Jump to content
Zet

a magnet is demagnetized

Recommended Posts

Why do you think large fonts help?

 

Also, the problem is that your posts are not clear so people struggle to understand them.

It's impossible to say if something you don't understand is a breach of the laws of physics.

On the other hand, those laws are mathematically proven to be correct.

 

Why do you think anyone is going to struggle through your post just to look for a mistake which they know must be there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

 

 

 

Why do you think anyone is going to struggle through your post just to look for a mistake which they know must be there?

 

 

 

 

I don’t.

 

My original post is an easy read but it is very long. And I totally understand the idea that no one wants to waste their time reading that much text “knowing” that there must be some simple flaw (or flaws) buried somewhere in all that text.

 

I get it.

 

That’s why I spent time working with the issue to present it in another way and in a much shorter form (post #21).

 

 

 

 

Why do you think large fonts help?

 

 

 

 

I don’t see how anyone could read your post #24 as anything other than a complaint about my use of fonts and their formatting. If there is another hidden implication in your single sentence response, I missed it.

 

 

 

 

Also, the problem is that your posts are not clear so people struggle to understand them.

 

 

 

 

If anyone (“people”) other than John Cuthber is reading this, do you also find the text of the question in post #21, as written, something that has to be “struggled” with in order to get through?

 

I’d like to know.

 

I tried to make the issue as simple as possible. And I had believed that I had succeeded in this in post #21.

 

But, now, John Cuthber is making the claim that the language and/or concepts are not clear in post #21 and if any of you others in the forum have attempted to understand it it was a “struggle” for you.

 

Others, please let me know if this “struggle” is, in fact, also true for you.

 

Thank you.

 

 

 

- Zet

 

 

 

.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It sounds like you are saying when the "moving" magnet de-magnetizes the acceleration stops, but when the "stationary" magnet de-magnetizes the acceleration continues for the time it takes the field collapse to reach the other magnet (at c).
Are you looking at the same event from two perspectives and getting different views of the event?
Wouldn't that be expected ?

Also, large fonts and excess formatting are a warning sign of crackpottery in my experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

 

 

 

 

 

hey moth ...

 

I believe I understand your point. In a closed system, the amount of energy in that system, is frame dependent. If you move from one inertial frame of reference to another, say in a system such as the Universe, the total amount of energy within that system will change.

 

And so if you look at things from the faster moving magnet at rest and from the slower moving magnet at rest, you will get two different amounts of total energies between the two systems.

 

Is this what you’re getting at?

 

If so, I tried to address this in endnote #9 (but, again, the endnotes are superfluous to the question).

 

Let me know what you think.

 

And thank you for already telling me some of what you think!

 

 

- Zet

 

 

(PS: I am mistrustful of large font arguments too. That’s why I consider post #24 to be a failed “reductio ad absurdum with font formatting” attempt. At no time have I enlarged my fonts; only diminished them and grayed them. I simply offered to enlarge my fonts, if that is what he was complaining about in post #24. I don’t know.)

 

 

 

.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If anyone (“people”) other than John Cuthber is reading this, do you also find the text of the question in post #21, as written, something that has to be “struggled” with in order to get through?

 

I’d like to know.

 

Absolutely. You keep posting iterations that are no more clear than the last one. Your obsession with bizarre formatting detracts from productive understanding. And as mentioned previously, the fact that you're challenging some well-known principles with arguments based on flawed assumptions makes it difficult to spend the time it will take to go through your explanation looking for the mistake that MUST be there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I don’t see how anyone could read your post #24 as anything other than a complaint about my use of fonts and their formatting. If there is another hidden implication in your single sentence response, I missed it.

 

So, having been told that the use of non standard fonts is a distraction, what do you do?

You choose a non standard font.

Why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, having been told that the use of non standard fonts is a distraction, what do you do?

You choose a non standard font.

Why?

 

I'm not trying to answer for Zet, but crackpots often use them to annoy so they can steer arguments off course, and later claim that the only flaws people could find with their ideas were in the fonts they used. They also sometimes think it demonstrates their ability to think outside the box.

 

I don't think they realize that, in a discussion of a scientific topic, it's a lot like insisting on standing on the table to address everyone else seated around it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My suspicion is you are not applying the proper transformation in your math when you shift perspective.
But, I lack the skills to answer questions in mainstream Physics so I'll shut up now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'm not trying to answer for Zet, but crackpots often use them to annoy so they can steer arguments off course, and later claim that the only flaws people could find with their ideas were in the fonts they used. They also sometimes think it demonstrates their ability to think outside the box.

 

I don't think they realize that, in a discussion of a scientific topic, it's a lot like insisting on standing on the table to address everyone else seated around it.

It could be he's one of the green ink brigade, but I will give him the benefit of the doubt for now.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/green-ink_brigade

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • 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.