Craer

Its unethical to take a misunderstanding of vernacular and from there proceed to attack the individual rather then address the idea(s) or the misunderstanding. Discuss? By an "attack" on the individual I am speaking of Debasement Implications of being lesser in any way shape or form Harrassment Hatred Veiled accusations Accusations Basically addressing the individual rather then the idea or word clarification. P.S. I would be a lying fool if I claimed this was something I've never struggled with as a perpetrator or victim.

Just to clarify for you, the two are very distinguishable. We are on the same page with a certain level of misunderstanding.

I am aware this is the principle behind using Scientific phrasing. Not everyone is as versed as others. Its a reason to educate. This is a general statement, I've seen many trolls here. I had felt like making a subtle Harry Potter reference to lighten the mood.

It might be. Does this excuse bigotry?

This is a good example of trolling, instead of a request for information on the motivation of my post "As the famous saying goes, "cool story, bro". So I saw you posted this under ethics" was placed as a preface. This Post is intended as an educational tool in the unethical use of unnecessary language within scientific debate.

I've seen a troll roaming about For a definition see http://www.peorian.com/technology/technology-news/trolls-cyberbullies/1079-how-to-identify-and-defeat-an-internet-troll

A book very well may help you find the visualization your looking for. AFAIK we have no actual way to watch these forces as they perpetuate their actions. Just ways to watch the reactions.

Yes but can that field be forced into a non-static state through a method other then applying the velocity to the object generating the field? Instead creating that velocity in the field itself through an aspect of the fields construction? Hence where superconductors may or may not come into play as a tool to alter that field, or a vacuum, or a combination of materials and actions/reactions

The superconductor shows exception to your statement. Correct me but doesn't the Meissner effect only occur at the creation of the superconductor? The Meissner effect is not the complete absence of a magnetic field just really close to it. There is also the London penetration depth.

What about the charge in a type 1 superconductor?

Could a magnetic field cause direct current to travel between two plated micro-filaments?

.

@studiot please refer to Potential Energy for your answers, I may have called it by other names earlier. If you google Potential Energy and still have questions I would be happy to discuss. http://www.superconductors.org/Type2.htm I only used superconductors as an analogy. This could very well be speculation, i'm not sure if I grasp all of the implications of the properties of these new conductors. Or if the information I remember is flawed, I was hoping someone would be familiar with the conductors. .

The modern smartphone for example is useing a microchip which is composed of a conductive metal that coats itself in a non-conductive layer(I've been trying to find the referance materials on this work will post when I do) This natural reaction this material has allows it to be layered so finely it changes the properties of electron flow. Similar to a superconductor. And I do plan on testing this, this forum is an exercise in idea refinement. I've heared alot about the varied magnetic field induction. And various sources showing the strong correlation between electricity and magnets. This idea may be more closely related to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin-exchange_collisions or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_between_magnets The entire idea revolves around Potential energy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_energy

Elementary electromagnetic theory is just that theory. History proves that Electricity can be made through a coil using a varying magnetic field, which is known as Electromagnectic induction. I'm refering to a static or compressed magnetic field on a much more complex conductor then coiled copper wire. Energy is nither created nor destroyed, mearly transfered from one form to another.

Thank you for the replies, what i'm looking for is some referance to the research done backing this particular statement. The rest is rather elementary and off topic.

Do two stationary magnets, opposing or attracting, generate an electrical reaction at the field intersection? It wouldn't need to be a strong magnet to test this. Assuming yes Could a conductive filament of a certain design, magnetic property, element, alloy or combination convert it into a current? Would the current produced be a factor of the kinetic potential, magnetic field strength, nither or both?