Page 2 of 17 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 495

Thread: Forces of nature donít exist

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,748
    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.
    I note that cjameshuff has already called you on this ludicrous claim, but I am curious: What experiment or reference led you to this belief? As I type this, I have a magnet (salvaged from a hard drive) next to a radio. Let us just say that the results I observe do not support your assertion.

    Please explain the source of your statement. Comment also on how a magnet can emit waves (which carry energy) persistently. Or are you claiming that I can extract power forever from the ambient by capturing the waves emitted by a permanent magnet?

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,769
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    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.
    And what are these particles made of? and what keeps them in a "string"?

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    18,442
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    Protons and electrons look alike except that the diameter of the proton is about 20 times larger than an electron/ positron.
    H1: What experimental evidence gives you this value (about 20)?
    H2: And what exactly do you mean by "look alike"?
    H3: Please show how "about 20" is a consequence of the fundamental properties of your "strings".
    __________________________________________________
    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

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,273
    Quote Originally Posted by pzkpfw View Post
    One can use 10[sup]9[/sup] to make 109
    thanks pzkpfw

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,273
    cjameshuff,

    #2 above should have been this:

    2) Twentieth-century physicists’ discovery that permanent magnets have circulating electrical currents within them.

    References:

    “…’mysterious’ circulating currents always flow in a permanent magnet”

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...6&searchtype=a

    “Even the magnetic field of a magnetic material can be modeled as being due to moving electric charges”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_field
    Last edited by forrest noble; 2010-Oct-21 at 09:30 PM.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    18,442
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    jjejffq[fq
    Looks like the cat wants to participate too
    __________________________________________________
    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

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,273
    Quote Originally Posted by AstroRockHunter View Post
    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.)
    These are not questions related to any of my statements or at all related to the subject OP. I expect they are related to my lack of using superscript for the 9, i.e. 109
    Last edited by forrest noble; 2010-Oct-18 at 07:13 PM.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,273
    Quote Originally Posted by HenrikOlsen View Post
    Looks like the cat wants to participate too
    you got that right. Great guess!

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,273
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim View Post
    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
    All these questions are totally unrelated to the OP. These questions by AstroRockHunter were due to a superscript mistake on my part.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,273
    Quote Originally Posted by Swift View Post
    What predictions does your idea make that distinguishes it from current theory?

    What experimental evidence do you have to support your idea?
    Good question. The experiment I proposed was to make a vacuum chamber (probably Plexiglas) about 2" wide, two feet long and maybe two feet high. It would be placed between a strong permanent magnet and a small round iron ball suspended on a string. When the Plexiglas chamber would be empty having only air in it, the deflection of the iron ball toward the magnet would be measured. The chamber would then be filled with two gases, one paramagnetic and the other diamagnetic. The ratio of these two gases would be altered (regularly changed) and the deflection measured at ambient pressures. Once the least deflection of the iron ball toward the magnet was discovered then the same portion of these gases would be first highly pressurized and then the deflection of the ball again recorded. Then the chamber would be evacuated with the same ratio of gases and the deflection noted. Afterward, and slightly offset from behind the iron ball and maybe 3/8 of an inch distant, an iron rod would be placed.

    In my model, magnetic attraction is caused by a lower pressure in the aether field between the magnet and the iron ball. When the right combination of these two gases is placed in the chamber between the magnet and the suspended ball there should be the least deflection of the ball by the magnet. When the iron rod is placed on the other side of the ball I would expect the deflection to go the other way, the opposite direction of the magnet toward the iron rod. This would be because accordingly the iron ball and rod would be temporarily magnetized and being outside the chamber the ball would be attracted to the bar rather than the magnet. In the standard model the ball would be deflected almost equally in all cases since both gases would be transparent to the magnetic influence.

    Years ago I asked a practicing physicist who also asked around. He told me that there may be alternative mainstream models that might account for what I would expect. Since this is only one of my experiments that I have proposed in physics, and because of the time and expense, I have opted to conduct other experiments on gravity first which I expect will be more unequivocal.

    As to direct predictions in nature this theory applies to both planetary and celestial magnetism. These are some of the related predictions:

    65. Magnetism is caused by atomic and molecular vortex alignment positioned by a combination of photons, virtual photons and/or coherent/ incoherent particle waves. It is initiated by a transfer of field motion/flow that is funneled in the direction determined by the orientation of atomic vortexes. Atomic and electron alignment is initiated by incoherent particle waves and/or virtual photons at about 10^9 hertz (cycles per second), creating reactions of susceptible atoms which align their atomic/ molecular orientations and their vortexes in a single vector direction. The result, like gravity, is a difference in field pressure that either pushes together or pushes apart two or more magnetically influenced entities. This prediction stems from the Pan-Magnetic theory and Pan Field theory.

    66. The Earth's magnetic field is caused by the earth’s atmosphere interacting with its oceans, lakes and to a lesser extent the land, as they interact via the wind and additionally reinforced by the solar wind. Atmospheric ions cause intermittent electric currents in the oceans and lakes as ionized wind passes oven them. These currents emit photons and accompanying incoherent waves which create the Earth’s magnetic field which is reinforced by the solar wind. A very large number of solar electrons and protons enter our atmosphere at the poles being part of the solar wind which are directed by the prevailing magnetic field. Observations have shown that the earth’s magnetic field varies from place to place similar to gravitational variations. This might be considered evidence for its causes as indicated above.

    67. Most or all reversals in the earth's magnetic field are caused by very large solar storms. When clouds of ejected plasma interact with the opposite prevailing magnetic pole of the Earth during periods of a weakened magnetic field, the magnetic field can reverse polarity. Other possible sources for changes in magnetic polarity could be large changes in Jupiter's magnetic field. Few if any would have as its source changes in the earth’s interior.

    68. Planetary magnetism in general is caused by relatively differing rotation speeds of strata levels of liquids and gases interacting with each other and solid material causing ionization of varying degrees resulting in the production of a planetary magnetic field as well as an electrical potential between these layers which results in lightening. In the case of the planet Mercury planetary magnetism is caused by the solar wind (protons and electrons) interacting with the external magnetic field at about a million miles per hour as the planet slowly rotates.

    69. Both the Sun and the Earth would have originally had stronger magnetic fields as well as all of the other planets. The sun would have a smaller magnetic field than a star of equal size but a faster rotation rate.

    70. Magnetic fields of galaxies generally become stronger with age as current theory predicts. Contrary to current models/ theory, however, distant galaxies will appear to have larger magnetic fields. Elliptical galaxies without observable jets or an observable torus, although old, will have relatively small or even undetectable magnetic fields because of their lack of relative rotation of their stars, gas and dust clouds, or jets and a central Torus. The largest magnetic fields will be found in large galaxies with AGN such as Seyfert galaxies. Some Quasars, because of their distances, will appear to have the strongest magnetic fields when such detection is possible.
    Last edited by forrest noble; 2010-Nov-08 at 01:03 AM.

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    5,774
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    #2 above should have been this:

    2) Twentieth-century physicistsí discovery that permanent magnets have circulating electrical currents within them.

    References:

    ďÖímysteriousí circulating currents always flow in a permanent magnetĒ

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...6&searchtype=a
    The article's behind a paywall, and the quote's too divorced of context to criticize. There is no circulating electron current in a permanent magnet. Many permanent magnets aren't even electrical conductors. The area around individual electrons can be considered to have an electrical current due to the intrinsic angular momentum of those electrons, giving a model of the magnetic dipole moment of the electron, but this is not a current of circulating electrons. You're either confused by a didactic explanation or using a long obsolete one.


    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    ďEven the magnetic field of a magnetic material can be modeled as being due to moving electric chargesĒ

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_field
    And the motions of planets can be modeled as due to a simple inverse square attractive force proportional to mass. It's a simplified model that breaks down when you need more accurate description of reality.

    And what of your claims that a stationary magnet constantly emits radio waves in the 1 GHz range, as observed by holding one next to a radio? What specific radio and what antenna setup did you use to determine this frequency?

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    5,774
    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.
    You've mixed up angular frequency and ordinary frequency. Cycles per second = Hz, not radians/s. c/1 GHz is almost exactly 30 cm.

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,273
    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.
    This might be true but accordingly in this case it just indicates the energy level of the photon. The frequency in this case is proposed to be incoherent with no discernible wave pattern/ frequency/ wave length, just a jumble of intermittent waves. The incoherent waves would accordingly be the source of magnetism and the reason why this frequency has not yet been detected/ discoved.
    Last edited by forrest noble; 2010-Oct-18 at 02:09 AM. Reason: clarity of content

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,273
    cjameshuff,

    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?
    In this theory of magnetism the intervening gases do have some influence on the ZPF. The ultimate influence accordingly is the difference of linear pressure in the ZPF
    Last edited by forrest noble; 2010-Oct-20 at 01:07 AM.

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,273
    Quote Originally Posted by macaw View Post
    The main point is that it isn't the "magnetic force" that travels at c. It is something else.

    Q1: What is it?
    My contention and theory is that magnetism, the magnetic force, does travel at the speed of light in the form of incoherent waves of EM radiation.

  16. #46
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    5,774
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    This would normally true for EM radiation but in this case it just indicates the energy level of the photon. The frequency in this case is proposed to be incoherent with not discernible wave pattern, just a jumble of intermittent waves. The incoherent waves would accordingly be the source of magnetism and the reason why this frequency has not yet been detected.
    That paragraph is what's incoherent. It's variously wrong or inconsistent with your other statements. First, that math isn't "normally true for EM radiation", it's true for frequencies measured in radians per second, and not for those measured in cycles per second (Hertz). Second, any waveform, even that of random noise, can be broken down to a sum of overlapping waves of specific frequencies and phases. Your claim is that there's substantial energy present at a given frequency, if so then it can be detected and measured, whether it's coherent or not.

    Your claim that it hasn't been detected because it's incoherent is particularly mystifying, given that you clam it produces interference in radios designed to pick out a signal from a background of incoherent noise.

  17. #47
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    SW of the town of Maricopa, AZ. This is in the southern Arizona desert.
    Posts
    1,461
    forrest noble proposed:

    Originally Posted by forrest noble.

    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.
    AstroRockHunter asked:
    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.)
    To which, forrest noble replied:
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    These are not questions related to any of my statements or at all related to the subject OP. I expect they are related to my lack of using superscript for the 9, i.e. 109
    To refuse to answer my questions by claiming that
    These are not questions related to any of my statements ...
    is evasion in the extreme, but it then begs the next:
    Direct Question 5:
    Since my questions were based on statements that you did make (despite your denial), and you claim that the my questions of your statements explaining your OP are NOT related to the subject OP, then why did you make the statements to begin with?

    In this paragraph, you also state:
    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.
    Bold mine.

    Which brings up:

    Direct Question 6:
    If there would be 'no distinguishable or coherent-wave pattern to the emissions' then how could you determine such things as wavelength and frequency?
    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)


  18. #48
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    9,319
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    This would normally true for EM radiation but in this case it just indicates the energy level of the photon. The frequency in this case is proposed to be incoherent with not discernible wave pattern, just a jumble of intermittent waves. The incoherent waves would accordingly be the source of magnetism and the reason why this frequency has not yet been detected.
    Apparently cycles per second is Hz, according to cjameshuff, that's fine with me (although I agree with the wiki comments on cps being more like radians per second, as I see a cycle as going around a circle, hence the 2 pi and hence the angular frequency, but that as an aside

    Now, exacty WHAT is the energy level of the photon? I never knew that the photon can have an energy level. If you give a frequency then it is a frequency, and to say that it is "incoherent with not [sic] discernable wave pattern" makes no sense at all. You either have a photon of certain energy, which is related to frequency through E=hf, or you have a wave with frequency, but ad hoc interchanging from wave to particle view is dangerous stuff. "Just a jumble of intermittent waves" is what exactly, how do you get a frequency from that?

    We can measure basically ANYTHING (electro)magnetic, so also "intermittent incoherent waves" at a frequency of 109 Hz. The reason why they have not yeat been detected is because the waves you propose don't exist.

    This whole jumble of words as an explanation of a (incorrect) correction that I made to your calculation (that cjameshuff needed to notice) does not make any sense at all, and basically is total nonsense.
    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

  19. #49
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    136
    I might add here that a proper explanation of how the "jumble of intermittent" waves gives rise to the basic forms of observed magnetism in matter (diamagnetism, paramagnetism, ferromagnetism, antiferromagnetism, ferrimagnetism, for starters) would be very much required. Does the model explain how particle size can turn ferromagnetism in the bulk into superparamagnetism in powder of the same material?

  20. #50
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,748
    FN -- when may I expect answers to the direct questions I asked in post 31? Here they are again, in handy summarized form:

    GK1) Why do I not observe static on the radio when a magnet is nearby?
    GK2) What leads you to assert that I should?
    GK3) Why is not radiation from a permanent magnet a violation of conservation of energy?

    Needless to say, by now you know that the rules of ATM obligate you to answer.

  21. #51
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Clear Lake City, TX
    Posts
    12,629
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    All these questions are totally unrelated to the OP. These questions by AstroRockHunter were due to a superscript mistake on my part.
    Yet it took you over 21 hours to even acknowledge them, while finding time to make several other posts. This is not exactly "in a timely manner."
    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

  22. #52
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Clear Lake City, TX
    Posts
    12,629
    Quote Originally Posted by Geo Kaplan View Post
    FN -- when may I expect answers to the direct questions I asked in post 31? Here they are again, in handy summarized form:

    GK1) Why do I not observe static on the radio when a magnet is nearby?
    GK2) What leads you to assert that I should?
    GK3) Why is not radiation from a permanent magnet a violation of conservation of energy?

    Needless to say, by now you know that the rules of ATM obligate you to answer.
    And you haven't acknowledged these in over 24 hours, yet you have made multiple posts in that time.
    Last edited by Jim; 2010-Oct-17 at 01:51 AM. Reason: expanded post
    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

  23. #53
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    5,774
    Quote Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
    Apparently cycles per second is Hz, according to cjameshuff, that's fine with me (although I agree with the wiki comments on cps being more like radians per second, as I see a cycle as going around a circle, hence the 2 pi and hence the angular frequency, but that as an aside
    Well, a full cycle is 2*pi radians, so cycles per second wouldn't make much sense as a synonym for radians per second. The argument that Hertz should be radians per second instead of reciprocal seconds makes more sense, but certainly isn't common usage. But yeah, this is pretty irrelevant compared to the question of where those estimates of wavelength/frequency came from in the first place.


    Quote Originally Posted by Geo Kaplan View Post
    GK1) Why do I not observe static on the radio when a magnet is nearby?
    GK2) What leads you to assert that I should?
    GK3) Why is not radiation from a permanent magnet a violation of conservation of energy?
    I asked similar questions, but there's something specific I'd like clarification on: what specific radio and antenna were used to detect this undetectable 1 GHz emission, and what procedure was used to measure its frequency? And why can it be detected by his radio, but not by more specialized equipment meant to measure the electromagnetic spectrum directly rather than pick out a modulated carrier?

  24. #54
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,748
    Quote Originally Posted by cjameshuff View Post
    I asked similar questions, but there's something specific I'd like clarification on: what specific radio and antenna were used to detect this undetectable 1 GHz emission, and what procedure was used to measure its frequency? And why can it be detected by his radio, but not by more specialized equipment meant to measure the electromagnetic spectrum directly rather than pick out a modulated carrier?
    All very good questions, and I await FN's answers. In the meantime, I have had a grand old time showing that neither hard drive magnets nor refrigerator magnets generate any discernible noise on broadcast AM or FM radio, nor on my old analog TV (from channels 2 through 83), nor on my collection of cordless phones (900, 2.4GHz and 5GHz), nor on my laptop's WiFi, nor on my cell phones. That covers -- not quite continuously, I admit, but covers nonetheless -- a span of frequencies from 540kHz to 5GHz. No noise. Plus, there's still the question of energy conservation that would be violated if there were discernible output.

    FN -- where have you gone? Not too long ago, you seemed very eager to post. What has changed?

  25. #55
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    18,442
    Quote Originally Posted by Geo Kaplan View Post
    That covers -- not quite continuously, I admit, but covers nonetheless -- a span of frequencies from 540kHz to 5GHz. No noise.
    Well, the mainstream answer is naturally that as you waved the magnet near the antenna, you would actually be generating EM radiation, but in the low single digit Hz range identical to the rate at which you waved it.
    None of the receivers you mentioned can receive 2Hz radio so it's clear why they weren't affected.

    Now back to forrest noble's 1GHz waves.
    __________________________________________________
    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

  26. #56
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,273
    Jim,

    And you haven't acknowledged these in over 24 hours, yet you have made multiple posts in that time.
    Regarding posting below

    FN -- when may I expect answers to the direct questions I asked in post 31? Here they are again, in handy summarized form:
    GK1) Why do I not observe static on the radio when a magnet is nearby?
    GK2) What leads you to assert that I should?
    GK3) Why is not radiation from a permanent magnet a violation of conservation of energy?
    Please Note: Excepting for moderator requests, I have and will continue to answer questions and respond to comments generally in the order they were presented.

  27. #57
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    5,398
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    Jim,



    Regarding posting below


    Please Note: Excepting for moderator requests, I have and will continue to answer questions and respond to comments generally in the order they were presented.
    So, you could start by answering my question I asked you a few days ago.

  28. #58
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,273
    Geo Kaplan,

    FN -- when may I expect answers to the direct questions I asked in post 31? Here they are again, in handy summarized form:
    GK1) Why do I not observe static on the radio when a magnet is nearby?
    If it's in the micro-wave range, 10^9 cps. as I propose, it also might be observable in harmonic ranges. Accordingly you would need to take the radio apart and remove foil that usually protects the radio from magnetic interferences generally caused by electrical appliances, or from a UHF television.
    GK2) What leads you to assert that I should?
    I don't understand this question. Your radio may not receive in this frequency. I used UHF television primarily and radio looking for harmonic frequencies.
    GK3) Why is not radiation from a permanent magnet a violation of conservation of energy?
    If there are circulating currents within a permanent magnet, and electromagnet, like I propose that there is, then the energy solely comes from the differences in pressure of the ZPF caused by the photons/ and virtual photons that align the iron and magnet and funnel the ZPF (AKA aether) between them.
    Last edited by forrest noble; 2010-Oct-20 at 01:05 AM.

  29. #59
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,273
    Macaw, posting #57

    So, you could start by answering my question I asked you a few days ago.
    It is always necessary to point out which "relevant" question that you believe has not been answered, or not adequately answered, as others have done. I am answering sequentially so if I miss one it must be pointed out. From now on I will number the postings that I am answering for referral purposes.

  30. #60
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,273
    Quote Originally Posted by Geo Kaplan View Post
    I note that cjameshuff has already called you on this ludicrous claim, but I am curious: What experiment or reference led you to this belief? As I type this, I have a magnet (salvaged from a hard drive) next to a radio. Let us just say that the results I observe do not support your assertion.
    You need to read all of my postings to ask good questions. This question was answered in posting #14 and others.

    Please explain the source of your statement. Comment also on how a magnet can emit waves (which carry energy) persistently. Or are you claiming that I can extract power forever from the ambient by capturing the waves emitted by a permanent magnet?
    A permanent magnet does not last forever it very slowly loses its magnetism. The molecular structure of a permanent magnet aligns most atoms in the same direction. The alignment in a magnet funnels the ZPF through it in a single direction which has large amounts of kinetic and potential energy that can form photons and virtual photons when created by the energy of spinning electrons.

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
  •