Faraday's Paradox experiment

[gravityblock]

@Gravityblock

Please do not lower yourself to personal insults to try to make your point I would hope we are all better than that here.

Regards
AC

You don't think your statement that my "experiment is flawed on so many levels it defies description", along with saying I was careless and threw my experiment together in a hurry was a personal attact?  My thoughts went into that experiment, and by saying the experiment was flawed on so many levels it defies description, is in no way any different than saying my thoughts are flawed on so many levels that it defies description.

What I said in my posts was in no way any more of a personal attack than what was contained in your post.  Criticize my experiment, but don't criticize my intelligence directly or indirectly.  The funny thing is, the arguments you mentioned were already brought up in the discussion after the experiment, and I was even fully aware of those issues prior to my experiment..... but you had to throw those issues up into my face again in order to try and prove your point, which you weren't successful in doing.

GB

[gravityblock]

@Gravityblock
I would disagree, in physics it is well known that these lines of force are imaginary and used only as a form of notation. That is they do not exist in reality and are simply a magnetic phenomena which misled many people in the past. Here is an experiment, take two iron rods and place them under a magnetic north pole and you will find a south pole is induced in each rod thus they repel one another. Next move one rod downward in relation to the other and you will find at some point they will attract thus we see the real reason why the iron filing experiment has misled so many people. The lines of supposed force depicted by the iron filings experiment are not real lines of force they are a simple magnetic phenomena associated with the iron filings themselves. That is the forces of attraction and repulsion tend to form lines in ferromagnetic materials due to the nature of the material and not the source of the field.
In physics the magnetic field is known as a scalar field gradient which has a magnitude at any given point, a force, but no direction intrinsic to each point. If you look at it like water pressure I think it will make much more sense, water pressure is a gradient intrinsic to each point in the gradient and the force applied to it.
Regards
AC

How convenient for you to say the lines of force are imaginary.  If you want to go this route with what is real and imaginary, then don't half ass it. If this is the case, then we can also say that neither matter nor energy exist, but only deformed space, which is called matter, and what we call energy is nothing more than a phenomenon of transition between primordial space and deformed space.

An electron is an intergration of electromagnetic waves.  We can define the electron as deformed magnetic space, propagated in wave form.  Now an electron, as a wave form, is moved in an (anti)clockwise circle. In this spiraloid movement it has a discontinuous wave surface rather like a spiral spring. The movement itself is not discontinuous, but only appears so by virtue of its spiralling movement. It also shows a magnetic phenomenon cancelling out the charge on one side which gives an observer the impression that the energy moves in jumps. Further, it is subject to the outcome of the difference of charge due to this magnetic effect, as well as the result of its rotation.

The so-called orbits K-L-M'0 are nothing but stationary electrical waves in the field of the atom, each having its particular wave structure and frequency. It is known that waves of varying length do not interfere with one another as is shown by radio, even though they occupy the same area of space.

Is the photon a wave or a particle?  Is the electron a wave or a particle?  Is the electron and photon real or imaginary?  Matter does not exist in reality and is simply a phenomenon of space being deformed.  Energy does not exist in reality and is simply a phenomenon of transition between primordial space and deformed space.

GB

[gravityblock]

When both mags are rotating at the same speed and direction, then the lines of force between the rotating mags will circulate in unison, as if they were a single magnet without any distance seperating them.  If the mags are rotating at different speeds or different directions, then the field lines will continiously break and connect with each other giving the appearance that the field isn't rotating due to the tiny torque involved during the break/connect interactions. The field lines will break/connect also in the case of having two diametrically magnetised magnets rotating at different speed or directions, and it is also true for the axially magnetised magnets as well.  The torque is much higher with two diametrically magnetized magnets when the field lines break/connect with each other than with two axially magnetized magnets. The lines of force are firmly seated on the magnet.

GB

I substituted the imaginary "lines of force" with "magnetic field" in order to make things real for my "imaginary friend".

When both mags are rotating at the same speed and direction, then the magnetic field between the rotating mags will circulate in unison, as if they were a single magnet without any distance seperating them.  If the mags are rotating at different speeds or different directions, then the magnetic field will continiously break and connect with each other giving the appearance that the magnetic field isn't rotating due to the tiny torque involved during the break/connect interactions. The magnetic field will break/connect also in the case of having two diametrically magnetised magnets rotating at different speed or directions, and it is also true for the axially magnetised magnets as well.  The torque is much higher with two diametrically magnetized magnets when the magnetic field break/connect with each other than with two axially magnetized magnets. The magnetic field is firmly seated on the magnet.

Wow, just changing a few words can make something real, and without changing it's meaning.  Absolutely amazing.

GB

[allcanadian]

@Gravityblock
I did not mean to offend you and I did not mean to attack you personally and if I did then I am sorry, I did however intend to criticize the validity of your experiment. I hope you can understand my point, I only ask that you consider the experiments that I have performed and outlined in my second last post in relation to the one you posted on youtube. You can then decide which experiments you believe would give a more accurate result, Im not here to offend you or tell you what to believe I am just stating what I know as fact, that is my opinion.
As well what I have stated as my opinion in regards to magnetic fields is based on the work of Ampere,Faraday,Maxwell,Tesla,Einstein,Feynman and others who have stated that there are no lines of force in reality. Ampere and Maxwell went so far as to state that the magnetic field should be considered as completely independent of the source magnet however any external force applied to the field must translate back to that source. My experiments were simply a continuation of this concept as well as the Faraday Paradox and I personally found that the magnetic field does not rotate.
I would also like to make the point that your difference of opinion with mine is not a bad thing in any way and the more people who are willing to openly debate the issues and question the validity of things the better. I can only hope that my posts may raise enough curiosity in people that they do the experiments for themselves to prove the matter for themselves as that is the only way real progress is made.
Regards
AC

[broli]

When you put a train on circular track with a circumference of the train's length. And install speakers on each wagon which all emit the same sound and turn them on. If you close your eyes you won't tell if the train is moving or not. From the outside this looks like a static phenomena just due to the superposition fact. But when you are on the wagon you clearly see the sound waves being emitted by each speaker separately and they are clearly moving with the source. Because if the train was on a straight track the sound would increase when as the train passes and fade out when it goes farther into the distance.

Just because it looks "stationary" doesn't mean it is. Yes we can say it has the same effect on our ear as if it were stationary but we can't conclude from that that it actually is stationary. I think this has a fancy mathematical name, paradoxical deduction?