that arises when the electron moves
in respect to the observer. The electron does not disappear, nor does it lose
any of its charge. To the electron itself, nothing changes except for its position.
To the observer a magnetic field arises around the moving electron.
Ergo, the magnetic field is a direct effect of the relative motion between observer
and electron, and not in any way a "conversion" of energy of the electric to the
magnetic form.?

- If magnetism is a relativistic phenomena that caused by the moving electrons, then
   how the electron ?bring these twins? ?   Or if the electrons are not their parents then
   who ?gives birth? here ?
- It sound as the fog from Victoria Falls is caused by the moving water, but the water
   are not the ?parents? of the fog?. And after the fog settle down and become water
   again, it sound that these water cause by the settling fog, but it is a different entity?..
- So why do we have to re-invent nature, instead of follow it ?
- And if Magnetism was here since the beginning of the physical universe, why a
   contemporary culture have to invent new particles ?


Koen : ?I completely fail to see what you find so attractive about Leedskalnins theory,
because it does not explain anything that the electron model does not,
and it is more complicated.?

- If you fail to understand Ed theory, because it does not explain anything that the electron
   model does not, so there are a few issues here :
   A. They are conflicting each other, so they cannot explain in the same way.
   B. This theory does not belong to Ed Leedskalnin, it belongs to nature?
   C. This is not about ?which one is right or wrong?, but about ?how things works?, so an
        objective point of view is necessary here (which seems to be missing, since 99.9999%
        of humanity is already ?washed? by the electron).  And if someone wants to re-visit it,
        it have to be done from a ?clean? point of view, so it?s not so much about science, but
        more about psychology?(at least in the beginning, after that it have to be put to the
        test in the most scientific ways).
  - The last thing I would say about Ed model - that it?s complicated !!!  And I think one of
     the barrier to understand it, is that we don?t used to think simple, and simple become harder
     to understand?.


Thanks for the test you offered, if you don?t mind roughly sketch it on paper, mail it to me
and I?ll make a nice drawing and put it up to the forum.


Cheers

[rangerover444]

 Koen,

I?m trying to follow your instruction for the test you are offering (though it would
be helpful if you could send me a rough sketch, so I will draw it nicely and put it
up for the forum, so it would be easy for other readers to understand) :

Koen : ?Ok, here's the best test I came up with. Please think it over, see if you think the
idea accords with Leedskalnins ideas, because I keep running into a fact that differs from
Eds view in that I still see no good reason for two opposing magnet flows, but rather I
tend to see it as one magnetic field, ergo flux. So I have to keep reminding myself that
Ed does not use the same concept of flux.
So the test setup I came up with to see if we can use Eds ideas to produce output (after all,
this is the overunity forum ) is this:
- Let's take a permanent magnet that according to Leedskalnin emits N pole "magnet" particles
from the magnets N pole, and S particles from the S pole
- put the magnet in a ferromagnetic core that is shaped like a square.
- wind two coils around it, each on a "leg" of the core that does not contain the magnet and
on opposing "legs" to eachother
- take a second magnet and attach that to the side of the core with only the N pole,
so that the two magnets are at 90 degrees to eachother and the N poles are closest
- if need be a second such core can be attached to the other end of this second magnet,
but this time to the S pole, to keep the magnet balanced

If I am not totally off track here this should make for more N particle flow through the core,
which should show more output on the one coil.
But it will probably only work when pulsed with DC, and then it would probably be more efficient
to simply switch the flux back and forth between two "legs" of the core...
A variation could be to use iron wire for the core, and wind it in a spiral manner... But I'm not sure
about that one either?? - end of quote.


Correct me if I?m wrong :
  1. The goals of the test are :
     - See if it works w/ Ed?s ideas.
     - If there are two opposing streams or one magnetic field / flux (static ?)
     - If we can use Ed?s ideas to produce an output.

2. The permanent magnet is rectangular, U-shape or other ?
3. How to put the permanent magnet in a square ferromagnetic core ?
4. How to wind the coil around the square core legs ?
5. Which legs of the core does not contain the magnet ?
6. Attached another magnet N pole to which side of the  core (in 90 degrees) ?
7. If we need to attached another such a core, how it attached to the end of the second magnet ?
8. What do you mean by ?keep the magnet balanced? ?

Sorry, if it sound cynic, but it will really help if you can make a small sketch.

* by the way N pole magnets are coming out of the South pole and around into the North
Pole and the South pole magnets are coming of the North pole, around and into the South pole.
In fact the N pole magnets are going up everywhere in the Southern hemisphere (or if it?s a
rectangular bar magnet - everywhere from the middle to the Southern pole.)  And S pole
magnets are going down everywhere in the Southern side of the bar magnet :






Thanks

[Charlie_V]

Sorry, if it sound cynic, but it will really help if you can make a small sketch.

Don't worry rangerover, I didn't understand what Koen was talking about either.

[rangerover444]

 Koen,

While we are waiting for a clearer version of your test (I can help with the drawing
itself, if you need). I have a good idea :
Since we want to find out from an objective point of view what is electricity and what
is magnetism and how they work. Let?s be smart and examine it from two directions :
1. If magnetism is responsible for electricity. 
2. If electrons are responsible for electricity (or if electrons exists).

If you agree to that, please bring up a few tests that shows the existence of the Electron,
as an independent natural particle (made by nature) so we could analyze it from an
objective point of view (I could help with the drawings if you need).
I don?t mean ?touch a 220V wire - and see what is an electron?, but a real scientific tests.

Thanks

[Koen1]

.... it's like we're two preachers of different religions preaching to eachother...

My view is and was that Eds theory is nice and close but no cigar,
and that it is in my opinion nothing but a different interpretation
of the very same model that uses the 90 degree entanglement of
electric "A" fields and magnetic "B" fields.
So that he is not saying anything new.

I do not mean to say Eds view is completely different,
I mean to point out that the huge difference and the breakthrough
insight that you and some others seem to see between Eds theory
and the established model is not really there.

That is why I keep saying it does not bring us anything new.

I do not really want to keep repeating Eds statements and views
which I think were a good thought experiment for him but are
certainly not groundbreaking insights.

As for the test setup I suggested, I have made a drawing of the idea
and will attach it to this post. I hope it is clear enough.

Please do keep in mind that I am merely trying to come up with
a setup that might work if magnetism is indeed emitted as monopole
particles from the magnet poles, but that is just about the extent of
the influence of Eds ideas on the concept...

By the way, here is a site of a guy who also thinks he has made a
Leedskalnin-ish magnet battery: http://www.lawofmagnetism.com/magbat.html
It has in the mean time been established that what he is getting out
as electricity is just a galvanic current, because he has made a simple
galvanic cell with one of the dissimilar metals being the magnet material.