Page 1 of 17 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 495

Thread: Forces of nature donít exist

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,273

    Forces of nature donít exist

    Newton believed that gravity was a force. Einstein proposed that gravity was not a force, but instead was caused by the geometry of space surrounding matter. Present science believes in the Magnetic Force, the Strong Force, the Weak Force, the Strong Interaction, that all (excepting for maybe the strong interaction) are “a priori” fundamental forces. “A priori” means prior. The present idea in mainstream science is that from the beginning of the universe (or before in some versions) or soon thereafter these forces have existed and have often been called the forces of nature sometimes including gravity.

    My ATM proposal is that these so-called forces are not “real” forces but instead are either caused by pressure differentials in the ZPF or mechanical connections that resist separation within atomic nuclei. Gravity and Magnetism would accordingly be pushing forces caused by pressure differentials in the ZPF, and the Strong Force, the Weak Force, and the Strong Interaction would be mechanical connections between particles that resist separation in atomic nuclei. I am proposing that none of these other forces are “true” forces either; similar to Einstein’s proposal that gravity was not a true force.

    Since I have already discussed my theory of gravity here in the ATM section, in this thread my intent will be to discuss my proposal concerning the theoretical/ hypothetical mechanics of magnetism, the Strong Force, the Weak force, and the Strong Interaction.
    Last edited by forrest noble; 2010-Oct-24 at 05:11 PM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    5,065
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    Present science believes in the Magnetic force, the Strong Force, the Weak Force, the Strong Interaction, that all (excepting for maybe the strong interaction) are “a priori” fundamental forces.
    Please provide a reference for these claims about what present science believes.
    As far as i'm aware we have the electroweak force and the colour force (disregarding gravity). And present science believes these are actually the same, the electrostrong force.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,273

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    18,442
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    Present science believes in the Magnetic force, the Strong Force, the Weak Force, the Strong Interaction, that all (excepting for maybe the strong interaction) are “a priori” fundamental forces. “A priori” means prior.
    Erhm, no. It mean knowledge independent of experience.

    And it's four(three) fundamental interactions (electromagnetic, weak (electro-weak is a unification of these), strong and gravity), not forces, though they are often experienced as, and therefore simplest described as, forces.

    In this case they are really a posteriori fundamental, because it is all experimental evidence that has shown that all interactions can be described by this set of interactions and that they are all needed to explain the complete set of experimental observations.

    Or to say it another way, if you try to explain all experimental behavior, you'll have to do it using three(four) types of interactions, which will have definite behaviors and will be indistinguishable from what we use now, except in name.

    "Force" is simply one way of modelling the observed behavior of the interactions for some ranges of behavior, which is why that word is often used while working within that range of behavior.
    __________________________________________________
    Reductionist and proud of it.

    Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn. Benjamin Franklin
    Chase after the truth like all hell and you'll free yourself, even though you never touch its coat tails. Clarence Darrow
    A person who won't read has no advantage over one who can't read. Mark Twain

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    13,440
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    Newton believed that gravity was a force. Einstein proposed that gravity was not a force, but instead was caused by the geometry of space surrounding matter. Present science believes in the Magnetic force, the Strong Force, the Weak Force, the Strong Interaction, that all (excepting for maybe the strong interaction) are ďa prioriĒ fundamental forces. ďA prioriĒ means prior. The present idea in mainstream science is that from the beginning of the universe (or before in some versions) or soon thereafter these forces have existed and have often been called the forces of nature sometimes including gravity.

    My ATM proposal is that these so-called forces are not ďrealĒ forces but instead are either caused by pressure differentials in the ZPF or mechanical connections that resist separation within atomic nuclei. Gravity and Magnetism would accordingly be pushing forces caused by pressure differentials in the ZPF, and the Strong Force, the Weak Force, and the Strong Interaction would be mechanical connections between particles that resist separation in atomic nuclei. I am proposing that none of these other forces are ďtrueĒ forces either; similar to Einsteinís proposal that gravity was not a true force.

    Since I have already discussed my theory of gravity here in the ATM section, in this thread my intent will be to discuss my proposal concerning the theoretical/ hypothetical mechanics of magnetism, the Strong Force, the Weak force, and the Strong Interaction.
    caused by pressure differentials in the ZPF

    What is "the ZPF"?

    What definition of "pressure" are you using?

    mechanical connections that resist separation within atomic nuclei

    What do you mean by "mechanical connections"?

    What do you mean by "resist separation"?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,273
    HenrikOlsen,

    A quick search will verify that there are a number of mainstream ideas concerning these "forces." The purpose of this thread is to give a "relatively simple" proposal and related understanding that these forces have an explanation for them that does not involve "forces" of any kind.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    21
    We can use the expression "psedo-force" for forces that are relative to the observer inertial frame, like centrifugal force and gravity.
    Gravity is not a real force because it's the people on the ground that is pushed up in space-time, not the falling objects.
    It's 3 fundamental interactions and 1 pseudo-force.

    The "mechanical connections" in an atomic nuclei, what do you mean?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,273
    Quote Originally Posted by Nereid View Post
    caused by pressure differentials in the ZPF
    What is "the ZPF"?
    The zero point field or zero point energy (ZPE)

    What definition of "pressure" are you using? Field pressure variations in the ZPF. One point in the field has more energy than another.
    mechanical connections that resist separation within atomic nuclei
    What do you mean by "mechanical connections"?

    Mechanical connection means that particles can be physically connected which accordingly would require a considerable force(s) to separate them.

    What do you mean by "resist separation"?
    If two people interlock their arms it might take a considerable force(s) to separate the people. In the same way separating strings that become entangled may also be difficult to separate.
    Last edited by forrest noble; 2010-Oct-17 at 11:36 PM.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,273
    Quote Originally Posted by bvssvni View Post
    We can use the expression "psedo-force" for forces that are relative to the observer inertial frame, like centrifugal force and gravity.
    Gravity is not a real force because it's the people on the ground that is pushed up in space-time, not the falling objects.
    It's 3 fundamental interactions and 1 pseudo-force.

    The "mechanical connections" in an atomic nuclei, what do you mean?
    This is true. In this ATM proposal I'm proposing that all forces are pseudo-forces. See my answer to Nereid concerning mechanical connections.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    SW of the town of Maricopa, AZ. This is in the southern Arizona desert.
    Posts
    1,461
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    HenrikOlsen,

    A quick search will verify that there are a number of mainstream ideas concerning these "forces." The purpose of this thread is to give a "relatively simple" proposal and related understanding that these forces have an explanation for them that does not involve "forces" of any kind.
    OK.

    So, what's your "relatively simple" proposal?
    problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back (Piet Hein)
    I cook with wine, and sometime I even add it to the food. (W.C. Fields)
    I don't ask stupid questions. I just make stupid statements!!!
    Experience is a wonderful thing. It enables you to recognize a mistake when you make it again.
    All truths are simple to understand, once they are found. The challenge is finding them. (attrib. to Galileo)


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Peters Creek, Alaska
    Posts
    12,878
    Quote Originally Posted by bvssvni View Post
    We can use the expression "psedo-force" for forces that are relative to the observer inertial frame, like centrifugal force and gravity.
    Gravity is not a real force because it's the people on the ground that is pushed up in space-time, not the falling objects.
    It's 3 fundamental interactions and 1 pseudo-force.
    bvssvni,

    This thread is about forrest noble's ATM theory. Please do not introduce your own.
    Forum Rules►  ◄FAQ►  ◄ATM Forum Advice►  ◄Conspiracy Advice
    Click http://cosmoquest.org/forum/images/buttons/report-40b.png to report a post (even this one) to the moderation team.


    Man is a tool-using animal. Nowhere do you find him without tools; without tools he is nothing, with tools he is all. ó Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881)

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,766
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    Mechanical connection means that particles can be physically connected which accordingly would require a considerable force(s) to separate them.
    What does physically connected mean? Bits of string between them? Hooks and loops like velcro? How does this work? And what determines the force required to separate them? What does "considerable" mean? (precisely)

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    5,065
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    Did you read that link? It says exactly what i and Henrik are telling you, not what you are claiming.

    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    The purpose of this thread is to give a "relatively simple" proposal and related understanding that these forces have an explanation for them that does not involve "forces" of any kind.
    You are arguing a strawman, the current explanations don't involve "forces" at all.
    Quantum Electrodynamics explains the EM interaction by exchanges of virtual photons. Quantum Chromodynamics explains the colour force (=strong interaction) by the exchange of virtual gluons. GR explains gravity by spacetime curvature.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,273
    Quote Originally Posted by AstroRockHunter View Post
    OK.

    So, what's your "relatively simple" proposal?
    The exchange of virtual particles is the present explanation of the “pulling force” that is created by the proximity of a magnet to a piece of iron. Such an explanation might sound logical as an explanation for a pushing force, but for a pulling force(s)? All the 4 forces are pulling forces. Magnetism can be a pushing force concerning like poles of a magnet.

    I will start the discussion with my theory of magnetism. Obviously this is theory so I won’t be saying I think or I believe. All of it should be understood to be according to the Pan Magnetic theory (my magnetic theory/hyothesis.

    ELECTRO-MAGNETISM

    Magnetism, like gravity, is a transfer of force; a directional transfer of motion resulting from atomic/ molecular vortex alignment and related field interactions. The types of motion which might provide clues to the magnetic Force are:

    1) Maxwell's discovery that the magnetic force travels at the speed of light.
    2) The twentieth-century physicists’ discovery that Ferro-magnets have
    circulating currents of electrons within them.
    3) The discovery of atomic polar alignment within Ferro-magnets.
    4) The discovery that atoms and molecules repel other atoms and molecules with a force
    that is dependent upon their relative orientations (Van der Waals' pressure).

    -- Our first consideration herein will be the atomic and molecular alignment within a magnet. During the twentieth century it was discovered that there was a kind of polar symmetry associated with an atom, and even with an individual electron. It was also thought that both atoms and electrons spin. The result of a spinning nucleus within a Pan-field "sea" creates a flattened, conical vortex (funnel-shaped whirlpool) which will be discussed in the Atomic Vortex theory section.

    The molecular alignment of iron is a cubical form of alignment. Atomic alignment would mean that most of the “mouths” or receiving ends of a vortex funnel would be facing in one direction and the flute (or small end of the funnel vortex) would be facing in the opposite direction. This non-random alignment within two magnets and the medium between them reduces the intervening resistance which normally acts similar to gas pressure. In this case it would reduce the field pressure between the magnets.

    -- The second consideration is the circulating current of electrons within a magnet. These are free electrons which move easily through most metals, but because of the degree of polarization in a magnet, there is a directional flow of these electrons resulting from their interaction with atomic electrons which push them around in a circulating current motion within a magnet.

    -- A third consideration is that electrons in motion can emit EM radiation/ matter waves traveling at high speeds in free space, changing energy levels within an atom, or changing directions. The radiation, which is emitted within the magnet, is absorbed. Emissions near its surface, however, are radiated out of the magnet. Because of the magnet's atomic/ molecular alignment, this E.M. radiation emanates from both poles. As the electron current circulates in a closed circuit quanta are radiated away in the surrounding atmosphere at right angles to the electron flow.

    -- The fourth consideration and clue is the varying pressure of atomic alignment. During the 19th century a Dutch physicist Johannes Van der Waals determined that atoms, when brought into close proximity to each other, will repel each other. Since then it has been shown that the orientation of the atoms electron "clouds" determines the force of Van der Waals’ pressure.

    MAGNETIC ATTRACTION

    A clue to the frequency that these waves are being emitted can/might be observed by placing a radio-set alongside a magnet, the radio will play "static." This is the principle of radio and television transmission. When these quanta/waves contact the metal in the radio or television antennae, some electrons are motivated away from the contact point. This results in a small electric current. This current, or signal, when amplified and otherwise manipulated, results in radio and T.V. reception.

    The frequency energy equivalent of the waves emitted from a magnet might be, within the Ultra High Frequency (UHF) microwave frequency range. Experience with magnets has shown us that this magnetic force can pass through solid material better than lower frequency radio waves. This is a clue as to what magnetism really is. The corresponding frequency would be roughly 109 cycles per second (within a factor of 10, with a wave-length roughly one foot long). Because these quanta or there related waves are not emitted in unison (they, accordingly, would be defined as incoherent waves) there would be no distinguishable or coherent-wave pattern to the emissions. The quanta/ photons created would be virtual; they would have less energy than photons of the same frequency but the waves would apply a constant pushing pressure to susceptible atoms.

    These incoherent waves and photons, upon striking a piece of iron, initiate a current of free electrons within the iron, a flow of electrons perpendicular to the contact point of the photons. This electron flow within the iron influences the atomic vortices to align themselves in the position of least resistance to the current flow. The result of this peripheral current flow would be the temporary atomic alignment and magnetization of the piece of iron. If the area surrounding the magnet and the iron is air, it’s comprised of gas molecules. If it’s a so-called “vacuum” made on earth, it’s also comprised of gas molecules of a lesser density. As these quanta move through molecules until/ unless they are absorbed by the iron, they perpetuate alignment in the iron with the same orientation as the magnet.

    “Funnels” face in the same direction; this is the orientation of least resistance to surface electron/ current flow as well as aether flow because of reduced kinetic field pressure in that direction. Internal electrical currents would also strengthen surface electron flow.

    If the area surrounding the magnet and the iron is air, it’s comprised of gas molecules. If it’s a so-called “vacuum” made on earth, it’s also comprised of gas molecules of a lesser density. As these quanta move through molecules until/ unless they are absorbed by the iron, they perpetuate alignment in the iron with the same orientation as the magnet. “Funnels” face in the same direction; this is the orientation of least resistance to surface electron/ current flow as well as aether flow because of reduced kinetic field pressure in that direction. Internal electrical currents would also strengthen surface electron flow.

    The surrounding aether field would have a higher field pressure than the field pressure between the magnet and a piece of iron. This higher pressure on the outward sides push the magnet and iron together.
    Last edited by forrest noble; 2010-Nov-09 at 05:16 AM. Reason: clarity of content

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,273
    Quote Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
    Did you read that link? It says exactly what i and Henrik are telling you, not what you are claiming.

    You are arguing a strawman, the current explanations don't involve "forces" at all.
    Quantum Electrodynamics explains the EM interaction by exchanges of virtual photons. Quantum Chromodynamics explains the colour force (=strong interaction) by the exchange of virtual gluons. GR explains gravity by spacetime curvature.
    The word force is used for all these "pulling forces." Try to explain these forces using mechanical explanations only without using charges or "magic." That's what I will do.
    Last edited by forrest noble; 2010-Nov-09 at 05:19 AM.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    13,531
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    A quick search will verify that there are a number of mainstream ideas concerning these "forces." The purpose of this thread is to give a "relatively simple" proposal and related understanding that these forces have an explanation for them that does not involve "forces" of any kind.
    I hope for your sake that "relatively simple" doesn't turn out to be another way of saying non-specific.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,273
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    What does physically connected mean? Bits of string between them? Hooks and loops like velcro? How does this work? And what determines the force required to separate them? What does "considerable" mean? (precisely)
    As for protons and the Strong Force that hold protons together, particles in this theory are looped springs bent over on themselves to form a loop. Protons and electrons look alike except that the diameter of the proton is about 20 times larger than an electron/ positron. These springs are made up of a single string of particles that are coiled like a spring. The strong force is a physical connection whereby it would take a large force to break the string of particles. First the spring would stretch before it broke; this is the Strong Force.

    The Weak Force and the Strong Interaction, the forces that hold nucleons together, are very similar to each other. When protons are forced together during nuclear fusion processes two protons, which again are looped springs, whereby at least one of the protons must intertwine with field material during the process. This field material if strong enough will hold the protons together and will allow their spin in unison as well as individually. These coiled loops have "hands" which I call the two relatively small parts of the spring that extend beyond the loop. One arm from each proton binds, intertwines, with an arm of the other bound together by field material, that when separated becomes a neutrino ejected at near light speed from spring recoil. This is the Strong Interaction.

    The weak force is similar in that a neutron binds with the second arm of a proton within a nucleus. This kind of connection can be more easily broken because of the more limited spin allowed the particle resulting in a weaker connection. This is called the Weak force. The spring stretches until the connection breaks or that radiation of these "extra neutrons" takes place simply due to random encounters with large field material strings.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,273
    Quote Originally Posted by R.A.F. View Post
    I hope for your sake that "relatively simple" doesn't turn out to be another way of saying non-specific.
    No it's very specific concerning detail. The theory is the overall idea, the specific detail are generally supporting hypothesis. Since Maxwell derived his equations based upon aether theory they fit well with my related theory.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    49,251
    What predictions does your idea make that distinguishes it from current theory?

    What experimental evidence do you have to support your idea?
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    SW of the town of Maricopa, AZ. This is in the southern Arizona desert.
    Posts
    1,461
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    The exchange of virtual particles is the present explanation of the “pulling force” that is created by the proximity of a magnet to a piece of iron. Such an explanation might sound logical as an explanation for a pushing force, but for a pulling force(s)? All the 4 forces are pulling forces. Magnetism can be a pushing force concerning like poles of a magnet.

    I will start the discussion with my theory of magnetism. Obviously this is theory so I won’t be saying I think or I believe. All of it should be understood as According to the Pan Theory of Magnetism which is my theory.

    MAGNETIC ATTRACTION

    The frequency energy equivalent of the waves emitted from a magnet would be, within the Ultra High Frequency (UHF) radio frequency range. Experience with magnets has shown us that this magnetic force can pass through solid material better than lower frequency radio waves. This is a clue as to what magnetism really is. The corresponding frequency would be roughly 109 cycles per second (within a factor of 10, with a wave-length roughly one foot long). Because these quanta or there related waves are not emitted in unison (they, accordingly, would be defined as incoherent waves) there would be no distinguishable or coherent-wave pattern to the emissions. The quanta/ photons created would be virtual; they would have less energy than photons of the same frequency but the waves would apply a constant pushing pressure to susceptible atoms.
    Bold mine.

    This paragraph is just so wrong that I can't believe that you actually wrote it.

    I'm not going to explain why it is wrong, but I will give you four direct questions so that you can find out for yourself.

    Direct Question 1:
    What is the definition of UHF?

    Direct Question 2:
    What is the frequency range for the definition of UHF?

    Direct Question 3:
    What is the wavelength of the frequency range for the definition of UHF?

    Direct Question 4:
    What is the wavelength do you calculate for the frequency that you claim in your paragraph above? (I bold-ed it for your convenience.)
    Last edited by AstroRockHunter; 2010-Oct-15 at 06:50 PM. Reason: In question 3: Changed 'definition if UHF' to 'definition of UHF'.
    problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back (Piet Hein)
    I cook with wine, and sometime I even add it to the food. (W.C. Fields)
    I don't ask stupid questions. I just make stupid statements!!!
    Experience is a wonderful thing. It enables you to recognize a mistake when you make it again.
    All truths are simple to understand, once they are found. The challenge is finding them. (attrib. to Galileo)


  21. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    5,398
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post

    1) Maxwell's discovery that the magnetic force travels at the speed of light.
    Err, no. Maxwell did not "discover that magnetic force travels at the speed of light". Others, much later , discovered that ELECTROMAGNETIC WAVES travel at the speed of light.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,273
    "The corresponding frequency would be roughly 109 cycles per second" should have been 10^9 cps.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    10,967
    One can use 10[sup]9[/sup] to make 109
    Measure once, cut twice. Practice makes perfect.
    Why is a frog too?

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    SW of the town of Maricopa, AZ. This is in the southern Arizona desert.
    Posts
    1,461
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    "The corresponding frequency would be roughly 109 cycles per second" should have been 10^9 cps.
    Yes, I knew that.

    Now, could you please answer my questions, rather than give me only one correction.
    problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back (Piet Hein)
    I cook with wine, and sometime I even add it to the food. (W.C. Fields)
    I don't ask stupid questions. I just make stupid statements!!!
    Experience is a wonderful thing. It enables you to recognize a mistake when you make it again.
    All truths are simple to understand, once they are found. The challenge is finding them. (attrib. to Galileo)


  25. #25
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    9,319
    If it is cycles per second then the wavelenght is: L = c / f = 2 pi c / omega = 6 * 3 108 / 109 which is almost 2 meters or 6 feet.
    All comments made in red are moderator comments. Please, read the rules of the forum here and read the additional rules for ATM, and for conspiracy theories. If you think a post is inappropriate, don't comment on it in thread but report it using the /!\ button in the lower left corner of each message. But most of all, have fun!

    Catch me on twitter: @tusenfem
    Catch Rosetta Plasma Consortium on twitter: @Rosetta_RPC

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    18,442
    Quote Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
    If it is cycles per second then the wavelenght is: L = c / f = 2 pi c / omega = 6 * 3 108 / 109 which is almost 2 meters or 6 feet.
    Which is, within a factor of 10, 1 foot.
    __________________________________________________
    Reductionist and proud of it.

    Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn. Benjamin Franklin
    Chase after the truth like all hell and you'll free yourself, even though you never touch its coat tails. Clarence Darrow
    A person who won't read has no advantage over one who can't read. Mark Twain

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,273
    Quote Originally Posted by macaw View Post
    Err, no. Maxwell did not "discover that magnetic force travels at the speed of light". Others, much later , discovered that ELECTROMAGNETIC WAVES travel at the speed of light.
    Maybe “discovered” is too strong a word for Maxwell and the speed of magnetism. Maybe “proposed by his equations and writings” is better wording since experimental confirmation didn’t happen till maybe 20 years later.

    “…this addition completes Maxwell's equations (of magnetism) and it is (was) now easy for him to derive the wave equation exactly as done in our textbooks on electromagnetism and to note that the speed of wave propagation was close to the measured speed of light.”
    (bold and parenthesis added)

    In 1884 Hertz has been given credit for experimentally confirming Maxwell’s equations and his related proposals concerning magnetism and light.


    http://maxwell.byu.edu/~spencerr/phys442/node4.html
    http://superstringtheory.com/history/history2.html

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    5,774
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    2) Twentieth-century physicists’ discovery that Ferro-magnetic properties were the
    result of the circulating motions of an electrical current within a magnet.
    No such discovery was ever made. Such a current could only persist for an extended time in a superconductor, permanent magnetism is not due to classical currents.


    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    A clue to the frequency that these waves are being emitted can be observed by placing a radio-set alongside a magnet; the radio will play "static". This is the principle of radio and television transmission. When these quanta/waves contact the metal in the radio or television antennae, some electrons are motivated away from the contact point. This results in a small electric current. This current, or signal, when amplified and otherwise manipulated, results in radio and T.V. reception.
    If this is a prediction of your theory, it is a failed one. Magnets do not emit electromagnetic noise. Radio antennas near permanent magnets do not receive static. The most that can happen to a radio in a static magnetic field is that the magnetic components could saturate or produce biased behavior and cause malfunctions.


    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    These incoherent waves and photons, upon striking a piece of iron, initiate a current of free electrons within the iron, a flow of electrons perpendicular to the contact point of the photons. This electron flow within the iron influences the atomic vortices to align themselves in the position of least resistance to the current flow. The result of this peripheral current flow would be the temporary atomic alignment and magnetization of the piece of iron. If the area surrounding the magnet and the iron is air, it’s comprised of gas molecules. If it’s a so-called “vacuum” made on earth, it’s also comprised of gas molecules of a lesser density. As these quanta move through molecules until/ unless they are absorbed by the iron, they perpetuate alignment in the iron with the same orientation as the magnet.
    It's unclear why you're bringing up the surrounding air, or the trace gases if in a vacuum. Are you suggesting the few atoms bouncing around in a high quality vacuum chamber are responsible for magnetic forces?

    I see a bunch of handwaving about funnels and aether and a lot of incorrect statements, and what few hard predictions that are made turn out to be clearly false.

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    5,398
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    Maybe ďdiscoveredĒ is too strong a word for Maxwell and the speed of magnetism. Maybe ďproposed by his equations and writingsĒ is better wording since experimental confirmation didnít happen till maybe 20 years later.
    The main point is that it isn't the "magnetic force" that travels at c. It is something else.

    Q1: What is it?

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Clear Lake City, TX
    Posts
    12,629
    Forrest noble, you've replied to several posts that were made after AstroRockHunter's post in which he asked you direct questions pertinent to your claims. Please address them.
    http://www.bautforum.com/showthread....79#post1804279
    Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
    Isaac Asimov

    You know, the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. They donít alter their views to fit the facts. They alter the facts to fit their views.
    Doctor Who

    Moderation will be in purple.
    Rules for Posting to This Board

Similar Threads

  1. Uniting of the forces
    By Copernicus in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 2012-May-25, 05:44 AM
  2. Forces in nature?
    By rigney in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: 2010-May-21, 08:23 AM
  3. The Forces?
    By Ionic in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 2007-Mar-08, 10:45 PM
  4. Relativistic E&M forces
    By Digix in forum Science and Technology
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 2006-May-27, 11:39 PM
  5. So what are the 4 fundamental Forces
    By ChromeStar in forum Astronomy
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 2004-Nov-18, 10:04 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •