Pliny

I'll be off line for awhile but I'll be back to take up your latest post in a few weeks, kimmy. Talk to you later. Have a glorious day!

We're getting to the end of this pretty soon. Here's a situation for you. We have two masses, M1 and M2. M1 is a mass equal to M2. The difference between the two is that M2 has magnetic propertiesWe put M1 or M2 on a rotor and use some energy to get the rotor rotating that takes X amount of energy, because the two masses are equal the energy necessary to turn the rotor should be equal. Now we place a coil with an iron core next to M1 as it rotates and nothing happens. We place the same coil with an iron core next to M2 and we get an electric current generated in the coil. The question is, the same amount of energy should be required to move both masses as they are equal, but some of that energy used to move M2 is converted to an electrical current and none is converted with M1? Obviously, more energy is necessary to move and maintain the motion of M2 when it is close to the coil. Why? The point of the magnet is that although all the parts of the apparatus will need replacement due to wear and tear and the loss of electrical properties the magnetic force in the magnet essentially remains constant, all other things remaining the same, the magnet will generate the current for a few millenia. The only part of the apparatus that doesn't wear out is the magnetic force. kimmy, in electrical parlance an electrical force or voltage is often referred to interchangeably as a "potential of energy" or "potential" or "difference of potential".

Well, when you say that "putting current through a wire with zero resistance creates almost zero energy and generates almost no heat at all" I have to wonder if you have my interests in mind at all? It looks like the kids have chimed in and they seem well up on things. I guess they aren't as stupid as you believe.

That small amount of energy that aligns the electrons should mean a reduction in a difference of potential, that is the magnetic force, but it doesn't the same force exists as existed prior to the alignment. Gravity is a force, that is a difference of potential and thus, against the theory of relativity, is a source of energy that never depletes. Magnetism is a similar force that is a source of energy that essentially never depletes. The absence of dark matter may mean the unraveling of relativity theory. It is not for my benefit that you go through this exercise. Of that I am certain. A difference of potential, a force, in electricity this is voltage, will only generate as much energy as there is potential, per the conservation of energy. Essentially though, heat will be generated more quickly in the straight or unraveled wire as there is no counter emf built up. We can open the circuit and it will stay closed then? Energy is necessary to maintain the force that holds the spring cntact closed.Some of the energy of the circuit has been converted to a force that holds the contact closed. Open the circuit, the energy is released and the contact restores. The strange thing is that a permanent magnet seemingly doesn't require any energy at all to close the contact since the magnetic force remains the same both before and after. Putting current through a wire is dissipating a difference of potential and is energy. The lower the resistance the more heat will be generated. That statement demonstrates a rather sophomoric understanding of what you are talking about. But wait, a permanent magnet requires zero energy to maintain its magnetic field. Why do you think the wire would be damaged if you think that "putting current through a wire with zero resistance creates almost zero energy and generates almost no heat at all"? True. The only difference would be in the length of time it would take for the circuit to reach the 33.3mA. Some of the energy is converted to a force that moves the contact if it is present. Would you say that force is a "potential of energy"? You are such a trooper...and so caring. The level you will go to in order to help others is simply amazing and very commendable. No one else would even bother.I only want to say one thing here about a new "hypothesis" or theory. You have to be willing to try and make it work to understand if it has any validity. If it contradicts prevailing concepts or understanding that is not a reason for it to be dismissed. If it doesn't work it doesn't work and that is the sole criteria necessary to make judgement. I haven't seen too many people try to make McCutcheon's hypothesis work but there is certainly a lot of criticism and outright scoffing of it without any examination. You can say there is nothing to examine and you have said as much but I am of a different opinion and hope it gets more scrutiny from the scientific community. The problems within it are things that perhaps can be resolved and perhaps not but abandoning it out of a contradiction of current understanding is at best unwise.

It does sound like it. Of course it is, the energy is necessary or else no magnetic field is generated at all. However, the energy is necessary and is converted to electron aligning to produce magnetism and that is converted to align electrons in a ferrous material such as a spring. Energy is never consumed. Unless Einstein was wrong? I think there are a few Physics teachers that teach energy can be consumed, perhaps yours did? Power companies use the term consumed as in how much you converted to different forms. When one turns on a light one says he is consuming energy. In actual fact he is only converting it to a different form. In the context of which we are talking about energy, it cannot be consumed. Holding the spring contact closed is a conversion of some of the electrical energy. The wire being in a random unorganized pile of spaghetti still converts energy to heat mostly and if there is no resistance it may create enough heat to melt the wire. What you have described is how the electrical energy is converted in a coil with an iron core and differently without a coil. Physics with honours from universities often gets one thinking in terms of whether energy is consumed or not consumed. Thanks for the lesson. You are very patient.

It does indeed take energy to move the electrons and bend the spring and hold it with an electromagnet but doesn't appear to need to move any electrons with a permanent magnet in order to bend the spring and hold it.

No one knows why a permanent magnet exists in nature. The properties of magnetism are indeed well understood. It wasn't so easy to prove the world was round a millenium ago. Evidence had to be gathered to prove it. Traveling around the world took too long and was fraught with too many dangers. The idea of a flat Earth ended for most of us around the end of the 1400's.

That's all correct Peter. Here's the point. No one knows why a magnet exists in nature. We can make a magnet by running electrical current through a coil around an iron core. The magnetism exists as long as the current is going through the coil. The electro-magnet pulls on the spring. Work is being done. As long as current is going through the coil the spring is being bent. A permanent magnet pulls on the spring in the same manner but no energy is being expended. It is similar to me not having to eat to stay alive. Having some kind of permanent unknown source of energy to keep myself energized.

I don't think so. Magnetism is a molecular force that changes the molecular alignment of particles only in a ferrous material - at least that's the theory. Spaghetti acts the same no matter what material you throw it at. If spaghetti sticks to the wall by the exact same electromagnetic interactions that magnets do then magnets would stick to the wall as well.There is no explanation for why magnetism exists. Spaghetti sticking to the wall, glue, a block sitting on a table are all gravitational phenomena and not electro-magnetic phenomena.What kind of scientist are you? All right. I know how it has been explained to me how things work and everyone who has taken a grade ten physics course has the same information. The fact is that there is no explanation for the existence of magnetism and I am surprised that there is not even any curiosity about any other theory or possibility that may explain it. There is no willingness or ability to think of any other possibility. It seems we all have to look at physics from the perspective of the same fundamental theory. I guess we have to wait for science before we can think about something different.Of course I realize I am having a discussion with people arguing that physics has all been explained to them and as far as they are concerned there is apparently nothing more to discuss. In order to understand McCutcheon or any contrary theory, or hypothesis on any subject, it is necessary to think with it, not describe its fallacies from the prevailing theory. The following being an example: I believe everyone can see that the world is flat so how can you tell me the world is round. Are we not to believe our eyes? Hahahaha!

There is no need to uproot the present because someone is rooted in the past. We need to move on. No one in present civilization has directly experienced injustices of a century ago and they never will. Are there still injustices? Of course, but hopefully we have made progress. Is it the right of those descendants of those who experienced past injustices to inflict injustices on the descendants of the past oppressors of earlier generations?

You are just being obtuse. Cooked Spaghetti sticks to the wall because it is sticky. There are normal and gravitic forces and mass properties that explain that phenomena. There is no actual reason that explains why magnets exist. There is an understanding of them from different views, the Newtonian view and the quantum physics view are both different. Read about that here. http://sunearthday.gsfc.nasa.gov/2010/TTT/71.php Now grade ten physics is not going to explain magnetism except as kimmy has explained it here. For practical purposes it is explained in our grade 10 physics. Certain practical applications for magnets can be derived from this theory, the production of electrical current, for one. There is another theory.... but of course being steeped in Newtonian physics and laboratory experimentation that is the only theory necessary to look at. There are two ways to approach new concepts, deny they exist and prove with existing knowledge why they are impossible or look at them and try to see how they could have any validity. You cannot attempt to prove one theory with the information from another theory. I started this thread about Dark matter. It is supposedly the missing matter that scientists are looking for that special relativity predicts should be there but, as yet, remains undetected. Billions and billions of dollars are being spent on this theory. Frankly, I think we're off on a tangent on a dead end street. That's my opinion. Until someone has read McCutcheon's book it isn't really worth wasting time on a debate. So I think I am finished with this thread.

I will try and make it really simple for you and the kids.A magnet in proximity to a metal spring will attract the spring to it. This is how a contact works in an electrical circuit. The proximity of the magnet bends the spring and there is a contact closure. As long as the magnet remains in the proximity of the contact the spring contacts remain closed. The metal of the spring tries to return to its normal position but as long as the magnet is in proximity to it the spring is held in place. Of course it takes energy to move the spring and close the contacts. Like an elastic there is always a force exerted by the spring to return to its normal position. It takes energy to hold it out of its normal position. Remove the magnet and the spring contact returns to its open position. It is normally explained that no energy is necessary to hold the spring contact closed because obviously W = FD (Work equals force times distance) and there is zero distance in holding the spring closed. Only in the initial movement of the spring is work done (energy expended) kimmy, earlier on in the discussion, explained to you kids that when we hold something like an elastic out of its normal position at rest that we use energy to do so. Our muscles are used and they create thermal energy, fuel in the form of food is being used and energy is produced to hold the elastic in a stretched position. This is true. The question is then what energy is being used by a magnet to hold the spring contact closed? The conventional answer is none. There is no use of fuel, there is no thermal energy produced, no work is done. It's magnetic force. The forces are in balance and no energy is expended. McCutcheon is saying is that some force is necessary to counter the constant return force of the spring and holding it requires the expenditure of energy, just as any force holding something out of its lowest energy position requires an expenditure of energy. That's as simple as it gets. I'm fine with the fact that physics explains that zero energy is expended, that the magnetic force balances the gravitic and normal forces. It has to explain it that way. Just for the satisfaction of Bonam and kimmy I took my basic electronics and radar training in the services and have worked in related industries for most of my life.

Normal force is holding up the mass of the magnet? Is that what you are saying? "A magnet under the beam has no normal force exerted upon it to hold it up." Is what I said. There is no extant upward normal force applied to the mass of the magnet. Excellent that you find definitions important. Just above didn't you answer normal force was holding the magnet up?The normal force (downward) in your equation is only a reaction to the normal force of the mass of the magnet applied upward by the attraction of oppositely charged molecuales created by the magnetic force so they essentially balance. If you wanted to be correct you would have to say Magnetic force + normal force upward = weight + normal force downward. But the magnetic force is actually polar and does not pull up. The magnetic field causes the molecules of the ferrous material to charge opposite to that of the magnet and the molecules, now polarized and aligned, attract. You also have broad public support in your opinion.There is nothing that explains why the mass of a magnet can be supported by itself without any energy consumption. I know how it is explained by the theory. The explanation ignores observation. All that you've said amounts to "there is a balance of forces that holds the magnet in place". Gravitational force pulling on the mass of the magnet is neutralized by friction, magnetism and normal forces.In fact, on a hanging magnet there is only the attraction of oppositely charged molecules in the magnet and the ferrous material countering gravity. The strength of the magnetic field, the magnetic force, determines how many molecules will be charged and that determines whether or not the mass of the magnet will be able to be held up. in applied sciences "practical" definitely does have merit. And that is how I meant the term as in practical application. Good. Perhaps.

Thanks squid. So in the non-scientific context the big bang theory is something unproven or speculative. As used in science, it is an explanation or model that helps to explain and predict natural phenomena. It doesn't exclude the possibility of other theories and as long as there are unknowns it remains a theory. There are currently two "theories" that are of practical or scientific use in physics, they are Newton's gravitational theory and the theory of relativity. Non-scientifically speaking then they are speculative. Scientifically they are models or concepts that explain and predict natural phenomena. They however, remain as "theories" because they have yet to explain or predict all natural phenomena. Either a new theory will do that or new discoveries will determine the existing theories to be entirely correct and the search will be over. Or perhaps new discoveries will prove existing theory incorrect and obviously some of the observation, experimentation and reasoning will be jettisoned.

The kids? I know so you can love them and hold them and pet them. The theory of relativity is accepted as fact by a lot of people and that is the problem. You were asking for what anomalies there were in the theory earlier and there are quite a few. The search for dark matter is essentially to explain one of those anomalies, where all the mass is that the theory says should be there. The Higgs-Bosun particle should exist according to theory. Physicists at CERN believe they may have discovered one last summer, more testing is being done. Quantum mechanics, string theory, dark matter all the research in these areas are to explain anomalies or prove points that relativity predicts but have not yet been proven. This tells you that relativity is still a theory. What troubles me is that some scientists have declared it a fact and some people unquestioningly promote it as such and most people understand it to be . The fact is, it has not revealed the secrets of the universe. It has not explained everything, so must remain in the realm of theory and not fact. To assume it is fact is ok but to declare it fact is nothing less than authoritarian. It may in the future prove to be the final theory but I kind of doubt it. I think it works more like an elastic. If you stretch it, it attempts to return to its original relaxed state and it takes energy to hold it out of its relaxed state. It all makes sense to you then? I see.