Faraday's Paradox experiment

[KWP]

relativity is not proven... it was, and remains, a theory. one with various issues at that.

Relativity is not a "theory" at all, but rather a pretty good mathematical MODEL that does not hold true when things become very small or very large in scale.  But, it's a great model to engineer things until a better model comes along, or until we actually come up with a REAL theory that explains everything without excuses.  Einstein said that "matter causes space to bend", but he never went on to tell us WHAT the "space-time fabric" actually IS, or WHY it "bends in the presence of matter".  (Actually, the word "bend" is not a good one-- the space-time fabric is affected by matter in a manner that causes local space to rarefy-- or "become less dense".  The term "bending" is more suited to 2 dimensions as opposed to our 4-dimensional observable universe.)

Pick any current Aether theory, and at least there is an attempt to explain WHAT the "space-time fabric" is made out of, and how it behaves in the presence of matter and energy.  Aether theory lays a foundation for explaining the Zero Point Field (ZPF), and Zero Point Energy (ZPE), while the relativity math model has nothing to say about this.  In addition, almost all modern Aether theories have something to say about "spin", while the relativity math model is almost silent on this issue.

Tesla disagreed with Einstein, and he said that in the future (his) Aether theory will prevail.  It's too bad that Tesla's Aether theory was stolen from his safe, so we will never know what Tesla had written down, but it is impossible to keep truth hidden forever.  A mad friend of mine said: "Every closet has a skeleton, and skeletons don't like closets!"-- I know that if we keep digging, we will find the answers we are looking for.

[WilbyInebriated]

Relativity is not a "theory" at all, but rather a pretty good mathematical MODEL that does not hold true when things become very small or very large in scale.  But, it's a great model to engineer things until a better model comes along, or until we actually come up with a REAL theory that explains everything without excuses.  Einstein said that "matter causes space to bend", but he never went on to tell us WHAT the "space-time fabric" actually IS, or WHY it "bends in the presence of matter".  (Actually, the word "bend" is not a good one-- the space-time fabric is affected by matter in a manner that causes local space to rarefy-- or "become less dense".  The term "bending" is more suited to 2 dimensions as opposed to our 4-dimensional observable universe.)

Pick any current Aether theory, and at least there is an attempt to explain WHAT the "space-time fabric" is made out of, and how it behaves in the presence of matter and energy.  Aether theory lays a foundation for explaining the Zero Point Field (ZPF), and Zero Point Energy (ZPE), while the relativity math model has nothing to say about this.  In addition, almost all modern Aether theories have something to say about "spin", while the relativity math model is almost silent on this issue.

Tesla disagreed with Einstein, and he said that in the future (his) Aether theory will prevail.  It's too bad that Tesla's Aether theory was stolen from his safe, so we will never know what Tesla had written down, but it is impossible to keep truth hidden forever.  A mad friend of mine said: "Every closet has a skeleton, and skeletons don't like closets!"-- I know that if we keep digging, we will find the answers we are looking for.

it is a theory, hence the name, 'relativity the special and general theory', by einstein himself...
http://books.google.com/books?id=3H46AAAAMAAJ&dq=relativity&pg=PR3#v=onepage&q&f=false

[lumen]

@KWP

Did you try rotating the ferrofluid? and see how the lines of force rotate with the fluid and are not stationary?

[sigma16]

If everyone spent as much time experimenting as they do nit-picking the words of others, we would have everything figured out by now.

Nice video of ferrofluid in a rotating magnetic field (with axial DC field):

http://scitation.aip.org/phf/gallery/2003-lorenz.jsp

[gravityblock]

Below is a quote from a publication done by Jorge Guala-Valverde and Pedro Mazzoni related to experiments with a Confined B-Field Homopolar Dynamotor.

A few words on the (in archaic language) “rotating”/“fixed” field lines controversy can be said in the light of our experiments.  For open configurations all happens as if B lines rotate anchored to the magnet, whereas the above lines appear to be attached to the whole magnetized bulk when dealing with confined arrangements

Below is a quote found in the Conclusions of the paper titled Farraday's Final Riddle

The lines of force rotate with a magnet upon its North-South axis.  The emf, that is produced in a nearby circuit by a magnet, is caused by the cutting of the circuit by the lines of force of that magnet. It is not produced unless there is cutting of the circuit by those lines of force; additionally the cutting must be in one direction (net), or be by unequal force lines, if cut in two directions (net).

The Faraday Generator phenomenon is caused by the cutting of the stationary circuit by the lines of force of the magnet, as the magnet rotates. It has previously been supposed that the magnet is cutting its own lines of force.

When a disc is set rotating near the pole of the magnet, the results are anomalous. The results are fully explained as being due to involvement of only a portion of the whole circuit.  'Faraday's Law' of electromagnetic induction is true only in particular circumstances. As is known, a separate analysis is required for Motional Electromotive Force. One single general rule is missing. This paper provides the basis for such a general rule.

Below is a quote from a publication, titled Paradox 2, by Robert Distinti

Proponents of the rotating field suggest that energy is developed as the field is “cut” by the stationary closing path while others propose that the energy is developed in the disk which means that the field can not be rotating. New Electromagnetism (Specifically New Magnetism) teaches that the above question is moot since the field does rotate; however, no energy is developed in the closing path. This sounds like a contradictory statement to classically trained scientists and engineers; however, the Paradox 2 experiment clearly shows that power can be developed without cutting flux lines

For those interested in building the Paradox 2 device, here's a paper on the exact details.

Here's a quick movie demonstrating the Paradox 2 device.

In a PM, there are moving charges in a current loop which induces a magnetic field.  The induced magnetic field will move with these moving charges.  The field will move with the charges, regardless of the movement of the PM itself.  The field of a stationary PM is moving, but the field isn't changing in direction or strength, thus there is no "changing magnetic field in time" to induce a charge in a stationary external conductor, thus the need for relative motion between the PM and conductor in order to have current flow in regular induction.  In the Faraday Disc, there must be relative motion between the disk and external circuit.

Some of my brushless HPG/HPM designs are based on the concept of creating "virtual relative motion" by properly understanding the Motional Electromotive Force in order to get rid of the brushes to reduce losses.  It can also be used to increase the voltage without an engineering nightmare.  If my brushless designs work based on virtual relative motion, then I doubt OU will be achieved since the counter torque will still be there.

GB