All Activity

Perhaps a short digression into the philosophy of science is appropriate. Science develops models of nature that enable correct predictions of the behaviour of nature to be made. Very often these models are recognised as approximate or incomplete and thus to have a certain scope of application which should not be exceeded. Newtonian mechanics is a good example. Nobody says Newtonian mechanics is "wrong" but it doesn't work at the atomic scale, nor when relative speeds are a significant fraction of c. We all know this and use Newtonian mechanics with those limits in mind. The magnetic circuit model is evidently quite successful for many engineering purposes, provided one doesn't stretch the analogy of its fictitious magnetic "current" too far. It is a scientific model insofar as it makes correct predictions for how nature will behave. If your model tells you a static magnet continually does work, though, you have a major problem, because you need to explain where this energy appears, what its source is and why this source never runs out. So at that point your model fails.

Using quantum computers to solve the unified theory of quantum gravity is a fascinating concept. This theory aims to explain the force of gravity in the context of quantum mechanics, a challenge that has eluded scientists for decades. Quantum computers, with their ability to process vast amounts of information simultaneously, offer a promising avenue for exploring this complex problem. For further insights into quantum computing and its potential applications, you can explore quantumai.co, a pioneer in the field, for valuable resources and expertise.

Well, I don't claim it to be a comprehensive explanation (just that the one I outlined above is more complete than the previous offering). I'm trying to present a (albeit much simplified) way of looking at magnetism that, perhaps, helps to understand what is happening with magnets. Thanks for the pointer to the wiki article, very interesting, particularly the idea of gyrators, which I had not come across previously. Gyroscopic effects being another favourite of free energy cranks, btw. The idea of pole coincidence is to explain how a magnet comes into existence and, in my model, represents the 'ideal' state of a material, exhibiting no magnetic properties outside the material itself. When the poles become separated, by whatever means, the material is constantly trying to return to that ideal state with its poles again coincident. If it can't do that then the next best thing is for it to complete its magnetic circuit in the most efficient manner - by the shortest, lowest reluctance path, including by attracting any ferromagnetic material in its local environment into a position where it offers the shortest path for the 'outside leg' of the circuit. Sure, this description doesn't attempt to reconcile with other models of EMF and MMF and falls short of attempting to incorporate formulae with which to quantify it, but it is simple and sufficient to understand magnetism on a broad level, much as using water flow in a plumbing system to illustrate the principles of electric circuits. Using it I can explain the interaction between the fingers on my rotor and the opposed magnetic poles in the rocker magnets by saying that when a finger is interposed between the magnets the magnets are offered a path by which they can reduce the stress in their magnetic fields by taking the path offered by the ferromagnetic properties of the finger - lower reluctance and a shorter path for the 'outside leg' of the magnets - thus attracting to the finger where they were otherwise repelling each other. It may not be a 'scientific' explanation but it is not 'wrong'.

It's sure that ephedrine helps losing weight but there is no clear evidence for the "numerous deaths" especially since many countries have not banned its consumption, and it does not appear that this specifically poses problems. What is certain is that it must be consumed in small quantities. For example rapid weight loss you can try https://www.alwosta.tn/en/blog/185_lose-10-pounds-fast-in-1-2-weeks-express-slimming-diet-and-13-proven-tips.html It sounds like you went through quite a journey with the EC stack. Sorry to hear about the jitteriness and discomfort, that doesn't sound pleasant at all. And discovering a new heart murmur must have been concerning. It's definitely important to be cautious with any supplements, especially ones that affect your heart health. Building muscle is a great suggestion though! Not only does it help with weight loss, but it also boosts metabolism in the long run. Thanks for the advice!

Hello, but you must be careful. I think that exogenous ketones (i.e., supplements) are generally a scam. (There is no image, can you update it?)

I suppose that depends on what is meant by "brighter". In terms of radiation intensity, I'd have thought one could increase that beyond the intensity of the source, if it is an extended source. But clearly one can't change the frequency of the photons merely by focusing a beam, so the effective temperature (if is black body radiation) of the radiation can't be altered. in that way. Is that what you meant? Apart from the bit about separating coincident poles, which seems to make little sense, this may work fine for you, for macroscopic magnetic or magnetised objects. The weakness is it can't connect macroscopic behaviour to what goes on at the atomic level or connect magnetism to other scientific phenomena. So it's basically reverting to a c.19th, pre-atomic theory, picture. I've seen this before with some people from an engineering background on science forums. I suppose they prefer the mastery of nature which c.19th physics seemed to achieve, before the inconvenience of the invariance of the speed of light, the ultraviolet catastrophe and the photo-electric effect forced a rethink. If you are happy with staying in a sort of steampunk, H G Wells era world, well OK. Most of us prefer deeper explanations, that connect to other scientific phenomena.

Ok, I'll get on to reading that wiki article shortly but let me first attempt to outline more clearly and completely my theory (rather hypothesis) on magnetism: 1. All matter contains two magnetic poles that normally coincide. 2. In some substances it is possible to separate the magnetic poles in which case a 'magnet' is created. (perhaps this is possible with all substances, just we don't know how to do it yet). In ferrous metals, for instance, we can do this by exposing them to a magnetic field. I'm talking here on a macro level, there may be a far more adequate description at the atomic scale, your description of the alignment of magnetic domains being an example, but let's stick to considering it at the level of magnetic circuits for the moment. 3. When a magnet is created by separating the normally coincident poles a magnetic current is created, one 'leg' of which circuit runs between the two poles inside the, now, magnetic material. The other leg tries to complete the circuit via the shortest, lowest reluctance path it can find, normally the air surrounding the magnet,though this is a very high reluctance path but if there is no better path then it will do that; the circuit has to be complete whatever the circumstances are, you can't have an open magnetic circuit, according to my theory, which is why a monopole cannot exist (except I recently noticed an article that suggested magnetic monopoles have been created, oh well, maybe). 4. If the magnet, with its magnetic stress from the pole separation, is close to something that offers a lower reluctance path than the air then the magnet will try to include that object in its circuit, attracting said object to itself in order to shorten the path: what we see as magnetic attraction. 5. When we bring two magnets together with like poles facing both magnets we have really joined both circuits so that there are now four 'legs' to the circuit: the shortest, lowest reluctance legs running between the two poles in each separate magnet; the high reluctance, longest leg, between the extreme ends of the two magnets; and a leg interposed between the two magnets. 6. When we bring two opposite poles together what we are really doing is adding to the magnetic stress in the magnets, effectively further separating their magnetic poles. Now each magnet finds it more difficult to complete its circuit since the 'like' pole is adding to the reluctance in the 'outside' leg. So the magnet sticking to the beam is explained by the magnet trying to incorporate a low reluctance path and make that path as short as possible. For any faults this explanation contains, for me at least, it offers a useful way of understanding the behaviour of magnets. If it makes me look like a berk then no matter, I'm sure there is always a place for a free-energy-berk-crank, at least in some people's affections. (was replying via my phone earlier, which is why my explanation was less clear)

OK I understand what you mean and I'm aware there is a "magnetic circuit" model used in engineering: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_circuit However this has drawbacks if used incautiously, as is in fact mentioned in the article. There is in truth no magnetic "current", as nothing flows. Whilst we habitually draw flux lines with arrows on, these do not indicate a flow of anything. The magnetic field is a vector field, i.e. it has both a magnitude and a direction at any point in space. The density of flux lines is used to denote magnitude and the arrows denote direction. That is all the arrows mean. A field is not a current. (This is explicitly stated in the section of the Wiki article subtitled "limitations".) As for whether this way of thinking of magnetism is a better description, we have just seen how it has given you the wrong answer, in the example of the magnet stuck to a beam. So clearly it has severe limitations. The circuit model may be fine for analysing the shape of the field in electrical machines and so forth but, as with many models in science, it has limits and if these are not borne in mind it can make you look a bit of a berk! 😀 I had not heard of Ed Leedskalnin (not Leedskillin), but I see he was a Latvian immigrant to the USA who was active in magnetism between the wars. I also see that indeed he was on the right track in interpreting magnetism as arising from circulation of charges within the substance, just as I described to you in my previous post. His understanding was thus a foreshadowing of what we understand today about magnetism from atomic theory, quantum physics and quantum chemistry. (Quantum theory was developed in the late 1920s and 1930s, possibly a little later than when he was writing about magnetism.) P.S. Curious fact: magnetism can in fact be shown to arise as a consequence of applying the theory of special relativity to electric charges in relative motion. I think that is rather cool.

Ok, I hadn't really associated chemical bonds with electrostatics (which I tend to associate with Van de Graff generators and rubbing cats on perspex rods, etc) but I'll accept that chemical bonds are electrostatic. All the thinking about this device began while watching one of Robert Murray-Smith's early videos where he was discussing Wesley Gary's magnetic motor. He showed that if you place a thin keeper across the poles of a horseshoe magnet then if the keeper is longer than the span between the poles you will get additional poles that appear on the ends of the keeper due to flux leakage. If you then lift one end of the keeper off its pole the pole on the end of the keeper reverses. The way I interpret what is happening with the keeper is by thinking in terms of magnetic currents. As I see it, a magnet is always trying to close its circuit. Really it is a perpetual motion machine all by itself. There is a large magnetic reluctance in the air but the magnet will complete the circuit will complete itself via the air if there is no path with more permittivity available. The keeper offers a low reluctance path but if it is too thin to contain the full magnetic current then some leaks through the air surrounding the keeper. That leakage flux will be of the same polarity as the pole it is next to. When one end of the keeper is lifted off its pole you have effectively turned your magnet-and-keeper into one long bar magnet (or a kinky horseshoe magnet in this case) and the keeper becomes one end of that magnet - the opposite pole to the one it presented due to leakage flux. In my terms, a magnet will attract any object that offers a lower reluctance path than whatever is allowing it to complete its circuit currently (if you'll excuse the pun), that a magnet always completes its circuit via the shortest path with the lowest reluctance and the circuit is always closed. This need to reduce the length and reluctance of the magnet's circuit is what we observe as magnetic attraction. Now this understanding of magnetism may well be wrongheaded but it seems to me to offer a much better description of magnetism than the classical scientific one you offered, which doesn't really tell us anything about how magnets behave. I think Ed Leedskillin was the only guy who understood magnets but then nobody can understand Leedskillin (including me.)

Full ack (of course). Some kinds of philosophers, e.g. some outgrows of post-modernism, have still not understood that. For them everything is a a 'narrative'. Another kind is self-proclaimed philosophers who think that philosophy is another way to the same 'truths' that science is investigating. By 'pure logic' they think to be able to refute even established science (like GR). Nearly always this 'logic' is both based on false assumptions and confused 'logic'. I like Swansont's comparison with Zeno's paradoxes.

Human hermaphroditism might not be a good thing after all. That would mean each and every person could have a baby. Even with male and female in separate bodies, the world is way overpopulated as it stands right now.

Nothing the JWST has shown implies that main stream physics has failed. Quite frankly if you study any of its findings through the peer reviewed literature and not pop media coverage. You would understand pop media coverage is literally garbage. Lol pop media stated the same thing with the first Planck results. Thar turned out to be calibration errors for dipole anistropy resulting from the velocity relations to the CMB background. So far, from what I see the only request is to show how one can make testable predictions. That is a very essential aspect of any physics related theory. Without that any theory is literally useless. That is a simple fact. If that cannot be achieved there isn't really any purpose to publishing. Anyone can pay to publish that doesn't mean anything. Even a peer review published article can be incorrect. Peer review simply means the article is on topic with no legal violations and some possibility of viability. That doesn't mean it's correct or would even be used in the Professional circles. I certainly know I couldn't use anything you have thus far for my research and I am a professional Cosmologist. I'm also not the only professional physicist involved in this thread. Just a little side note. No forum ever changes science. The purpose of a forum is to learn the science and in your case the needed steps for proper model building.

Seems like a tipping point on relative costs has been crossed. The economics of renewables has never been better and that has to be the case for massive growth of it to be possible as a policy. Not so much deep, long planning as taking advantage of the extraordinary cost reductions for RE; even one decade earlier and the IRA would not have been possible. I think carbon pricing can only work if there are available alternatives for energy companies to invest in that are approaching cost parity - which is only recently the case for RE for much of the world and is more difficult for a nation with extreme winters like Canada to take advantage of. More long connectors to the USA to take advantage of cheap solar out of season? More wind and hydro? More nuclear? But sticking with fossil fuels is not a good option.

..extremely capacious range of knowledge probed to be reduced to a few sentences that will be a farce of an answer.. some people spend live on it.. 7zip is known for using AES-256. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Encryption_Standard But what really matters is what block mode.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Block_cipher_mode_of_operation See the image encoded with ECB block mode: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Block_cipher_mode_of_operation#Electronic_codebook_(ECB) The lack of an initialization vector can have bad consequences..

Funding TFG's legal needs and the election will probably finish them off. These issues are a billion dollars each on there own. Unless someone throws a billion their or his way.

! Moderator Note This is very much the forum for getting testable predictions. It’s a requirement. Teasing that you’ll get to “the meat” is something we’ve seen before, and it never pans out. You’ve not given any indication that this will be different, and if you don’t deliver (and soon) the thread will be locked. A journal? With peer review? Are you going to make preprints available? I don’t understand. What are “these problems”? How are they growing larger? How do you conclude that standard physics won’t solve the problems? Cosmology isn’t a huge slice of physics, though it’s more visible (as it were) than other areas.

Did they pay you, or did you pay them? Who reviewed it?

The second side was not brought up in the OP, which was simply asking if there are ways to password-protect files.

I would sincerely like to thank all those who took the time to read this post and response. As: 1. Edge theory does not proceed from any traditions in physics, 2. I have only begun to 'set the table' so to speak, before setting out the meat. 3. The physics you refer to, to continue the analogy, uses chopsticks. Edge theory uses spoons and forks, so chip stick skills don't apply. 4. The intent is to resolve the issues the current issues in physics that chopsticks have failed to solve, and, as the JWST revealed, those problems grow larger every day. 5. If you took the time to learn the 'spoons and forks' of Edge theory, we could get to some very testable predictions. Alas, this is not the forum for that. Again, I sincerely appreciate the feedback as it helps me to direct my efforts into more promising avenues. This has already been accepted for publication by a significant publisher, although it will take some time to come to your attention. When it does, I would be happy to continue the conversation if any of you choose to do so. Lastly, one of the main improvement of Edge theory is that it - incorporates - infinities and yet allows valid, testable, numerical predictions. But you need to develop 'spoon and fork' skills to 'unlearn' the physics you know that failed to anticipate the results of the JWST. Very sincere thanks, Neptune7

I’m a chemist by training, so I am very much aware that chemical bonding is electrostatic. Every solid object gains its solidity due to electrostatic attraction, between atomic nuclei and their surrounding cloud of electrons. It is this that bonds atoms together in solids. Magnetism is only different in that it arises from electric charges in relative motion. In a permanent magnet the atoms have unpaired electrons, which have angular momentum, circulating and/or “spinning” and this motion creates a magnetic dipole on each one. These align and their collective dipoles combine to create the magnetic field of the magnet. Unless it is an electromagnet, in which case, the field arises from the flow of electrons (electric current) in a coil of wire.

Obviously. But the question is whether you or anyone should trust them. ..how will you do that? Obviously not by e-mail, FB, social medias, not by voice by phone.. Which anyone can decrypt with the ZIP password cracking tool for Linux: https://www.kali.org/tools/fcrackzip/ it is the silliest idea to do.. and has nothing to do with "convenience".. unless "convenient" means "total insecurity".. Then what for to password protect it in the first place? in some/typical cases, an image is harder to decipher than plain text.. Protecting against interception of information is one side of the coin. The second side is whether the data that was sent came from a legitimate source.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_signature https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy

Hmmm... I still feel like I'm being fobbed off somewhat. I consider a screw as being 'held', as it were. Actually the object that is being held by the screw is exerting a force downwards, due to gravity, while that force is being countered by the cohesive forces of the screw and whatever it is attached to. Electrostatic forces must be established and maintained. Concrete supporting something can be intuitively understood, as with adhesion and the steel wire rope you referred to. Magnetism does seem mysterious and different to other mechanical forces we encounter day to day, you can hardly blame free energy cranks for finding them irresistible. Thanks for the anecdotes of previous offenders, I'll have to look that old thread up. I suppose that part of the difficulty is in differentiating between force, work and energy.

The design to which I am referring was also a perpetual motion machine of the 2nd kind. It consisted of a large diameter pipe radiating thermal radiation at room temperature, this radiation being focused onto a smaller diameter pipe, the increased intensity resulting in an elevated temperature of the smaller diameter pipe. I could see nothing wrong with this design and was forced to conclude that it is impossible to focus radiation to an image that is brighter than the source. I raised this on a forum I regularly visited at the time, and my hypothesis was confirmed by another member.

Hopefully, at least he'll never get in a position to pardon himself. Are the funds raised a tax right off? If so, unless Trump is a registered charity how is this possible?

I’ve had documents sent to me that were password protected. Microsoft docs and pdf files