Sure I can buy that, it is a sort of gentle conundrum. I imagine, too, that what gives rise to the other cannot be absolutely extracted either. A mag field can create an electrical current and vice versa. Which is first? Both are. I know this is anathema and heresy to Wal Thornhill's devout followers but appears true. Electricity and Magnetism are the same phenomenon. One is not alien to the other but are interdependent and intergenetic. For example, the heart has a powerful and measurable electric field. Where is the sub station in our bodies? There isn't one per se. It is endemic to the body. Therefore, does it matter really?CharlesChandler wrote:CharlesChandler wrote:First, he's talking about magnetism as if it is the prime mover. Yet the only known way of generating a magnetic field is with a moving electric charge.Hey viscount!viscount aero wrote:Do we really know this in absolute terms? LaPointe states that all matter has endemic magnetism to some degree. His experiments with the bowls demonstrate this.
Well, I guess you could say that we'll never know the inner workings of atoms in absolute terms -- the best that we can do is develop theories that seem to account for the observations. So we can't disprove LaPointe, at least not in the most rigorous of senses. But his demonstration of diamagnetism (i.e., the ability of a non-magnetized object to get polarized in an external field, and then to respond to that field) doesn't prove intrinsic "primer" magnetism either, in the same rigorous sense. Standard atomic theory explains diagmagnetism and ferromagnetism, without magnetism as the prime mover. So neither disproves the other.
Likewise with Lapointe's experiments and findings: If he insists that magnetism accounts for the structures we see in space, primarily over electricity, yet his experiments are plasma-based and demonstrate the nature of plasma structures in the cosmos--does it really matter if electricity or magnetism forms the plasma structures when they are both related phenomena? Does it justify rejecting his experiments when they are clearly breakthroughs in knowledge? Instead of good news it appears as if you're unimpressed or asleep to the findings (?)
CharlesChandler wrote:Second, the rest of what he's saying is just observing superficial similarities, and calling that an explanation. Show me any geometric shape, and I can find examples in nature that have that shape. That doesn't prove that they are the same for the same reason.
viscount aero wrote:I take issue with your position here: just observing superficial similarities?
Sure I understand that, but again the Lapointe experiments dial in extremely specific structures including mirroring literally the containment domes and choke rings that are revealed to exist in nebulae, galaxies, and planets. This goes far beyond mere superficial shapes. He recreates on small scale, via plasma which is scalable (a mantra of plasma physics) what is observed in the cosmos. If this isn't pay dirt then I don't know what it is. What Lapointe has done is bridge a huge gap between the standard model and EU, heavily skewed to EU physics, nearly obliterating the standard model's unicorns and leprechauns.CharlesChandler wrote:For example, one could observe that a hurricane and a spiral galaxy are similar in structure. Therefore they are the same? Hardly. A hurricane is caused by a self-perpetuating low pressure. Yet in space, there is no "low pressure" at the center of a galaxy, because the whole thing is surrounded by a near-perfect vacuum. So the form might be the same, but for very different reasons. As such, the one does not explain the other -- these are just superficial similarities. Not surprisingly, when we look closer at galaxies and hurricanes, we start to see fundamental differences. So these are two different things, that just happen to look the same from a distance.
Even if Lapointe is wrong under his own biases about magnetism and its relationship to electricity what he creates in lab experiments are some of the most amazing demonstrations in plasma physics to model the major structures in our universe that I have ever seen. But we can agree to disagree and we're still good I respect your views and knowledge.