Jump to content

Can field of a stronger magnet pass through the opposing weaker magnet?


nix85

Recommended Posts

You may find this quote from your own reference on quora helpful.

Quote

 

Fourth Law of Motion is often also described in the bibliography, which states that forces add up like vectors, that is, that forces obey the principle of superposition.

This law is refferd as 4th law but Newton never announced this as law. What is in it not understandable.?

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Carrock said:

You may find this quote from your own reference on quora helpful.

 

 

That's assumed,I don't know if Newton had a 4th law or not, i named this 4th law as it is an extension of his 3 laws.

Still no deniers? You can at least try to attack.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, nix85 said:

I'll give you a hint, this means you can literally "swim" in space. Of course assuming you swing arms in opposing directions to cancel the back torque.

 

Inertial propulsion / Reactionless drive? 

 

(feeling I'm going of topic)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

Inertial propulsion / Reactionless drive? 

 

(feeling I'm going of topic)

Indeed.

Which is a stone age approach to "antigravity" - of course has nothing to do with gravity (which is another subject i could write a bible about, but you have no need to know).

I once posted this to NASA forum like 5-6 years ago, i got response "there is no free energy here" and instant ban. :D

Edited by nix85
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, nix85 said:

Simple yet still denied phenomena that violates conservation of momentum and thus conservation of energy. 

Your 4th law of motion violates the conservation of momentum and the conservation of energy?  Seems like you got a bit of a problem with your law!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Bufofrog said:

Your 4th law of motion violates the conservation of momentum and the conservation of energy?  Seems like you got a bit of a problem with your law!

Zero problem. Only problem is in heads of those who see universe as a closed system.

BTW even Einstein said rotating reference frames are non-inertial, in them virtual forces act which do not obey classical laws of conservation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, nix85 said:

Zero problem. Only problem is in heads of those who see universe as a closed system.

Then it looks like we are no longer in the field of physics and have moved to pseudoscience, so I think you are in the wrong subforum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Bufofrog said:

Then it looks like we are no longer in the field of physics and have moved to pseudoscience, so I think you are in the wrong subforum.

That's a foolish statement as i am talking about a simple undenyable physical LAW.

All of you 4 smartasses who gave me negative - reputation obviously don't like the truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, nix85 said:

That's a foolish statement as i am talking about a simple undenyable physical LAW.

A physical 'law' that violates the conservation of momentum and energy is easily denied and not with a second look.  I hope that you enjoy the discussion with others, I am not interested.  Have a good day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

A physical 'law' that violates the conservation of momentum and energy is easily denied and not with a second look.  I hope that you enjoy the discussion with others, I am not interested.  Have a good day.

Like i said, foolish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh its not foolish at all to listen to someone who has a PH.D in physics over your assertions with no peer reviewed references. So you might try a better approach. Especially since you are now claiming conservation law violations as being viable.

I can pretty much guarantee just from reading this thread that you cannot provide any of the relevant mathematics either.

So lets start with your first claim that Swansont's first post was wrong that being superposition. Lets see 

https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/College_Physics/Book%3A_Conceptual_Physics_(Crowell)/11%3A_Electromagnetism/11.2_Magnetic_Fields_by_Superposition

http://www.bartol.udel.edu/~seckel/courses/Physics 208/Labs/lab7.pdf

https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/electrical-engineering-and-computer-science/6-007-electromagnetic-energy-from-motors-to-lasers-spring-2011/lecture-notes/MIT6_007S11_lec08.pdf

https://www.e-fermat.org/files/articles/153b46caff3555.pdf

https://ocw.mit.edu/resources/res-6-001-electromagnetic-fields-and-energy-spring-2008/chapter-8/08.pdf

wow what a commonly recognized phenomena that you claim is wrong....

Edited by Mordred
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Mordred said:

Oh its not foolish at all to listen to someone who has a PH.D in physics over your assertions with no peer reviewed references. So you might try a better approach. Especially since you are now claiming conservation law violations as being viable.

I can pretty much guarantee just from reading this thread that you cannot provide any of the relevant mathematics either.

So lets start with your first claim that Swansont's first post was wrong that being superposition. Lets see 

https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/College_Physics/Book%3A_Conceptual_Physics_(Crowell)/11%3A_Electromagnetism/11.2_Magnetic_Fields_by_Superposition

http://www.bartol.udel.edu/~seckel/courses/Physics 208/Labs/lab7.pdf

https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/electrical-engineering-and-computer-science/6-007-electromagnetic-energy-from-motors-to-lasers-spring-2011/lecture-notes/MIT6_007S11_lec08.pdf

https://www.e-fermat.org/files/articles/153b46caff3555.pdf

https://ocw.mit.edu/resources/res-6-001-electromagnetic-fields-and-energy-spring-2008/chapter-8/08.pdf

wow what a commonly recognized phenomena that you claim is wrong....

What a foolishness. Weak minded always depend on "peer reviews" and so called "authorities". Lack of intelligence makes you desperately seek their approval and prevents you from seeing the simple facts.

4th LAW i defined simply means that person floating in space that swings his arms in front of him will accelerate forward as if pushed from behind, thereby violating noted "laws", we cannot call them laws cause they apply in very narrow set of conditions only.

THERE IS NO CONSERVATION OF MOMENTUM

THERE IS NO CONSERVATION OF ENERGY

If there were this phenomena could not exist.

As long as the pendulum in the picture below keeps oscillating in the yellow area or spinning 360° but slowing down in the red part - inclination of the cart irrelevant), it will keep accelerating forward.

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT3ArBOwyUyjVXeAC_OX6j

Superposition is also not a law, but a way to explain the observed effect, for example cancelation of magnetic fields on the outside of two opposing conductors. If it was really a law, it would also apply to two opposing permanent magnets, but we see no such cancelation,  we only observe compression of the fields inbetween and APPARENT cancelation in exact middle between them, where two opposing forces are balanced. They do NOT cancel out as in example of two opposing conductors, why is this so should be further examined.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

What happens when there's no friction? 

 

Well, that's not really achivable so not relevant, but of course, it would add to efficiency even more.

As for "relevant mathematics"..

For example if two unbalanced masses oscillate within 180° (in opposite direction to cancel back torque) as part of the same system, we must take mass and radius of the spinning masses and average speed to get average force according to F = mv²/r.

We must take into account only the x component of the forces (pulling the system forward) and that x component varies from 0 (when pendulums are 180° apart) and rises by sqare of velocity to max (when they overlap in front position).

That average x-component of the force is constant pure unidirectional acceleration.

Few demonstrations of the principle.

 

Edited by nix85
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny how I still see no testable and predictive model via mathematics until then I will stick to the professional and mainstream models.

Verbal arguments of your nature has zero influence in convincing me of anything. You can namecall all you like that simply reflects a lack of professional approach

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, nix85 said:

4th LAW i defined simply means that person floating in space that swings his arms in front of him will accelerate forward as if pushed from behind, thereby violating noted "laws", we cannot call them laws cause they apply in very narrow set of conditions only.

THERE IS NO CONSERVATION OF MOMENTUM

THERE IS NO CONSERVATION OF ENERGY

!

Moderator Note

This is (a) nonsense and (b) off topic. Thread closed. If you want to make claims like this, do it in the Speculations forum and be prepared to provide evidence.

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.