swansont

Depends on the configuration, but one question to ask is how the nail and magnet got close enough for this to happen. Permanent magnets don’t turn on, and these objects don’t magically appear close enough to each other for this to happen.

Your demonstrated understanding of relativity is insufficient for you to properly assess this. People who understand it better have tried to correct you. Case in point: Since relativity is based on the speed of light being invariant, “changes speed relative to light” makes no sense. Any inertial observer will measure their speed relative to light to be c, because light always moves at c. (though it’s light moving at c; the observer can say they are at rest, and light does not represent an inertial frame)

The energy is insufficient to do that, and that’s not the source of the work - the magnetic field does not get depleted by attracting something. As I’ve pointed out before, something is holding, pushing or pulling the magnet. The magnet is like a chain used to lift something; it exerts a force, but that’s not where the energy comes from.

! Moderator Note This is soapboxing, a violation of rule 2.8. - you’re just repeating stuff, without acknowledging corrections offered by people who know what they’re talking about You can ask questions to improve your understanding but no more explanations from you on this topic.

Nope. That’s your caricature of the theory, but isn’t what it says. I know that Janus has posted gifs of the signals that demonstrate what’s going on. They might clear up your misconception if you can find them. “Aging” suggests there is some frame where we know the truth about the earth, and that’s not part of relativity, where there is no preferred frame. This brings to mind what I said about disentangling what one observes and what the theory says is going on. i.e. what you see and what you measure are not the same thing edit: I can’t find the animation, but here’s a worked example https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/51704-special-relativity-can-you-explain-the-paradox/#comment-563535

You can calculate the age without math? That’s a pretty neat trick. How is not consistent? There must be some incorrect prediction SR makes for one to deduce that.

Enough said, no?

You said the CMB is the rest frame, so we are not at rest wrt the ether. I notice you did not address why the M-M experiment got a null result.

A motor needs to be connected to a source of electricity, which provides the energy to run it. It’s not from anything stored in the wires.

Yes, it is. What happens is rather open-ended. What happens to what? Those are the results (sort of; “time changes its simultaneity” is a rather awkward phrase) What do you want explained?

Energy goes in through the input, and some smaller amount goes out through the output. You might note that after my initial commentary I stopped until there was an suggestion that this was an over-unity device; i.e. that stronger magnets would increase the power output in some way other than just reducing losses, and that turning the input rotor was not the source of energy in the device. You agreed that the system will not run on its own. These are contradictory statements.

Justified? With empirical evidence? So why do measurements like the Michelson-Morley experiment fail to measure the motion of the earth through the ether? I find links saying it’s not an absolute frame, as expected.

! Moderator Note Material for discussion must be posted, per rule 2.7

You’ve not shown a working device, only animations, so who is to say there is an energy exchange? I’m not convinced it will work as advertised.

Yes, AI can be discussed. But the arguments one makes in any discussion can’t be AI-generated. AI can’t be used as a source of information. IOW, you can’t support an argument with anything that’s equivalent to “ChatGPT said <something>”

You should open up a thread to ask questions. People could answer, or point you toward sources that would explain it. Of course, you could also pick up a physics textbook. You’d eventually find that a changing B field creates an electric field, and that can do work, and also that the energy in the magnetic field is fairly small, and is not the source of the energy. I’m explaining that the work in your device comes from whatever turns the rotor, not the magnets (which are just a substitute for a mechanical coupling, which would also not be doing work). You even acknowledge this, when you agreed that this device would not run on its own. Someone has to turn the crank. That’s where the energy comes from.

Lorentz theory is ad-hoc. There’s no independent evidence of an ether. Are we moving with respect to the ether, or are we stationary with respect to it?

It’s a postulate. The resulting theory is testable, and passes the tests.

! Moderator Note The topic here is a light clock.

A postulate based on electrodynamics, which has an invariant speed of light. And given the success of relativity, and its experimental confirmation, it is a physical reality. I am reminded of a certain Sidney Harris cartoon Nope. So the Doppler effect somehow know about some prior acceleration? even if the signal isn't sent until after the object starts moving at constant velocity? That's magic, not science. You've made this error a number of times. Changing velocity does not produce the Doppler shift. Repeating the assertion does not make it true. None of which are present in the twins paradox. No. Your conclusion does not follow.

And here you admit that there’s no way to test Lorentz’s theory, rendering it unscientific.

! Moderator Note Responses to posts must be mainstream physics. Keep your own views in your thread in speculations It’s wrong. Perhaps that’s more simple, but since it’s wrong it’s not useful. You’ve not incorporated length contraction.

The following was posted in the forum announcements AI-generated content must be clearly marked. Failing to do so will be considered to be plagiarism and posting in bad faith. IOW, you can’t use a chatbot to generate content that we expect a human to have made Since LLMs do not generally check for veracity, AI content can only be discussed in Speculations. It can’t be used to support an argument in discussions. Owing to the propensity for AI to fabricate citations, we strongly encourage links to citations be included as a best practice. Mods and experts might demand these if there are questions about their legitimacy. A fabricated citation is bad-faith posting. Posters are responsible for any rules violations stemming from posting AI-generated content ___ We are happy to discuss the whys and wherefores, and consider modifications. In addition, a reminder that accusing people of being bots, or using AI, is off-topic. You are, however, free to ask for clarification in any discussion, including links to any citations. Faking a cite is easy, but a valid link with one is a little harder to manage.

AI-generated content must be clearly marked. Failing to do so will be considered to be plagiarism and posting in bad faith. IOW, you can’t use a chatbot to generate content that we expect a human to have made Since LLMs do not generally check for veracity, AI content can only be discussed in Speculations. It can’t be used to support an argument in discussions. Owing to the propensity for AI to fabricate citations, we strongly encourage links to citations be included as a best practice. Mods and experts might demand these if there are questions about their legitimacy. A fabricated citation is bad-faith posting. Posters are responsible for any rules violations stemming from posting AI-generated content ___ Discussion of policy is at https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/133849-aillm-policy-discussion/

Just FYI, the energy density of the earth’s magnetic field is about a millijoule per cubic meter. Scale up as necessary for a stronger magnet. The energy for doing stuff with magnets is not contained in the magnetic field. https://brainly.com/question/17055580