Electricity, Magnetism and Monopoles... Oh My!

[jjohnson]

For StefanR

In school we used to wryly paraphrase the old saying as, "If at first you don't succeed, maybe failure is your bag."

Perhaps some of today's dogs should realize this and bark up some different trees.

[Rockstander]

jjohnson said:
For StefanR

In school we used to wryly paraphrase the old saying as, "If at first you don't succeed, maybe failure is your bag."

Perhaps some of today's dogs should realize this and bark up some different trees.


And I ask in agreement with jjohnson:

Why is it that todays dogs never mention "Gödel's Proof" and it's implication of a never ending circle of trees ripe for barking.
see: http://www.ltn.lv/~podnieks/gt6.html

Rockstander

[StevenO]

To return to one of the topics of this thread, here is an article why magnetic monopoles cannot exist:

Why Magnetic Monopoles cannot Exist

The fundamental reason the monopole cannot exist is that the electromagnetic field is not a dipole to start with. So it cannot be split. The separation of electricity into positive and negative was just a heuristic device, a semi-useful conceptualization. Franklin proposed it, Faraday expanded it, and it is still in use. But, at a fundamental mechanical level, it is false, as I have shown in a series of papers on the electromagnetic emission field. What we call the electromagnetic field is created by the emission of real photons by protons, anti-protons, electrons, and positrons. In this sense, the field is always positive. The opposite “pole” is created by relative densities of the field, and by the size differences among the particles, not by an opposing field or by a real attraction between any of the particles. The smaller particles are able to dodge the photons better than the larger particles, allowing them to appear to “swim upstream.” In this sense, the electron is not attracted to the proton or nucleus: it simply avoids being driven off until it gets quite close. At a small distance from the nucleus, the electron reaches a density of photons it cannot dodge, and (in some cases) it settles into a shell of equilibrium.
<...>

[rangerover777]

A response to Miles Mathis :

The Electromagnetic field (around a wire for instance) is already split to two
currents that ejecting in 90 degrees off the wire (sorry I can’t show the drawings,
since it’s part of a book that will be published in 2010). In fact the field around
the wire was already splited prior to ejecting away.

Only part of the magnetic monopoles that runs in the wire are ejecting away (due to
their speed and whirling right hand motion - centrifugal force), most of the monopoles
are keep running in the wire, back to their source and out again through the wire, until
they will be ejected away eventually through the wire or the resistor.

Once they where ejected they will join the earth circulation, where they came
from in the first place.

The separation of positive and negative electricity was not done for conceptuality
by Franklin and expanded by Faraday, since it was done after the main mistake
already done, which was realizing that these are in fact magnetic current that only
accidently the North pole individual magnets were called “Positive” and the
South pole individual magnets were called “Negative” - to this day. That could
be the exact opposite way and no one would noticed that, since it have nothing
to do with electricity but with the polarity of the monopoles streams…..LOL.

I don’t know where Mr. Mathis saw protons or photons, or who he borrowed them
from, but some simple tests (which will appear in the book to come) will demonstrate
how to isolate and show the existence of magnetic monopoles, with no electrons, photons
or protons involved.

The main blunder came when scientists in the 18th and 19th centuries understood
that it’s much easier to deal with “running currents in a wire” (which they called
“electricity“) - before they exhausted their conclusions and observations from experiments
With a bar magnet, and before they understood the basics of magnetic circulation, how the
poles are created, and the fact that magnetism is not part of the bar magnet but a separate
entity. In other words they put the wagon in front of the horses and for this purpose they HAD
to introduce new particles that could fit “wagon pulling horses” - quite a scene…..LOL


Cheers

[rangerover777]

Poles in a permanent magnet are creating due to the density of the
matter in which the magnetic circulation takes place. For instance,
if you take a “transformer rib” which is made of soft iron, and
magnetized it w/ a Neo magnet, then very little circulation will be left,
since soft iron even though is ferromagnetic, will let the monopoles
to pass through in a full speed - in and out.

If you take the same piece, hammer it and reduce it’s size while raising
it’s density, then this “rib” could hold much stronger magnetic circulation.
This is because the magnets in the circulation will enter the rib much faster
Than they will exit it, and in this case the two pole will “occupied” more
“trapped” monopoles, which in turn will create a stronger poles.

Mr. Miles Mathis, says very similar things, until he bring back the photons,
electrons & protons, which have nothing to do with magnetism and poles.
That bring us back to square one where the basic understanding of magnetic
circulation was skipped…..and replaced with “foreign to nature particles“.
Sorry EU, nothing personal.

Cheers

[StefanR]

For StefanR

In school we used to wryly paraphrase the old saying as, "If at first you don't succeed, maybe failure is your bag."

Perhaps some of today's dogs should realize this and bark up some different trees.

There is an Inuit saying that goes : " A dog barking up the tree doesn't notice the snake at its feet".

[florentis]

The man who finds magnetics monopoles

http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/MEMOS/GLmonopo ... GL2007.pdf

finds them as magnetically excited neutrinos.

[Anaconda]

The concepts of Ed Leedskalnin are interesting and line up with a list of phenomenon, but there probably is only one thing that will overthrow the conventional view of electromagnetism in favor of Ed Leedskalnin's hypothesis:

Using Leedskalnin's concepts to successfully and publically demonstrate anti-gravity effects.

Circumstantial evidence suggests a possibility that he did employ his ideas to achieve anti-gravity effects at coral castle, but no one knows for sure.

Readers, here, know how tenaciously "modern" astronomers cling to their antiquated ideas of a gravity "only" cosmology, even in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence.

Imagine how much harder everybody will cling to the conventional view, per Maxwell's equations, of electromagnetism.

So, while I believe that the Scientific Method requires an open-mind, but reasonable scepticism, and there are many reasonable experiments in which Ed Leedskalnin's ideas are validated, really there is only ONE test:

Public demonstration of anti-gravity effects using Leedskalnin's concepts.

I'd say it's like Man-powered flight (another anti-gravity feat), many said it wasn't possible (Scientific American magazine -- even after the Wright brothers were flying), until they saw it with their own eyes.

It's not fair, I readily concede, but the tower of authority is too high and mighty to be taken down with anything less.