Pliny
-
Posts
5,799 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Pliny
-
-
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".
-
Shit, Pliny! Get it together!
I don't have time to help you right now. I'll get back to this as soon as I'm able. In the meantime, I dunno, don't operate any heavy machinery or power-tools.
-k
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.
-
kimmy, on 10 Aug 2013 - 1:18 PM, said:
A very small amount of energy is required to align the atoms in the piece of iron. Once they are aligned, all of the energy that we are putting into that electromagnet is being converted to heat. Didn't we already cover that?
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.Quote
I am entirely clear on what energy means, and how the law of conservation of energy works. We're going through this exercise for your benefit, not mine.
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.Quote
The electrical energy being put into the coil of wire is conserved as heat. It is the same amount of energy whether the coil of wire is generating a magnetic field that holds a spring closed, or whether the coil of wire is generating a magnetic field in free space that's not pulling on anything, or if the coil of wire has been unraveled and piled in a random mess that is generating no net magnetic field at all. In all 3 cases, the electrical energy we put into the wire is converted to heat. In all 3 cases, the exact same amount of heat is generated.
We can open the circuit and it will stay closed then? Energy is necessary to maintain the force that holds the spring cntact closed.Quote
No. Pulling the spring closed requires energy. Once it is in the closed position, it requires no further energy.
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.Quote
If there is no electrical resistance, putting current through the wire uses almost zero energy and generates almost no heat at all.
But wait, a permanent magnet requires zero energy to maintain its magnetic field.Quote
And if we could wind our electromagnet with a wire made of a superconductive material instead of copper, our electromagnet would require almost zero energy to create a magnetic field. (this is why finding a room-temperature superconductor would be such a big deal!)
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"?Quote
However, you're probably thinking of a relay wound with copper wire that might have a current-limiting resistor in-line with it to reduce the current flow so that the wire doesn't get damaged. Copper wire doesn't actually have zero resistance.
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.Quote
Let's consider a typical commercial relay like this Panasonic 12V relay:
http://pewa.panasonic.com/assets/pcsd/catalog/alz-catalog.pdf
The coil has a DC resistance of 360 ohms. Is 360 ohms a lot of resistance for a coil of copper wire? Well, considering that the coil has thousands of windings and might be a hundred feet long if you unspool it, no. The resistance of long lengths of wire is actually a serious problem in many electrical applications like building wiring or power distribution.
Anyway, our copper coil has DC resistance of 360 ohms, and when you apply the rated 12V input, you get a current through the wire of 12/360 = 33.3mA. The rated power of the coil is 400mW, and multiplying 12V*33.3mA gives 400mW. Bust open this little transformer, remove the spring contact, and apply 12V, and you will still measure 33.3mA going through the coil.
Would you say that force is a "potential of energy"?Quote
Whaaaaa? What I have described is how an electromagnet works, how a permanent magnet works, and how the electromagnet requires a continuous flow of current to create a magnetic field while the permanent magnet does not.
There is no "consumed", there's only converted. Most commonly, converted to wasted heat.
The physics courses I have taken got me grounded in the basics of this subject, which helps me understand things like the difference between force and 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.Quote
As I said before, I'm doing it for the children.
-k
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.kimmy, on 03 Aug 2013 - 11:38 AM, said:
Fair enough. As I've made mention of my grade 10 physics background, I'll also add that I also took grade 11 physics, grade 12 physics, and first year "honors" physics courses at the U of A.
-k
Of course it is, the energy is necessary or else no magnetic field is generated at all.kimmy, on 03 Aug 2013 - 10:03 AM, said:
A coil of wire with a current flowing through it creates a magnetic field.
Insert a piece of iron into the coil, and the magnetic field becomes much stronger, because the magnetic poles of the iron atoms will align themselves to the magnetic field generated by the coil. Each iron atom's own magnetic field adds to the overall magnetic field, and the end result is the magnetic field created by the electric coil plus the sum of the magnetic fields of each iron atom.
But note that even though the magnetic field in one instance is much stronger, the amount of energy we put in in both instances is the same. It takes the same amount of energy to move the energy through the coil of wire whether there is an iron core there or not.
And then suppose we take that coil of wire and unspool it so that it's just a pile of unorganized spaghetti instead of a coil, and put an electric current through it. It still requires the same amount of energy, except now there is no net magnetic field being created because the wire is now arranged at random so that the magnetic field generated by any given length of wire is cancelled out by the field generated by some other random length of wire.
So what you should be getting from this is that the magnetic field isn't a function of the energy that we put through the wire.
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?Quote
And when that coil of wire and its iron core are acting on a spring to create an electrical contact (this is called a "relay"...) the energy you put into the coil of wire to create the magnetic field whether the little metal contact is present, or whether that coil of wire were creating the field in empty space. Break open your relay, remove the spring and the metal contact, and apply current, and you'll find that your relay still uses the same amount of energy.
Conclusion: holding that spring contact closed does not consume energy.
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.Quote
So what about permanent magnets? Remember earlier we had the loop of wire with the current going through it, and found that when we insert an iron core into the loop, the magnetic field becomes much stronger because the iron atoms line up with the field and each atom's magnetic field adds to the overall field. With a permanent magnet, it is the same, except that the permanent magnet does not need the external field to line up the atoms. The atoms are already aligned.
How did they get aligned? They were aligned when the magnet was created. One way to do this would be by heating a piece of magnetic material so that the atoms can move freely, putting it inside a magnetic field to align the atoms, and then cooling the material to lock the atoms in place.
-k
-
Good grief, Pliny, the electromagnet requires energy to create a magnetic field because it requires energy to create the electric current.
Pushing the electrons through the resistive material requires energy.
The electromagnet uses the exact same amount of energy whether it is attracting the spring, or whether it is creating the magnetic field in empty space.
It also uses the exact same amount of energy as putting an equal current through an equal resistance that isn't creating a magnetic field, such as a typical carbon-film resistor.
In short, the energy is being spent moving electrons, not attracting the spring.
-k
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.
-
your entire premise is flawed. Magnetism is well understood.
No one knows why a permanent magnet exists in nature. The properties of magnetism are indeed well understood.
But it is easy to prove that the world is round... and no evidence is shown for a flat earth... much the same as McCutcheon's silly "theories".
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.
-
Indeed. Pliny's switch is an example of a permanent magnet and not an electrical switch. Once closed by the presence of the magnet it would never open. Plinys switch is not a switch at all.
But he mistakes it for a switch and asks where the energy to keep the spring extended comes from?
An electrical switch requires ferro-magnetic material. In the presence of an electric current the material becomes magnetized and will remain magnetized as long as the electricity is present. Once the electricity is gone, then the ferro-magnetic material reverts back to its non magnetized state and there is no longer any magnetic force pulling on the spring.
So, in an electrical switch, the energy to keep the spring extended comes from the electrical energy magnetizing the ferro-magnetic material.
Or, a permanent magnet could extend the spring (no electrics required) but it would permanently remain extended until the magnet was removed.
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.Bonam, on 30 Jul 2013 - 6:11 PM, said:
Spaghetti sticks to the wall by the exact same types of electromagnetic interactions that magnets do.
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.Quote
All non-gravitational phenomena you see in everyday life are electromagnetic in nature: spaghetti sticking to the wall, glue, a block sitting on a table and not falling through it, these are all electromagnetic phenomena and obey the exact same set of 4 equations that permanent magnets do. That's why I asked you about these earlier and you of course completely missed the point of the question.
What kind of scientist are you?
All right.Quote
The requirement for dark matter is unrelated to special relativity. It can be derived from general relativity, or even from simple Newtonian dynamics, but not from special relativity which says nothing about gravity.
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.Quote
I'm honestly still flabbergasted that it is possible for a person to spend as much time as you have writing posts about physics and yet have never taken the time to actually learn how things work on even the most basic level.
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!
-
I think you misunderstood what Obama said. What he said to Afericans is no different than what Happer said to Canadian aboriginal chiefs: You have my fully sympathy for what happened hundreds years ago and I would do my best if I was able to correct these.....but what could I do since we have already been here?
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
Electromagnets are created when electric currents move through a conducting wire. When you turn off the current by removing the battery, the magnetic field vanishes, so it is obvious that a current is involved in generating the magnetic field.
Permanent magnets (kitchen magnets) seem to contradict this rule, but in fact, they are magnetic because individual atoms with their 'orbiting' charged electrons are mostly lined up to create the overall 'permanent' magnet. The electron's orbital movement is the charged current that creates the magnetic field. Permanent magnets can be de-magnetized by heating them up. The jostling of the heated atoms eventually randomizes the directions of the atomic 'magnets', and the over-all field vanishes. In fact it is still there, the electrons still orbit their nuclei, but the magnetic domains in which the field is organized become smaller and smaller compared to the size of the magnet.
Quantum Magnets - According to the modern theory of atomic physics, called the Standard Model, electrons are fundamental particles. It is obvious that they are charged particles, but even stranger is that they act like miniature magnets themselves. This makes sense if we think of electrons as tiny planets with a surface that rotates about some axis. The negative electric charge on the surface moves as the electron spins, and this rotating surface current creates a small amount of magnetism. The problem is that electrons have no surface; they are mathematical points in space. Also, although they have a physical quantity we call 'spin' this is not the same thing we talk about when we discuss planets, although it seems to work in the same way! This means that the explanation we use for the origin of magnetism has to be drastically changed when we describe magnetism on the quantum scale of fundamental particles.
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.kimmy, on 29 Jul 2013 - 8:43 PM, said:
Good grief, Pliny, you are making an epic fool of yourself. I don't have time to help you right now, but I will get back to this soon enough. In the mean time, could you remind us again what kind of electrical background it was that you have?
-k
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?kimmy, on 27 Jul 2013 - 10:42 AM, said:
Normal force.
"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.Quote
I know that's what you meant to say, but you're wrong.
Normal force is exerted perpendicular to a surface against anything that is pressing against it. If you have a spring pushing against a wall, the wall exerts a normal force against the spring. A fridge door exerts a normal force against a magnet that is pressing against it. a metal beam on your roof will exert normal force downward on a magnet that is pressing upward against it.
"Normal force on a vertical surface is zero" is a nonsensical statement, because it makes no references to what force is being applied against the vertical surface. Normal force due to gravity would be zero. Normal force due to a stick leaning against a wall is not zero. If a spring is pushing upward against your ceiling, your ceiling exerts normal force straight downward against the spring. If a magnet is attracted upward at your metal ceiling, your ceiling is applying normal force straight downward against the magnet.
Excellent that you find definitions important.Quote
Bonus point: "Normal" is a mathematical term meaning a vector that is perpendicular to a plane. In the term "normal force", "normal" is not a synonym for "regular".
Just above didn't you answer normal force was holding the magnet up?Quote
I know what you meant, and again you're wrong.
The magnet is pushing upward against the surface of the beam, and the surface of the beam exerts normal force downward against the magnet. All the forces balance to zero:
Magnetic force (upward) = Weight (downward) + Normal Force (downward)
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.Quote
I work in residential construction; I suppose that by internet credentials standards, that makes me an "applied physics expert in the field of civil engineering."
Regardless; my credentials aren't the issue. I have all the qualifications necessary to point out that you're wrong. A grade 3 kid is qualified to point out basic addition errors; any highschool graduate is qualified to point out the errors in basic physics you're making.
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.Quote
On the contrary; I'm doing just fine. The only thing I'm finding to be a struggle is attempting to communicate with someone so impermeable to information (that's the only way I can think of to phrase that without getting warning points...)
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.Quote
"Practical" isn't a concept that has scientific merit.
Good.Quote
"Empirical" has scientific merit.
Empirical evidence is obtained in verifiable, repeatable experiments that test a hypothesis, whether you consider it "practical" or not.
Perhaps.Quote
No; Mr McCutcheon's idea isn't a theory in the scientific meaning of the word. Mr McCutcheon's idea represents the difference between a "theory" and "an idea that somebody came up with while puffing on a bong full of high-quality chiba-chiba."
-k
-
This might help:
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.
-
That is really the only reason I keep going. I know that there's no reaching you, but I am hopeful that I can at least show impressionable youths like Gosthacked that your wacky theories just don't hold water. I'm doing it for the kids.
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.This is incorrect. It does not take energy to keep the atoms aligned with the magnetic field. Energy is applied to align them. That energy is stored as long as the magnetic field remains. When the magnetic field is removed, that energy is released as kinetic energy.
There is no "normal state" for those atoms. There is a state which stores the lowest potential energy, and that is the state that those atoms will arrive in. While the external magnetic field is present, the lowest potential energy is in the state where the atoms are aligned with the magnetic field. Any atom that is not in line with the magnetic field can lower its potential energy and increase its kinetic energy by moving to line up with the magnetic field.
When the external magnetic field is removed, the conditions change and the atoms are no longer in the state with the lowest potential energy. They will find a new orientation that reduces their potential and releases it as kinetic energy.
There's no need for Relativity to attempt to explain magnets; it's explained by ordinary classical laws of motion. Relativity explains why the magnet stays on the fridge entirely well simply by the fact that ordinary classical laws of motion are a subset of relativistic laws of motion for the special case where (v/c) is negligibly small. Ta-da, that's how relativity explains why the magnet explains on your fridge.
It all makes sense to you then?
I'm not getting coaching from Bonam on this; merely emotional support. My coaching on this subject came from Mr Herzberg, my grade 10 physics teacher.
-k
I see.
-
How about a team of independent (and lightly armed) MBAs charged with achieving service goals AND cost cuts, that work on commission ?
The mind boggles at what could be done.
What? And make the most important job of all irrelevant - that of the bureaucrat. The era of Bureaucratic Empires coming to an end? It really is the Apocalypse.
-
I have been polite to kimmy. I encourage her to keep informing others of how wrong I really am.Bonam, on 22 Jul 2013 - 09:56 AM, said:
Really? You work in the field of electronics and are familiar with "electrical theory"? What do you do, exactly? I sure hope your employer isn't reading these forums
You really aught to be more polite to kimmy here, she is going far beyond the limits of mortal human patience to try to help out your understanding of some very basic concepts that you hold some very confused beliefs about.
For yourself, I must say I am a bit disappointed but not entirely surprised at your position.
I've gotten kimmy to at least agree that energy is necessary to align the electrons of a ferrous material in order for the magnet to adhere to it. It is also necessary to hold those electrons out of their normal state for as long as the magnet is in contact with it - that takes energy.
I am not surprised at your position because it is impossible to proceed with a theory unless the theory is upheld. Mathematically the theory can be upheld and without any other theory it is necessary to work with what we have. Little things like magnets being anomalies have to be explained away somehow. Voila! Magnets hold themselves up by friction and normal forces.
Really, there is no explanation by relativity theory as to why magnets hold themselves up. That's the bottom line, Bonam. If you want to argue the point you can't do it from a practical point of view but you can do it from a theoretical mathematical view.
I realize that kimmy is getting some coaching from you but really she is struggling and may, because she is smart and can see through things, be able to see for herself, she will of course have to move past her prejudices which is often difficult.
-
Here's a breakdown of Detroit and surrounding suburbs by demographics (from the 2000 census)... red dots represent white people, blue dots represent African-Americans. See if you can guess where the municipal boundaries of Detroit are from looking at the red and blue dots:
(bonus points if you can spot the municipalities of Hamtramck and Highland Park, wholly encircled by Detroit.)
Pretty graphic, huh?
-k
This lesson on how Blacks took over Detroit is a good one on how Blacks can entirely take over America.
-
No, they're not "intended" for any specific sector. That's not even logical.
You are right. They are not intended for any specific sector. They are intended for everyone.
Boges points out some very valid points from a conservative economic view, that being there is a specific purpose and an intended specific sector for a minimum wage. He doesn't realize that the Liberal view is that everyone should make that wage and no one should make more. It's called equality and social justice or, correctly - Marxism.
-
Whatever Armstrong predicted in the 1980's is largely meaningless.
Not if he was right. The whole purpose of the current economic structure is stability and that requires predictability both of the policies implemented and the market forces themselves. Predictability is a valuable commodity and it depends upon correct analysis of information.
Subsequent American administrations could have avoided the current debt load through a combination of taxation and spending restraint. They didn't due to spinelessness and foolishness. Was that was Armstrong was predicting?
Spinelessness and foolishness? Or a system out of control?
The fact is they created a boom which always results in a bust and that means a crisis for government revenues resulting in deficit spending and increased debt as they try and pump up the economy with new money. The boom and bust cycles are getting increasingly frequent and increasingly unwieldy.
Of course, someone with power will not easily give it up or back. The people need to have it back. They had it when government was not in control of the money supply, the market set interest rates and production was accomplished based upon real savings and not debt created out of thin air..
-
I am finished here and will not post again.
I'm sorry to hear that Russ.
I think the discussion is important. People really need to know about the central banking system, what money is and all that.
I was reading about the Bank of Canada on Wikipedia this morning to see what happened in 1974 and why the big push from COMER is to return to the days prior to 1974.
I guess essentially inflation is what happened. The loans the Bank of Canada made prior to 1974 were not entirely interest free but loans wwere made for as little as 1%. This policy was cited as being responsible for high inflation and consequently they decide to slow the growth of the money supply through higher interest rates on loans thus making loans less desirable.
But really people need to know what money is and why a legal tender issued currency is not money in the full sense of the term.
-
Posted Yesterday, 08:02 PM
Pliny, on 15 Jul 2013 - 09:16 AM, said:
Friction? Or is it the area of the magnet in contact with the fridge not creating enough magnetic attraction? A small round bucky ball magnet will stay up on your fridge. The magnetism is great enough to hold that weight and the surface area of the magnet in contact with the fridge is minimal so friction is minimal.
False.
A small contact area can generate lots of friction if the applied force is strong enough. If the magnet won't roll down the fridge, it would still slide if not for friction.So what is the applied force that must be strong enough to create the friction.
Pliny, on 15 Jul 2013 - 09:16 AM, said:
The up-down forces are gravity and static friction as you say. The east-west forces are only magnetic attraction. "Normal force" on a perpendicular surface is zero and friction on a perpendicular surface is close to zero.
Erroneous.
Normal force is *always* perpendicular to a surface. You're obviously confused because the fridge door surface is perpendicular to *gravity*, so would provide no normal force in opposition to *gravity*. However, the fridge door surface in the situation we have described is not opposing gravity. It is opposing the magnetic force of the magnet. You've once again failed to grasp the basic concepts of physics that you're attempting to debunk.You just refuse to understand what I say. "Normal force is *always* perpendicular to a surface." is what you said. I said, "normal force on a perpendicular surface is zero" By perpendicular surface I mean perpendicular to the ground. It would perhaps have been better for me to say "normal force on a 'vertical surface' is zero"
Isn't it true, Pliny, that you hadn't even heard of Normal Force until I linked to it last week? Isn't it the case that you're just using terms like "normal force" so that you can pretend you're fluent in this subject matter?No
Pliny, on 15 Jul 2013 - 09:16 AM, said:
There is no normal force on a horizontal surface and no friction when a magnet is attached on the bottom. You might find that a round or ball magnet may fall off a horizontal surface. It is due to the fact there is not enough surface contact to create a magnetic area large enough to hold its weight.
Incorrect. Again you don't understand normal force.Once again, I believe you misinterpret what I say. Do you think I meant no normal force when a magnet is sitting horizontally on top of a beam? There is no normal force from a magnet hanging on a steel beam. There is normal force from whatever is holding up the beam. A magnet under the beam has no normal force exerted upon it to hold it up.
Pliny, on 15 Jul 2013 - 09:16 AM, said:
"Normal force" as I mentioned is zero. So we only have magnetic attraction and gravity.
As I mentioned, you're completely wrong about normal force.
Pliny, on 15 Jul 2013 - 09:16 AM, said:
McCutcheon's theory is that gravitational force is zero as well. So there is only magnetic attraction. There is a force there and force is not energy but potential, similar to voltage. When the magnet aligns the electrons of a ferrous material to create an opposite attractive charge that requires energy. Force is only potential. A magnet alone or not near a ferrous material expends no energy but has potential of creating energy. Placing a small ferrous object near a magnet and it snaps the object to it. The motion of the object toward the magnet is obviously an expenditure of energy. Holding the object in position is also an expenditure of energy. Although mathematically, gravitational theory proves no expenditure of energy. That is the error.And all of this is just ridiculous and riddled with errors.
Well, I work in the field of electronics and am quite familiar with electrical theory. You on the other hand are working in what area of physics? Gardening?
I find it funny you are trying to explain this to me. I know it is a bit of a struggle for you with all the research you have to do on things like normal force
or asking Bonam about.
Pliny, on 15 Jul 2013 - 09:16 AM, said:
Yes, it is explained by current theory but must ignore practicality to do so.
And what does "praciticality" mean in this instance? Are you using the word "practicality" as shorthand for "makes sense to Pliny"?"in the practical world" basically.
Pliny, on 15 Jul 2013 - 09:16 AM, said:
He is an electrical engineer. I'm certain he understands the difference between force and energy. The example like the fridge magnet prove that science has to ignore it and somehow explain it away.
Being an electrical engineer doesn't necessarily mean he's good at mechanical analysis or relativity or quantum mechanics or anything other than connecting resistors and diodes together. We had a 9/11 crackpot here on MLW a few years ago who demanded that we treat him as an expert on the subject of structural collapse of large buildings because "I'm an engineer". After some prodding it turned out that he was a DSP engineer. Crackpots love to inflate credentials. James Fetzer was "a theoretical physicist". Barbara Honegger was "a Pentagon colonel". This notion that Mark McCutcheon is actually a physics messiah whose theories are being suppressed by a global cartel of physicists who are too scared of his truth is heading down the same path.
McCutcheon's own webpage makes ridiculously wrong statements about the physics he's claiming to debunk. There's only two possibilities: either he doesn't know anything about the subject, or he does know the subject but he's making a bunch of false statements because he wants to sell books to dumb-guys. (have you got your copy?)
What are his credentials? I don't care.You do have to have some understanding of magnetism and electricity to be an electrical engineer. It is funny that you a grade 10 physics major thinks she knows better about the subject.
As for Mr. McCutcheon's theory it is a theory and may have no merit whatsoever unless it has some practical application and begins to explain the universe around us. We will have to wait and see for that.
Pliny, on 15 Jul 2013 - 09:16 AM, said:
I myself, can see flaws in McCutcheon's theory. I have yet to see anything practical come out of it except maybe call into question some of the obvious failings of current relativity theory.
If a guy like you can spot flaws in this theory, that's saying something, because let's face it, you're not exactly James Clerk Maxwell.Nor do I claim to be. Says James kimmy Maxwell.
Pliny, on 15 Jul 2013 - 09:16 AM, said:
Well, done. You managed to regurgitate your instructional materials and get a passing grade. You did pass didn't you?
Of course I passed.
I'm curious about your use of the word "regurgitated". Is it "regurgitated" because it's information that you don't like?
If somebody uses highschool math to solve some problems, do you scoff and them and say "bah, you just regurgitated your instructional materials"?If someone has used their math and solved some problems then they haven't regurgitated anything. they have practically applied their knowledge.
On the other hand, thinking a magnet sticks on the fridge due to friction is really funny.
What's a real frictionless material. Glass? Let's put up a sheet of glass put a magnet on it and a piece of steel on the other side of the glass and have the magnet hold up the piece of steel and itself magically. The force applied to the magnet and the steel must be creating enough friction to hold itself and the piece of steel up. What is that force that is applied there to create that friction. It is called a magnetic force. That piece of steel is being held up by something. And it generally takes energy to hold something up that is unsupported. But the claim is that the glass is holding it up due to friction.
The friction also has to be created, enough to hold the weight of the magnet and the piece of steel.
Pliny, on 15 Jul 2013 - 09:16 AM, said:
Of course not, she would be a crackpot if she did. She is researching the area and of course the law of the conservatino of energy must be upheld.
First you (and McCutcheon) cited this professor as an example of somebody who was doing research to explain the great mystery of magnets. And now that I've pointed out that she's not doing the kind of research that you (and McCutcheon) claim, all you have to say is "bahh, she's part of the international physics cartel that's afraid of the truth about magnets."
Typical.What was the exact quote from her?
Pliny, on 15 Jul 2013 - 09:16 AM, said:
A theory is only so good as it can make things predictable and can practically be applied to increase our understanding.
And that is basically what science is. Once it becomes authoritarian and pompous it becomes a burden, such as our Anthropogenic global warming theory, then it is of no use. Understanding brings simplicity not complexity. Things are never so complex as when you don't understand them.
You've decided that modern physics is of no use because you, Pliny J. Smith, don't understand it? Is that what you're saying?No. I'm just saying it is a theory. Relativity hasn't been all that practical since Newton's theory has greater practical application.
Is it "authoritarian" because people who understand physics are telling people like you and McCutcheon that you don't know what you're talking about?No because they explain a magnet from falling off a fridge as being due to friction. There is no friction hanging a magnet on the bottom of a horizontal beam and there is no other means of support than magnetic force and the force is holding the weight of the magnet up so energy is being expended.
It's that simple.
Regurgitate that energy is not being expended because it is impossible. You can prove it mathematically and say it is so but looking at it practically without a physical, mechanical means of support it needs some other means of support and that is energy from a magnetic force.
And you needn't keep telling me that's impossible. I already know the theory that says it is.
Pliny, on 15 Jul 2013 - 09:16 AM, said:
Relativity and gravity are theories and have been useful, gravity moreso than relativity. They have not proven to be the definitive theory of everything but it is all that science has. They are trying to make predictions from it even though there is little to be learned from a practical application point of view.
This word "practical" again. What criteria are you using to decide whether modern physics is "practical"?Well, I haven't seen string theory, based upon relativity, produce anything practical Physicists believe they may have found the higgs-bosen particle but what that will produce practically is yet to be seen, if there is anything to be applied. It may only serve to prove themselves right in which case it would be wrong.
Pliny, on 15 Jul 2013 - 09:16 AM, said:
That is exactly how current physics would attempt to explain itself. There is a change of state on a sub-atomic level by aligning particles and holding them in position though.
It takes energy to alter their alignment initially. It doesn't take a continuous application of energy to maintain that alignment.Of course it does. Otherwise, they would stay where they are permanently after the magnet was removed. They return to their original orbits.
Pliny, on 15 Jul 2013 - 09:16 AM, said:
Theoretically that can be and has to be explained mathematically. It cannot be explained practically.
"Practically" once again meaning "in a way that makes sense to Pliny", obviously.Well, it does have to make sense to me.
This is not your best subject, kimmy.
I will tell you what I am looking at in most subjects where we disagree, and it seems there isn't much we agree on. In all of the areas we have clashed in there are seemingly unresolvable problems or solutions touted as the resolution to those problems that turn out entirely ineffective and we wind up living through the failure of the previous solution. Economics, social welfare, psychotropic drugs they are all supposed to contain solutions to society's problems and global problems. Keynesian Economic theory and the central banking system was supposed to bring civilization economic stability. It hasn't. You can say that there wasn't before but if we looked at the real reasons why there wasn't before then we wouldn't have any instability after.
Obviously, the solution did not work.
In the case of psychotropic drugs, people think it helps them and doctors tell them they will. In actual fact they do not restore self determinism to the individual who gives credit for how he feels or acts to the drugs and not to himself. If you have ever been in a mental institution the patients in the hall are shuffling around, slobbering and exhibiting muscle tics. those are not signs of mental illness those are the side-effects of some of the heavier psychotropic drugs, such as haldol and thorazine. These drugs are like chemical lobotomies.
Anyway, no one in the humanities has stated what the objective or ideal was to try and achieve. Obviously, it has nothing to do with a person being self-determined and making their own choices in life. It probably has something to do with relationships and getting along with others while giving back to the community - nothing about the individual at all. But a person is just a mass of neurons, snapping and popping, in some electro-chemical fashion anyway. Right?
As for this subject, Relativity hasn't explained everything and it remains a theory. another theory is bound to come along.
There are experts and authorities in all these fields but there are differing ideas to those experts. Do we just go a long without question?
Some things from these authorities don't make sense, have not resolved problems that were claimed to be the resolutions and have not produced practical results or improvements and just require revisiting in another 3, 5 or so years.
Luckily, we have discussion boards and forums and never before in history have so many people had so much access to information. Different views can be presented and argued and facts can be verified in an instant. It's kind of great we have the internet. The bane is that sifting through all that information is often an arduous task. Especially if you want the true facts of something. Everyone has some different angle to pitch.
Anyway, the world isn't perfect and we need to keep looking for solutions to our problems. If you think looking in the areas I have pointed out is a waste of your time then fine, don't waste your time. But don't waste mine if you won't even look at materials I have read that have given me reason to believe they need looking at.
I realize you are only trying to help others who you feel are not as bright as you and may be fooled by my bizarre ideas. You know, those that don't have your clarity of thought and may get bamboozled. Just keep pointing people in the right direction. Tell them to ignore my posts or they will get stupid. Whatever yo do don't tell them to look for themselves.
Good night! Tomorrow is another glorious day.
-
No there isn't. There will be no federal charges. There simply isn't any evidence. It's a charade to make some people feel better.
That's precisely right.
Obama certainly isn't being Presidential, both he and the Attorney General Eric Holder are being the community organizers they have always been, being divisive and setting the stage for protests and demands for equality. It sort of sets the civil rights movement back to the 60's. It's as if the US has not made any gains in eliminating racism at all.
They did get rid of the laws that held racism in place through segregation and second class citizenship and it took these fifty years to get to where they are now, a far cry from the sixties but still with a way to go. It seems civil rights do-gooders, are unforgiving and wish to hold the past treatment of Blacks as ransom to call for privilege and largesse and even influence justice, a la OJ Simpson and now Trayvon Martin.
Is there racism in the US? I do believe so but it is no longer sanctioned by the law and thus not institutionalized. It will only take time then to disappear in society and only be held by ignorant individuals. But if Blacks and whites continue to be to played as separate groups by their politicians and civil rights do-gooders it will never go away.
Obama should hang his head in shame for turning the clock back. Hopefully, everyone will ignore him and the mainstream media.
-
Well, Russ, the whole central banking system was created to bring monetary stability to economies. Establishment of the Federal Reserve in 1913 (marking its centennial year this year)was a major turn in global finance.
But what does a central bank do? The Royal Canadian Mint actually prints the physical currency we use and call cash.<br />The US Treasury prints the US currency.
What does the central bank do? It does regulate the banking industry in the nation where it exists. It sets the interest rate and the reserve rate and the currency supply thus regulating inflation. It essentially keeps prices and wages stable.
Maintaining the economic stability of a nation is the primary job of its central bank.
The economy of a nation is no small thing and thus a lot of power is in the hands of the central bankers.
There was another reason to establish a central bank as well - it protected the banking industry and member banks, following the rules of the central bank essentially immunized those banks from bank runs.
Since the inception of the central bank the currencies of the world have gone from being commodity backed to just being backed by the issuing government and based almost upon the production of the nation and the ability to tax that production.
Of course, to make a long story short when the currency was commodity backed the government had to borrow money, if it needed to, out of existing wealth and it did that by selling bonds to its citizens. The money supply was based upon the supply of gold somewhat and tied the hands of bankers and governments. They needed more flexibility in controlling the money supply than what a commodity backed currency would allow.
Suffice it to say that the commodity backed currency of all nations ended in 1971 and that gave governments and bankers the flexibility in the monetary supply they needed to solve the problems of their nation's and the influence of nations globally which centralized even more power.<br /><br />If we had not gone off the commodity backed standard of currency then we would have had to face a period of deflation and several corrections in the economy that would not have been healthy for most people and for government revenues. Emergency measures included the end of Bretton-Woods.
Now I am not certain how it has been established by Mr. Armstrong that funding of the government moved form being public to private in 1974 with the establishment of the Besel Committee of the Bank of International Settlements. As far as I know the government has always funded itself from the sale of bonds, private and public and the revenues it receives through taxation.
In my view the flexibility that governments achieved when they abandoned the commodity backed currency allowed them to essentially create "money" (in its various forms) out of thin air and that explains the rise in the debt of all nations after 1971.
-
Why did Pierre Elliot Trudeau move Canada from having a public debt (printed money from the Bank of Canada) to borrowing money from private banks and issuing bonds (money) that pay interest.
Russ Browne
Hi Russ,
I have a few questions about your post.
I read a little bit of Mr. Armstrong's website but maybe you can point me to the place where my questions are answered.
Firstly, you say Mr. Trudeau moved Canada from "having a public debt (printed money from the Bank of Canada) to borrowing money from private banks and issuing bonds (money) that pay interest?"
As far as I know the Government has always sold bonds to Canadian Citizens and private interests that have paid interest to the holders of those bonds - Canada savings bonds and such? Is that not true?
I have read more about the Federal Reserve system in the States than I have the Bank of Canada and its role here.
The global central banking system is more or less all tied together now and they seem to be operating from the same play book. They didn't always but, the US dollar, which was brought into being as the world's reserve currency after the demise of Bretton-Woods in 1971, the system over time became more centralized and the IMF and World Bank became more influential and the Federal Reserve more powerful.
We see today where that system has taken us, essentially to the edge of an economic abyss, where Greece is laying off 25,000 public employees, major cities in the US are filing for bankruptcy and economic indicators are being anemically propped up with more credit.
Basically, after the end of Bretton-Woods, the soveriegn national governments of the world could create "money" out of thin air as the only thing backing it was basically the production of the country and a confidence in the stability of the issuing government. You will notice that shortly after 1971 the "money supply" of most nations started to rise quite quickly and has not stopped and has most recently spiked - especially the US dollar.
My second question is why would a system that just prints money or creates it electronically be any better than one thatprints it and charges interest? Certainly, compound interest does add substantially to the total but really if a government creates the "money" interest is irrelevant. They could just print enough to pay the interest. Now that would create a devaluation of the currency raising prices and such and they couldn't go so far as to destroy the value of the currency entirely by flooding it into society.
To me, the problem today is first world economies need to donw-size and that means governments need to down-size but they seem intent on maintaining themselves at their current size and look for ways to also maintain their revenue level.
They can't do this in a stagnant economy
Dark matter
in Health, Science and Technology
Posted
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!