anonymousone

basically part of my theory is that magnets contain vast ammounts of orbital energies and this energy can be tapped with what i call accelerated electromagnetic induction batteries. and i think this is the next level of energy technology.

#55 search youtube for "how to build free energy magnetic motor" this "magic" isnt mystical its all science. and i have no idea why the links dont work cuz i double checked them.

math is on the way.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=wn1wnkm2_zc what i saw worked like this except the spinning part had coils on it that produced electricity as the coils moved through the magnetic field. and this electricity was used to make the system spin faster and "generate"even more electricity and spin. and this seems to work magically but it isnt magic electrons come from the magnets orbital energy.

This would be magic, making electrons appear out of nowhere. But no, there's no magic — electrons are already there. The induction merely moves them around. Moving electrons is current, current is moving charges and electrons are charged.

 

 

Making sense to you, or not, is not a persuasive argument to anyone else. You are not the arbiter of what other people understand.

 

Where the "volts come from" is the mechanical work on the system. All a volt is is a joule of energy per coulomb of charge, so this is no more than a statement of energy. And a generator will not work unless someone expends some effort turning a crank or exerting some other mechanical force. Any time there is relative motion between a magnetic field and a charge, there is a force on the charge — that's something that is experimentally confirmed. A generator is a way to exploit that effect. It's all pretty standard and not particularly new, so there's really not much of an excuse for someone interested in the field to be ignorant of it.

so even if im wrong about magnets transfering their orbital electric energy during electromagnetic induction thats just one tiny modification ill make to my theory and itll be changed so that the orbital energy arround and in magnets doesnt transfer like i originally thought it did. orbital energy will still cause magnetism according to my theory and the same is true about gravity(dark energy forces) what ive seen with my own eyes is a "free" energy system that runs on magnets and it generates enough energy to keep itself producing energy perpetually. and theres videos im going to go find thatre free energy magnetic motors which seem to do magic but it isnt mystical at all because i know whats going on.

Quantity of electrons in closed circuit is always the same.

They are not appearing from nowhere, nor they don't disappear.

You should better read about Lepton Number Conservation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lepton_number

(it's violated only in high energy physics).

 

Electrons that are in wire at the moment, are accelerated when magnet is moving above wire. No electron is created or destroyed in this process.

Electron in 1 Volt difference has 1 eV (1 electron volt) kinetic energy that can be used to f.e. heating, or emitted as photon (by light bulb, or LED), or utilized other way in circuit.

this explanation cant be correct because the physical ammount of electrons in the coil/wire increases somehow or else electromagnetic inuction wouldnt seem to generate electricity like voltage to fuel lights or voltage to fuel a pendulum with coils attatched to it which moves through a magnetic field to produce those volts. and this cycle as mentioned before can go on perpetually seemingly generating free energy. but i theorize that this energy comes from energy orbiting a magnet which makes more sense in my oppinion.

 

The equation is the law of induction that you have previously mentioned. Curious that you would speak of there being no math to back it up when you've quoted it. People have understood these effects for more than 100 years. Maxwell's equations are mathematically and logically consistent.

 

Dismissing physics as magic is, in fact, a straw man argument.

 

How long you've worked on your idea has no bearing on whether or not it's correct. And to discuss it here it requires that you have a model that can be tested, or something that counts as scientific evidence to support it. If you do not provide something along these lines, (and soon, as you've had ample opportunity) the thread will be closed.

 

You haven't provided any predictions one can use to try and falsify your theory. That's a failing of the theory, and something that need to be fixed. In science things are not assumed true until proven false. The burden of proof lies in the opposite direction. You make a model that predicts things, and then people can test it.

 

The electrons already exist, and the energy they gain is from the mechanical work being done. The work is always larger than the electrical energy.

 

No magic.

i dont believe magic or lack of explanations cut it. also again mainstream physics doesnt account for where the volts and electrons come from during electromagnetic induction and my theory on electromagnetism does. im sure youll avoid my point again and say all the volts come from the coils which is obviously nonsense.

Nonsense.

 

It's test of yours credibility.

 

If you can't calculate simple stuff that everybody here know, that's well established fact, and you are starting with theory of everything, you have to know everything about basics to be even able to think about more complex things.

 

 

I am not requiring you to know data of the all isotopes of the world. Find mass by yourself on the net.

Simply show equation how to calculate emitted energy..

 

 

That's true. I am trying to show how little you know about basic things.

 

You just claimed that fusion releases dark energy!!

And now you can't even show how to calculate release of normal energy.

That's really silly.

but youre completely avoiding the logic i use to backup my ideas and thats because you cant discredit my ideas directly. take on my ideas directly and prove im stupid this way instead if you can. somebody do this at least so i can know my ideas are dumb too. and plus why does whether or not i can use a calculator even matter?

When you will move magnet above wire or piece of metal, electrons in that wire/metal will start flowing in one or the other direction.

When you will move wire above static magnet, you will have the same effect.

The faster movement, the more energy is produced (the higher current, or the higher voltage, or both).

 

 

It's energy coming from movement of wire or magnet.

 

If magnet and wire are static (their velocity relative to each other is 0), current doesn't flow.

if this was what was happening then why does an electric generator seem to generate volts of electrons which dont seem to exist before hand they had to have come from somewhere. www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwidzjjd8o and is the energy being put into moving the coil less in some cases than the voltage produced. did u know its possible to make it so electromagnetic induction fuels electromagnetic induction(movement of a pendulum with wire coils on it through a magnetic field) and this technology seems to magically generate electricity which isnt really whats happening i dont think since magic doesnt make sense.

 

Science doesn't claim this is magic, so the statement is an incredible straw man. At best you can make a claim about your understanding about the matter.

 

The requirement is for you to show that you are correct, not for others to show you are incorrect, though if the latter happens that's enough. And it absolutely requires math. (Simple logic can still yield a wrong answer if the premise is flawed)

mainstream science has no explanation at all to explain where an electric generator gets its electricity from that it supposedly generates. which is why they supposedly mystically work. and this lack of an explanation is completely unacceptable since theres no logic or math involved to back it up. and ull insult me and say im being a strawman even though i provide logic for this and am working on the mathematical equations now just like you all want. so dont be rediculous and say im being a strawman when ive worked for 7 years on my model/theory also. thanks

Answering post #34 takes less than 5 minutes or so..

 

After that comment, I have no doubt that you don't even know what is energy of proton, electron without looking to Internet, and how to calculate energy emitted by fusion or fission.

Please show me that I am wrong.

Show us for instance what will be energy released by for instance decay of Carbon-14, math step by step..

 

Stars indeed are emitting photons, neutrinos, accelerated to relativistic velocities protons, electrons and other particles.

But mainstream physicists don't consider them to be dark energy.

i dont need to be able to calculate the ammount of fusion in the universe except for my math equation im working on. how does me not knowing something about carbon 14 mean my theory is incorrect anyway. also this doesnt prove anything really important all it is is you trying to demonstrate how i dont know one thing to try and discredit me and this one thing isnt critical to my theory anyway. my theory accounts for larger patterns and observations that mainstream physicists theories dont so my theory is better. the thing about science is that theres always room for more accurate logic and math and both are important to have. so with this said i dont expect anybody to consider my theory/model fact without accurate math and logic so dont think im being rediculous and dont believe anything or anyone unless you can prove certain stuff with your own research.

Science is the mathematical modeling of the universe and the testing of those models against the universe. No magic there.

 

You claimed to have a theory of everything, I simply asked a question that any such theory should have an answer for.

actually electric generators dont magically form electricity like current science says. logically this energy comes from the magnets because energy orbits the magnets i think. and this is evidence im correct because the energy comes from somewhere. fishnets dont generate fish and electric generators dont generate electricity. and this all supports my theory on dark energy forces too which accounts for phenomenah like stars cores shrinking without any magic. also the galaxy rotational curve is no longer magically happening according to my theory. and wheres the math and logic the standard model needs to explain this stuff? this kind of stuff needs logic and math to support it with zero stupid mystical/magical stuff and thats what im supplying yet somehow my lack of more evidence is proof im wrong supposedly according to some of you here. which is rediculous.

pointing out that i lack enough evidence to be convincing doesnt prove im incorrect by the way so you can pretend it does if you want. science is about facts though. anyway i dont need to provide math to explain my logic because its so simple. math is required for complex stuff and my theory on everything is very simple fortunately and doesnt include magic unlike current science and spirituality do.

just wait until i make math equations that prove my model is correct.

Welcome anonymousone, I have a standard question for people claiming to have a theory of everything.

Using your idea, can you numerically show what the altitude of a geostationary orbit around the earth would be?

im sure it can but i havent done that yet so ill have to research and theorize orbital energy more especially the numerical values associated with dark energies force inducing properties. im definitely going work as hard as i can on the math losing sleep and weight as i do so because i do realize how important it is to have. but when you all suggest my ideas are wrong because i havent supplied this yet that upsets me because thats just not true.

But the mass of a bound system is LESS than the mass of a free system. It has LESS energy, meaning energy is released in forming the bond, and must be added to break the bond.

 

Your explanation is still indistinguishable from magic and will continue to be so until you provide scientific evidence of the claim.

---im not claiming magic happens im saying orbital energy in a magnet is physically not magically transferred to wires and coils during electromagnetic induction. while current science believes generators magically generate electricity with magnets whiich makes no logical sense at all unlike my hypothesis which does make sense. see the coils collect orbital electric energy in magnets during electromagnetic induction the same way a net collects fish in a river. would it make sense to say a fish net is a fish generator? of course not and i dont need math to prove that believe it or not.

 

This appears to be a conundrum, having this weakening be the purported linchpin of the effect and yet being so small it can't be measured.

---well my prediction is that magnets can be measured weakening if enough orbital energy is taken from the magnet

Citing wave-particle duality is a hand-wave; it explains nothing. You need to present a model that shows what's happening, and evidence to show the model is correct. It's easy when you don't put forth any effort.

---it means that my theory.model matches the data unlike other accepted theories do so its more than just a hand-wave.

It would also be appreciated if you learn to use the quote function. I've edited two posts, but you need to properly quote from now on, in addition to fulfilling the requirements of speculations.

sorry about the quotes not working im using an xbox 360 and cant control paste. i will reply by using three dashes after somebodies statement.

Energy comes from energy? Isn't it a conserved quantity in your theory?

---e=mc2

To be blunt: wrong answer. That's not a good approach in general and more to the point, not consistent with how we run things here. If you don't present evidence then there will be no conversation.

 

How can you present something again that has not been presented before?

---again evidence that magnets contain orbital electric energy is that electromagnetic induction batteries get their energy from somewhere(the magnets) instead of thinking energy particles magically appear to form the voltage. i dont believe in magic as you can tell.

Isn't this simply a matter of measuring the energy of a magnet before it's used and keeping track of how much work it does? How can the weakening be "slight" if that's where the energy is coming from? Again, is energy simply not a conserved quantity in your theory?

 

Why do I have to plug a motor in if the energy is coming from the magnets? Why does an electric car recharge the battery instead of replacing the magnets in the motor?

---im going to say my hypothesis once and its that not enough orbital energy is taken from the magnets to weaken them enough. and i predict that when i make more powerful and effective electromagnetic induction technology it will be noticed that magnets weaken as they lose energy via em.i.

Which is something else you've stated with absolutely no evidence to support it.

actually you are not correct. evidence for my hypothesis/theory youre refering to is the wave particle duality nature of matter. because miniature universes doing bigbangs and big crunches over and over are standing waves. and these have a frequency just like a wave and a shape and spot just like a particle. and every intelligent person knows about this wave particle duality nature of matter which my model matches exactly. thanks for making this so easy btw.

im going to add that according to my model/theory during high speed particle physics energy from the collisions converts to mass and the quarks and hadrons that appear there are miniature universes which contain atoms inside of them too. so just because quarks exist as particles at a high speed particle collisions this doesnt mean that neutrons and protons are made of quarks according to my model/theory because protons and neutrons are miniature universes that do big bangs and big crunches over and over as mentioned before.

right but in order to understand that you need to understand the math relations behind the cosmological constant, what is its value? why is it constant no matter where you measure it. Why does all the galaxies move away from each other at the same rate without a change in the angles? In your model why is Earths gravity not weaker when a satellite is between the Sun and the Earth? as opposed to that same satellite being on the other side of the planet, if gravity comes from the suns fusion. The Earth has no fusion process in its core.

 

trust me once you study the math of current science it won't take you long to see where the problems your model will have to prove

 

this post above is well written

 

but I would include, show you understand the current theories before you claim they are wrong.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/22442-so-youve-got-a-new-theory/?p=309694

well i think that when mass coalesces dark energy in that mass somehow goes to orbit that object/body as a whole. and this dark energy in the mass can be released during fusion for example in stars where itll increase that stars gravity/antigravity power. so in other words earth gets its dark energy from its own mass because that mass has coalesced. just like how coalesced mass formed hydrogen clouds and stars early on in the universal cycle....also you say that all galaxies are moving away from each other at the same rate even though theres clusters of galaxies and they form all kinds of shapes...and if this is sorta true then thats because theyre all about the same size fusing about the same ammount of matter every day. and so it would be expected that a relatively equal ammount of universal expansion take place between all galaxies and galaxy clusters...if indeed my theory is true that universal expansion is caused by fusion/dark energy associated with galaxies.

so this got me thinking outside of the box about math which is great because i consider this something gained from this conversation...im going to make a math equation which shows correlations exist between fusion ammounts in the universe, net gravity strength in the universe, the total ammount of universal expansion thats taken place, and the galaxy rotational curve along with some other variables hopefully... the goal is to show mathematical connections between these variables and dark energy to prove dark energy vortex configurations(orbital energy) causes gravity and to prove that forces can be made by orbital energies so that my hypothesis/theory about electromagnetism is also strengthened. to support my theory on everything. now i need to teach myself more about math.

my hypothesis is that these variables i mentioned here are connected mathematically and this is because dark energy is released during fusion where it then causes gravity, accelerating universal expansion, and the galaxy rotational curve...

so this got me thinking outside of the box about math which is great because i consider this something gained from this conversation...im going to make a math equation which shows correlations exist between fusion ammounts in the universe, net gravity strength in the universe, the total ammount of universal expansion thats taken place, and the galaxy rotational curve along with some other variables hopefully... the goal is to show mathematical connections between these variables and dark energy to prove dark energy vortex configurations(orbital energy) causes gravity and to prove that forces can be made by orbital energies so that my hypothesis/theory about electromagnetism is also strengthened. to support my theory on everything. now i need to teach myself more about math.

you need to reply outside the blue box when quoting lol. I had to cut and paste your reply out of the qoute of my post.

 

"-my model of the universe is constructable in a computer simulated world and is designed to be symetrical to the universe from beginning of the big bang to the end of the big crunch. and this counts as math because its all very logical and symetrical to the universe. which is the point and as i make this im sure ill find mathematcal equations to support my theory i just havent done this yet."

 

Not really, I can construct a mini universe out of N-body codes or using similar relations although due to computing power the number of particles is greatly reduced. I do own an N-body code textbook.

 

Gravitational N-Body Simulations: tools and algorithms.

by Sverre J Arseth.

 

A simple 250 particle N-body code done properly takes over 3 days to show a mere 1 million years of development, on an average desktop computer.

 

Do you honestly think you can compete with this Virtual universe? in detail?

 

http://www.cfa.harva...du/news/2014-10

http://www.illustris-project.org/

 

this took the fastest supercomputer 3 months to perform, on a desktop it would have taken roughly 2000 years.

 

You claim to have a program that covers the entire Universes history? and yet you cannot even post a simple mathematical relation to show your model???

What do you take us for?

 

You need the mathematics to write the program in the first place. Post the math you used. I'm not that gullible

while i cant simulate every single particle i can make each aspect of our understanding of the universe more logical than now and i do this with metaphors diagrams graphs and rationals for why something is more logical. not everything is math when it comes to problem solving anything including math although i do want math to backup my rationals because math cant be refuted. thats just one piece of the puzzle because math needs to be about stuff that makes the most logical sense.

And you would be wrong. If there is an attractive force, no energy is required to hold particles together. Energy is released in the formation of the bond. You must add energy to break the system apart.

-energy is released during fision when bonds are violently broken because energy forms bonds and energy is required to break those bonds i think so we agree. and heat energy is needed to fuse atoms together which releases even more energy and this released energy comes from somewhere. according to my theory this energy comes from the energy that was being used to hold two nuclie together which is more than whats required to hold one nucleus together and so the leftover extra energy is released as heat light and dark energy.

Has anyone ever objectively observed this energy "orbiting" a magnet?

-there is evidence to support this idea that im not going to present again sir. it is up to you whether you consider this conclusive or not though.

Has this energy reduction of a magnet been measured? Why do motors work for such a long time if this is what happens?

-if somebody measures a magnets strength according to my theory the magnet will weaken more and more the longer it is used in electromagnetic induction because those volts didnt come from nowhere they came from the magnets energy configuration that causes magnetic forces and this weakening is probably very slight.

Of what value is a theory that makes no predictions that can be confirmed? How can you call it a theory of everything?

-i think ill predict some data correctly but theres so much data thats been collected and no theories to match all recorded data which is a major problem that needs a major answer which i think is valuable

oh my, OK where do we start. LOL some of the repliers have already started. So lets start with a couple of key questions with the asumption your model is correct.

 

1) How do you explain the gravitational attraction between asteroids in the Oort cloud?

- these asteroids orbital patterns are influenced by their dark energy the suns and the galaxies dark energy forces also

2) How do you explain how we do not detect increased gravity or dark energy in nuclear reactors here on Earth?

-this dark energy increased gravity very very slightly almost unmeasurably small

3) How do you explain a homogeneous and isotropic expansion ? according to your model any relevant math, would show that the rate of expansion due to dark energy would be stronger near the galaxy centers and radiate outward, it would follow that larger galaxies would have a stronger repellent force than smaller galaxies, in other words the rate of expansion between any 3 galaxies would depend on their overall size and number of stars in a given region. So I cannot see how you can have a cosmological constant. It would entail a cosmological variable, that depends on location. Ie localized preferred locations and direction.

-the supermassive blackhole at the center of galaxies gravity powers hold all the orbiting stars and their dark energy together which is what causes the stars in a galaxy to remain in orbit. instead of these orbiting stars repelling each other away and this pattern repeats itself throughout the universe

4) if gravity was similar to magnetism via a polarity, why do we not detect gravitational polarity curves such as we do with magnetism? For example the radiation belt surrounding Earth due to Earths magnetism. Why isn't there similar waves around gravitational bodies? We do analyze the same spectrums used to detect the Earths magnetosphere, when we look at stars and other large bodies.( it would follow that matter would follow similar pathways in much the same way as iron filings)

-the configuration of the orbital energy energy isnt even arranged the same with gravity compared to how a magnets orbital electric energy is configurated. but theyre both configurations of orbital energy causing forces

5) How would stars form in the first place without gravity? According to you model gravity is due to the collapse of stars, What about when there is no stars? The strong force is extremely short range compared to gravity.

-i think cumulative attraction forms gas clouds early in the universe and this is caused by dark energy that exists in matter. for some reason it begins to orbit large numbers of atoms to organize clouds but i can only theorize why that is.....

6) How would you explain the universe expanding at a time when the temperatures was far hotter than any star, how did inflation work in this circumstance? Ie hotter than when protons and neutrons could form be stable (quark/gluon plasma).

-expansion is due to an event that happens at the main central universe blackhole which releases even more types of energies which displace and destroy this main black holes dark energy configuration which causes gravity. if it werent for the dark energy being displaced during this event then the bigbang would never happen. and i theorize that the dimension cracks or spacetime breaks to release this energy.....

7) Can you describe you model in terms of the ideal gas laws of thermodynamics? with relevant phase transitions?

-im not exactly a college graduate but i tought myself physics and i think it works out in a computer simulated universe although i dont have the math for this yet i do think it exists and can be made to symetrically match the universe exactly.

8) How would nucleosynthesis work in this model?

-after the bigbang causes energy to be released this stuff innitially forms from very large hadrons that were kept stable by the blackholes gravity forces at the central universe blackhole...without this gravity there these larger hadrons cant exist anymore like that so they convert to ones millions of times as small. also some of the energy converts to mass.

9) can you show the particle interactions within the precepts of your model with the relevant Lie algebra, and guage symmetries?

10) Can you describe GUT, starting from Planck time forward in the thermodynamic and quage symmetry steps? Ie when each particle species would drop out of thermal equilibrium (after all your claiming to have solved GUT. lets see the full model)

-my model of the universe is constructable in a computer simulated world and is designed to be symetrical to the universe from beginning of the big bang to the end of the big crunch. and this counts as math because its all very logical and symetrical to the universe. which is the point and as i make this im sure ill find mathematcal equations to support my theory i just havent done this yet.

 

Backwards. Energy is released in forming bonds. So, idea falsified?

 

 

Is there some mechanism that makes the conclusion follow from the premise? Any experimental evidence for these "stolen" electrons?

 

Does your theory make any verifiable, specific predictions at all? (Klaynos gives a reasonable example above).

 

 

i think during fusion when a bond is formed less energy is needed to hold the particles together and so extra energy is released. energy that was being used to crush two seperate nuclei together is more than whats required to hold together one larger nucleus. also during electromagnetic induction the magnet loses strength because the energy that was orbiting the magnet generating forces there is gone. while the electrons can be measured in volts according to my theory. and alot of the predictions this theory can make arent really determinable such as the size of the universe being symetrical to protons and neutrons. with this said though my theory indicates that there will be anomalies in how stars orbit galaxies because of how the dark energy configurations cause gravity and repulsive forces which cause universal expansion...and these anomalies are known as the galaxy rotational curve. the best way to visualize this is to imagine that orbiting stars are inflating balloons swirling arround a supermassive blackhole. and these inflating balloons represent the increasing size of the dark energy configurations that cause gravity and antigravity simultaneously. in other words what is causing the galaxy rotational curve is also causing accelerating universal expansion. my theory matches data more than it predicts you all see?

the dark energy configurations that orbit galaxies according to my theory are massive and that's how they generate all the forces that smash and repel matter. But its all dark energy moving the matter and how the dark energy is arranged is what matters, not how space and time curves. Technically, its possible to harvest dark energy and use it as a way to travel via gravity and this would be a way to go millions of miles per hour possibly because u wouldn't get crushed by g's. Also, I think that dark energy does stick to massive objects and cause gravity, why this is could be due to some kind of dark energy particle properties im not familiar with because it hasn't been studied yet. It seems though that energy orbits and makes force vectors in iron filings. So dark energy probably orbits massive cosmological objects for the same reason.

strong force = gravity inside of protons and neutrons

weak force = big bangs in protons and neutrons

gravity = orbital energy

magnetic forces = orbital energy

excellent questions by the way sir.

Are you saying gravity is only produced inside stars? If so, how does it interact with other bodies (planets and the like)? Also, how come we're attracted to Earth and don't fly off?

 

Gravity attracts. How does an attractive force push the universe apart?

i think that the energy that causes gravity is mainly produced in stars and blackholes. But when a hydrogen bomb goes off some dark energy is released for example and so gravity increases because that energy somehow incorperates itself into orbiting arround the cosmological object it was near. also, I think that since energy forms bonds and dark energy causes gravity, that the moon is held in orbit by this energy and it encapsulates earth and the moon at once. And u say how come we dont fly off earth? well thats because somehow this invisible energy that orbits in a spherical configuration makes matter move from areas of higher dark energy density to the lower areas. like a slope the slope being lower areas have less dark energy in that area of space. Also i think this energy orbits faster than light because that way it can organize galaxy clusters.

Yes u say gravity attracts that is true, and the way dark energy can cause attraction(gravity) and repulsion(antigravity universal expansion) is that it orbits stars and galaxies in spherical configuration shapes. And these shapes gain size over time like balloons inflating and this pushes objects apart. While at the center of these spherical dark energy configurations the energy is arranged in a way that causes matter to be crushed. hope this helps

ahh i see i look forward to debating and defending my ideas in a way that isnt agressive or rude. because if somebody can prove my ideas are stupid somehow ide like them do so so i can modify my theory and/or come to the conclusion that its bunk. thanks