swansont

Yes. If a person jumps into the air and returns, (at a lower frequency, of course), doesn’t that result in a zero net change in center of gravity? Also yes. IOW, your observation is irrelevant to the issue. There is motion. The person (and ring) can jump in the air. Looking at the average or cyclic nature misses the issue.

Technically not, since PEE involves ionization and photovoltaics does not (electrons are still bound to the semiconductor).

An changing force on the floor. i.e. there was already a force Ring undergoing magnetostriction changes the center of gravity. Lather, rinse, repeat. And to head off one possible response: you can jump in a direction other than straight up, because you can exert a transverse force on the floor. This general argument applies to any body that can deform.

There’s nothing unreasonable in asking you to check on the numbers for something that you are questioning. Your response suggests you did not comprehend the post. Wait, iNow says “I bet” about some prediction, and you eviscerate them for not having the actual data, but now you say “I doubt” without supporting data? Hold yourself to at least the standard you ask of others. Hypocrisy isn’t a good look. US stats are available from the CDC https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm

! Moderator Note The link doesn’t work, and links need to go to the specific information. Not just to the top-level page of a site (IOW, don’t make people root around for the information)

RichardReMark has been banned for repeated hijacks and trolling

! Moderator Note Seriously, stop hijacking threads or you will be suspended. 1. If you sent somebody an email you don’t need to hijack a discussion to let them know. 2. If you’re dissatisfied with this site, you don’t have to visit. But you are a visitor here, and are expected to follow the rules. 3. It’s “waste”

! Moderator Note The forum rules do not forbid this, as I (and studiot) have pointed out. If the information is on your website, I don’t understand what precludes you from posting the salient details here. It’s called copy and paste.

As I predicted. No, Faraday rotation does not do that (Sensei mention polarization. Nothing about current), and Faraday rotation happens in a medium, not free space. Picking and choosing snippets of explanations while ignoring other parts is not how science works. Neither is making stuff up because you want it to be true. The topic here is magnetic fields and coils. Stick to the topic.

Can you point to any mainstream documentation of this theory and what in entails?

Just trying to fix your (quite egregious) errors on the topic in question. You aren’t going to solve anything without understanding the underlying science. Note that this is 1) in a medium and 2) does not alter the path. (Just in case fredreload is tempted to take Faraday rotation as confirmation that their assertion has any traction)

! Moderator Note That’s not the warning you were given. You were told not to advertise your site, and that material for discussion must be posted here, which is not nearly the same thing That you are making contradictory claims.

No, this does not happen in free space

A free-space EM wave can’t take that path No, the field will not take that form

Why would the shape matter? You can shine a light, or otherwise send an EM wave through the region, but creating a wave with that shape is another matter. Why would the EM wave cause a current to flow? To induce a current you need a changing magnetic field inside the loop.

It’s a matter of geometry. The optical path length differs, and so there is a phase difference between the two beams. You need to calculate the path length difference and express it in terms of wavelengths Also a device that eliminates the single-slit diffraction effects of a Young’s double-slit apparatus.

Do you understand why there are fringes? How does sound enter into this?

What does a “coil-like EM wave” / “em wave similar to the coil“ mean?

Only three pyramids had the pi slope.

You should know that requiring this is not in compliance with the rules. Yes. That’s what you do - write down the general equation and eliminate the terms that are zero in a particular problem. In the other thread I expressly said dropping from rest, making vi = 0. There’s no reason to continue to include it for that problem. There’s no implication that it applies to all cases once you have imposed such restrictions Locked threads also aren’t supposed to be resurrected

I asked “Why do you think a coil of wire exerting a magnetic force on the ferrite ring is an internal force in the ring?” You have no credibility so “your view” is pretty much impact-free You You have been given serious discussion, which you ignore or reject, and you have not presented logical arguments; your posts are a parade of argument by personal incredulity fallacies. “comply with what you serve (physics)” is what we mean by “general appeals to science being flawed or dogmatic” in our rule on bad faith arguments. ! Moderator Note As I said before, we’re not discussing this. What he should do is learn Newton’s laws of motion by investigating simple systems

No, I will not examine the complicated system when you will not acknowledge the analysis of the simpler system. This is a version of the Gish gallop, and is a bad faith argument, which we won’t tolerate. Deal with the simple system, or we close the thread.

And you are wrong, “we” have not agreed to this It’s not an isolated system A simpler system has fewer components, not more. Then stop saying Newton’s laws don’t allow the motion you observe. That’s the same as saying the laws of motion are wrong.

Because making the system more complicated will not clear up your misconceptions Now replace “body” with “ring” and you’re one step closer No, “we” did not agree. The vibration is caused by an external magnetic force, and the table is exerting a force.

Don’t injure yourself patting yourself on the back. Rearranging the equation is algebra, so any high-schooler should be able to manage that. I am focused solely on your claim that vi is missing from the equation, when that’s clearly not true. If you’re going to reference an earlier thread, you should post an actual link, rather than give a time/date. You should learn calculus. a = dv/dt Integrate twice, applying boundary conditions, and you get that result (as would many thousands of people who can do the math) That you can’t do it in no way implies that the equation is wrong.