Great demonstration! I saw it just now as I was uploading my latest experiment on Faraday's Paradox (which I have referenced your work in the description!).
@FractalWoman
6 ай бұрын
Nice. Thanks.
@dananorth895
8 ай бұрын
Nice demonstration. Makes me want to go and order a bunch of magnets. Lol
@FractalWoman
8 ай бұрын
Magnets are fun. I have quite the collection.
@TravisTellsTruths
8 ай бұрын
It's too much fun. I've been wanting to build a magnetic pulse engine thst spins up a weighted disk very efficiently or turns a high voltage, high rpm generator.
@mars1450
8 ай бұрын
This one short video says so much and dispels so many BS theories out there today. Great work!
@sayedhassanphysics8491
5 ай бұрын
❤well done
@princeoftheblues
5 ай бұрын
The problem is that you do not see this as a paradox. First, you correctly notice that there is no change in flux. But the magnet is made out of atoms, and there are ferromagnetic regions that are actual physical material. They move. Individually they would cause a change in a conductor. If you didn't know better by being told, and you were just experimenting, it would be a fair assumption to think that the relative motion between rotor and stator would be relevant. Further, there are plenty of motors in which the relative motion is the main cause of voltage. They do not use the axially oriented field, true. But a traction motor can be used with that field, for example. The question becomes: what is the field tied to, if not the object causing it? The universe? Free space? A superior magnetic body (like the earth)? My guess is the first, like centrifugal force where orientation is not relative. But that is a guess based on nothing. But then there is the Magnetron. The magnet is situated exactly like the homopolar motor. Admittedly, the electrons are of low mass, but they spin around like crazy because they are cutting some lines. What are they pushing against? They are not changing angle or field strength. It is different, and what Lorenz saw was more than he knew. It looks like the Faraday interpretation was closest.
@FractalWoman
5 ай бұрын
"But the magnet is made out of atoms, and there are ferromagnetic regions that are actual physical material. They move." This is true, but I think it is important to distinguish between the magnetic "body" and the magnetic "field". The magnetic "body" is in motion but the magnetic "field" is not (when you spin the magnet about it's polar axis). "The question becomes: what is the field tied to" Fair question. It is my opinion that the magnetic field is caused by the Ether which is made of tiny dipoles (quantum magnetic moments). The Ether medium (the medium for the propagation of light) is also the medium for the creation of both electric and magnetic fields. So technically, the "field" is bound to the Ether but is created by the magnetic body.
@TravisTellsTruths
8 ай бұрын
Thats quite the paradox, , indeed. The poles cause mutual attract but that doesn't explain it. The mutual attraction is acting through simplex mutual field conjugation where all degrees of movement do not move the iron filings. It's very intriguing 🤔
@FractalWoman
8 ай бұрын
It's not a paradox. When you spin the magnet about the polar axis, the flux lines do not move. This is because the North pole and the South pole are not moving, even though the magnet is moving. The location of the N and S poles do not move. You only get changing flux lines when the N and S poles change locations. So waving a magnet back and forth causes the flux lines to change. Rotating the magnet the other way so the N and S poles change places also causes the flux lines to change. But when you keep the N pole and S poles in the same location and spin the magnet about the polar axis, then the flux lines do not change. I think my experiment shows this nicely. And anyone can do this experiment. It is intriguing, for sure.
@davidfredin4547
8 ай бұрын
Yes thanks this is why I would like to know what the ether is and how to detect it . I understand the action reaction ( Newton´s third law) of Ampere, against the Biot, Savart, Faraday, Grassmann and others, who postulate the "primitive couple pair " Just for the record, Ampere's force between two current elements is the only force acting along the straight line connecting these elements with an action reaction effect. He was against the violation of this law (action reaction) which I learned early in school as essential to understanding engineering. Regards
@FractalWoman
8 ай бұрын
The Ether is a polarizable medium analogous to water. As you may know, water molecules are also polarizable. The Oxygen "side" has a negative charge and the Hydrogen "side" has a positive charge. When you take an electron and place it into a container of water, the water molecules surrounding the electron self-organize such that the positive side of the water molecule (the hydrogen atom) points towards the electron and the negative side (the oxygen atoms) point away from the electron. Ether as a polarizable medium does the same thing. When we feel the sensation of electrostatic attraction and/or magnetic attraction and repulsion, we are technically detecting the Ether. The Ether and the field are one and the same thing. Otherwise, what is a field?
@chopper3lw
7 ай бұрын
That's a fine demo, but it doesn't at all resolve/explain the paradox. In the paradox the disk spins and generates a voltage but when the magnet spins it does not. The pole orientation with respect to the disk does not change.
@infinitebeing1119
6 ай бұрын
It looks like when magnet spins at its polar centric axis the magnetic field line remains static without rotating along with the mass. When copper plate rotates along with the magnet the static magnetic field interact with the electron and induce efm. I am amazed and It felt like magic.
@derndernit8275
8 ай бұрын
Possibly unrelated, but just some wonderings: Why does light seem to be depicted in direct lines or rays, it does seem when light is made there is a limited area of activity from a to b in a relative line, I always tried to ask and wonder about it, the most fundamental being a single electron, in a single atom, how does the most minimal possible amount of light emerge from this action. I saw you before touch upon the possibility of increasing sphere of wave front. But it also seems that when light is made, when charges in atoms are accelerated, light 'snaps' out in exactly 1 particular direct direction. That an accelerated charge is less like a rock dropped in a pond, and more like a rock shaken attached to a rope. Though if the rock is attached to 1,000 ropes extending in all directions, and the rock is shaken, perhaps that would be like a rock shaken on the surface of water. Then to ask: is all possible light production done on Earth, done so by atoms capturing and storing light from the Sun? Then also to wonder, considering the Earths travel through space: Space seems to be some substance/s that when reacted with by the motions of charge and mass produce the effects of magnetism/electromagnetism and gravity. I remember your example of possible river boat moving at the same speed as the river. It seems light is like if you were in a motorboat traveling very fast on smooth ocean, (firstly the boat would be making a wake, gravity(?)) And if you had a stick and you tapped and tapped the water and the waves produced by your tapping the water rippled in all directions extremely extremely faster than you. Anyway, I geuss I was wondering about the possible subtlety of this outer space (substance of em field, gravity field) of how it is interacting with the atomic lattice that is Earth as a whole. There are those science model atomic latices made out of wooden pegs and balls and you can connect them, this idea of atoms having space, needing empty space for formations. Is outer space flowing through this? When the best possible vaccums are made on earth, why are fields unable to be kept out? Because fields govern the existence and orientation of atoms and molecules. Is there not a single planck volume in the universe that is not full of field substance? That is not occupied by a real existing quantity of quanta? Is there not the smallest speck of space in the universe that possess truly really an actual quantity of pure nothingness? Is it true the phenomenon of light is not an object like a ball or snake traveling from point A to Z, and I know you've linked a paper I didn't read but did you discuss in it or do you have a video that shows your estimates, of how much quanta per spatial volume of field must exist in space? If light is not projectile, but medium disturbance: there is air density, water density, metal density: quanta per volume. What is the EM field and gravity field density of space? And if EM density of space is 100%, how is there any room for gravity or any other field? And how is it possible for the universe to be absolutely perfectly dense of quantas.
@derndernit8275
8 ай бұрын
Just remembered something I wanted to ask: how do atoms capture and store light. Seems there's something very relevant about the nature of the field and that. That molecules can be orientated and atoms get excited, possibly for extended amounts of time, what does this mean, that a portion of the wobbling EM field is trapped by an atom and can't escape, trapped in between the electrons and the nucleus, and the surrounding pressure from everything outside that atom, keeps the electrons and the light trapped in that location? It's just weird because we can't think of a continuosly waving object or medium kept in one relative local location without it's waveness dissipating
@derndernit8275
8 ай бұрын
A reason I thought an atom may capture photon between the electron and nucleus, when it is said am electron becomes excited after being struck by a photon and moves up an energy level, is partly because it seemed that's what kept the electron in a higher energy state, and that it's said when the excited electron drops back down to a lower energy level a photon is emitted; But I geuss it could be that a photon crashes into an electron and knocks it into a higher energy state (like a person hitting a tether ball) and the act of the electron losing that borrowed energy snapping back into a lower state is the electron accelerating toward the nucleus and this disturbs the EM medium which is the emittance of photon. Either way, I know you have linked a paper you wrote, can you make a video highlighting thia exact part, does the state of science have any estimate in regards to this: If you hold a baseball in the air, an exact number of atoms are touching the baseballs surface. If you hold a baseball under water an exact number of atoms are touching the baseballs surface. What is the rough estimate as to the amount of EM field quanta (virtual photons?) That touch an electrons surface in free space?
@wydopnthrtl
8 ай бұрын
Light isn't made. It pre-exists the exciter. Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. He created it BEFORE anything else. Based on that statement in Genesis 1 "light" (which I think is the whole EM scale) is a physical field. Who knows... maybe its something more that we haven't discovered yet too.
@dwinantosaputra6679
8 ай бұрын
Its shifting like that exactly fine-grained. So when you do the experiment on metalic not an insulator do the pattern Will be like spreading a butter?
@the_nows
7 ай бұрын
But how does it generate electricity when the magnet is in the same position but spins with the plate?
@FractalWoman
7 ай бұрын
Electricity is generated when you spin the plate, whether the magnet is spinning or not. The charges in the plate much be in motion relative the the magnetic flux lines. You could also spin the magnet about the orthogonal axis such that the N and S poles change places. THEN you would get electricity even if you don't spin the plate.
@infinitebeing1119
6 ай бұрын
Why it doesn't create any Back EMF?
@FractalWoman
6 ай бұрын
@@infinitebeing1119 because the magnetic field lines aren't moving. It's as if the magnet isn't moving at all.
@billwoehl3051
8 ай бұрын
So, magnetic field toroid, axis down the funnels, nothing tied to the elements of the magnet, yet, any other axis is.
@davidfredin4547
8 ай бұрын
Ok, I respect your point of view. regards
@lukiepoole9254
8 ай бұрын
If you have a massive neodymium magnet, a bismuth ball would get *attracted* to the center
@TravisTellsTruths
8 ай бұрын
So, so cool
@JenkoRun
8 ай бұрын
Isn't that because that's where the focal point of dielectric acceleration is and bismuth is the most diamagnetic element?
@paaao
7 ай бұрын
Did you try rotating the magnet in the other direction, or half way and back in the position where the filings didn't move? I know for a %100 fact that equal or greater voltages are produced by dropping the magnet to a surface equal with a coil of wire and picking it up and dropping it. It doesn't need to pass completely through. Passing through is better since it will create the same effect doubled, but it's the approach that leads to current displacement since approaching the edge of a magnet's pole requires the copper coil to experience a field pressure change from a N to S potential.
@FractalWoman
7 ай бұрын
Yes, I did try rotating the magnet back and forth in both direction. Once all the magnetic moments of the iron filings are in equilibrium with the magnet, they do no move no matter which direction I rotate the magnet as long as the rotation is about the long axis of the magnet. If I try to tilt the magnet off axis, then all bets are off.
@paaao
7 ай бұрын
@@FractalWoman I just wonder if maybe you are experiencing movement, however, due to the bunching up of the material (iron filings) and the very low, almost inertial effect you would receive from twirling the magnet, you cannot see any movement.
@FractalWoman
7 ай бұрын
@@paaao Once all the magnetic moments of the iron filings align with the big magnet, there are no further movements of the iron filings. Both the experiment shows this AND the the "math" shows this. Reality matches the math (computer simulations of magnetism). This is the good thing.
@paaao
7 ай бұрын
@@FractalWoman The point is, you can't see both aspects of the reciprocating magnetic/dielectric field using iron filings. They become magnetized themselves, and locked between the constructive/destructive aspects of the full field.
@paaao
7 ай бұрын
To expand on this, see Ken Wheeler's early videos. I want to say, 3, 4, or 5. You need a fast approach to create capacitance aka dielectric potential. Once achieved, you can witness, even with basic ferro fluid, the centripetal return to rest that takes place a vortex towards the center of every pole, of every magnet. You can see it with a quick approach towards a bowl of ferro fluid as well. There's a dropping whirlpool of rest energy, that pulls inward towards the center of each pole. It's the loss of magnetic force and motion from the opposite pole that must transform into dielectric acceleration towards rest (inertia)
@sean...
8 ай бұрын
.................... 👀 .......................so if you rotate a magnet along the polar axis which is aligned perpendicular to a wire does it induce a charge in the wire ? I might recommend positioning the wire to one side of a spinning magnet to keep the field lines moving in only 1 direction relative to the wire to avoid any cancellation. You should measure a current.
@FractalWoman
8 ай бұрын
If you rotate a magnet about its polar axis, it won't induce charge motion in the wire no matter how you orient it the wire to the magnet. When you rotate a magnet about its polar axis, the magnetic flux lines do not move. In order to generate charge motion in a wire, the flux lines need to be in motion. You can do that by either translating the magnet back and forth near the wire, or you can spin the magnet about the orthogonal axis, such that the N and S poles are continuously changing places. The main point here is that the N and S poles must be changing locations. When you spin the magnet about the polar axis, the location of the N and S poles do not change and therefore, the flux lines do not change.
@sean...
8 ай бұрын
amazing, very interesting, thanks FractalWoman
@MatjažČeh-d5g
8 ай бұрын
Personally I se the parado only if you dont understand inertial as Mach principe and Mike McCulloch model. A magnet IS structured inertial and rotating the disc or and magnet you are introducing relativne change to the hubble tension and thus get amperes and a bit voltage Low voltage cause the path IS short where a solenoid against a magnet IS longer and thus more voltage against current
@MatjažČeh-d5g
8 ай бұрын
On Phone sorry for strange auto correct
@FractalWoman
8 ай бұрын
My way is simpler. The flux lines do not move or spin with the magnet as you are spinning it about the polar axis. Of the flux lines aren't changing, then there will be no current induced into the wire. So when you spin the magnet only in the Faraday Paradox experiment, nothing will happen. So when you spin both the magnet and the copper cylinder, it is the same as if you spin only the copper cylinder. The charges in the copper cylinder need to be moving relative to the flux lines. The body of the magnet is irrelevant in this experimental setup. Now, if you rotate the magnet such that the poles changing places, THEN you will see a voltage. That is how a wind mill works.
@MatjažČeh-d5g
8 ай бұрын
Yes but seeing a magnet as structured inertial IS for me the important part. Could be wrong but it sort off agrees with Mike explanation of rotating bodies where atoms are in same orientation spinning and thus influencing the disk which in Turn as you Turn it can collect power. Only spinning the magnet should not give results as you explained. Try doing a video of Feynman disc paradox next :)
@TheGoodVibrations
8 ай бұрын
Bravo FW !!! The field lines of magnet's are radial around it. These radial locations are strongest near the magnet and weaken with distance and in magnetic strength. The magnets field lines, along the axis through the poles in the aether around the magnet - can be metaphorically compared to the numerous "electron orbits" of atoms. They "spin" and each maintains the same distance from the center / core - regardless where the core of the atom moves. Magnetic fields operate in a particular direction of "rotation" as my experiments have indicated just as all electrons of atoms orbit in the same radial direction.
@MarkT
8 ай бұрын
Could it be that the field is moving, though the change makes no adjustment 'needed' by the iron particles. In that the field appears the same to it?
@FractalWoman
8 ай бұрын
If I am moving, but you cannot detect that I am moving, then am I really moving? Let's say we are on a train together. You are sitting beside me. But you don't know we are on a train. When I sit still, you are going to think that I am not moving. When you spin a magnet about the polar axis, the charges in the copper disk (and/or the iron filings) do not move. From their perspective, the field is not moving. Charges are only induced to move when the flux lines are moving relative to the charges. When you spin a magnet about the polar axis, the flux lines do not move. I think this is really cool. This experiment is something anyone can do.
@MarkT
8 ай бұрын
@@FractalWoman Thankyou for your postings and videos! I am sure you are right about the Aether. Basic logic would be that if there is such a void as 'nothing' then all else would attempt to fill it. Which may explain Universe expansion? You video on Faraday Paradox bring into focus the nature of the 'lines'. My brain has paused.
@JenkoRun
8 ай бұрын
I've been looking at the Faraday Disk Dynamo recently (there are strong indications it can be made into an OU device through EM symmetry breaking) and one of the big "Paradoxes" surrounding it is how rotating the magnet alone (on a "pole") doesn't produce any current on the disk, which isn't unusual at all when one accounts for the rotating field of a magnet being ab-extra to it, there's no reason rotating the magnet would rotate the field with it. But what is unusual to me is how attaching a magnet to the disk (pole facing it) and then spinning the disk will create a current, one that is stronger than if no magnet was present, that I don't understand, any ideas? EDIT: Nvm, I was thinking of the wrong kind of magnet attached to disk example when writing this, it makes sense to me now and it's the same as I wrote above, the field is independent of the magnet.
@KatyWantsToGo
8 ай бұрын
Gravity? Why do “scientists” still use a theory that’s never been proven to exist? Perhaps you could do a video that differentiates “gravity” with The Law of Density…
@wydopnthrtl
8 ай бұрын
If they deny gravity.. they have no explanation for heliocentrism.. and big bang. Their assumption plus assumption falls apart and they will lose perceived credibility.
@FinalEyes777
8 ай бұрын
Thanks for sharing! I love these real world proofs of certain phenomenon that are otherwise invisible.
@e.powerdc1127
8 ай бұрын
We think that we understand how a magnet works. I like your take about the fields. So just to be clear, the iron fillings are moveed from around the Bloch Wall center of the magnet. This is a great " Show " of what's really taking place. Regards DC
@FractalWoman
8 ай бұрын
In the Faraday Experiment when you spin the magnet about the polar axis of the magnet then the iron filings don't move. But if you rotate the magnet about the 90 degree orthogonal axis such that the N and S poles continuously change places, THEN you will see the iron filings move. I hope this answers your question. If not, you will have to rephrase the question as it wasn't very clear. 🙂
@e.powerdc1127
8 ай бұрын
@@FractalWoman Magnets are key to our understanding. So what you are showing ( I think ) is that the polar field is unified ( without) fingers, at the pole end of the magnet. However at the magnet's center ( the Bloch Wall ) it has fingers of strength and weaknesses. This is of interest and really adds to our understanding. Dielectric and Magnetic fields should be equal, so how do we explain this behavior? Very interesting! Regards DC
@FractalWoman
8 ай бұрын
@@e.powerdc1127 This is not what I am showing. Even though we are only looking at the pole in my experiment, the WHOLE of the magnetic field surrounding the WHOLE of the magnet is not moving when I spin the magnet about the polar axis. When I flip the magnet in the video such that the center of the magnet is touching the box (i.e., both poles are touching the box), when I spin the magnet, the N and S poles are now changing places. In this case, the flux lines are continuously changing and therefore the iron filings are also going to move and realign with the changing flux lines. Because the magnet is square, it is impossible to rotate the magnet about the polar axis when the magnet is in this orientation. But if I could, you would still see no motion in the iron filings. The main point is, when you spin a magnet about the polar axis, the flux lines (formed in the Ether) to not move or change and therefore, the iron filings do not move or change no matter where you place the iron filings around the magnet. If you rotate the magnet about an axis 90 degrees orthogonal to the polar axis, THEN the flux lines will move and change and therefore, the iron filings will move and change to realign with the new flux lines. This experiment to me is proof that the Ether exist. The flux lines are formed in the dipolar Ether that surrounds the magnet. If the flux lines where attached to the magnet, then the flux lines would spin with the magnet, but they don't.
@e.powerdc1127
8 ай бұрын
@@FractalWoman So to recap. What you show is that the n field & the s field are separate in they do not cross the Bloch wall. I agree this does prove the Aether field. Regards DC
@FractalWoman
8 ай бұрын
@@e.powerdc1127 I think you need to take what I say at face value and not reword it to something I didn't say. First of all, the central plane of the magnet is not a Bloch wall by definition of the term. I believe I made some videos on this. What I actually said is that the flux lines surrounding the magnet (the whole magnet) do not budge when you rotate the magnet about the polar axis. If you place iron filings anywhere in this field, the iron filings will quickly align with the Ether flux lines. Then, if you spin the magnet about its polar axis, those iron filings will not budge as you are spinning the magnet. This has nothing to do with the poles or the central plane of the magnet (what Ken Wheeler mistakenly calls the Bloch wall). It has to do with the interaction between the magnet and the dipolar Ether. Without the Ether, it is very difficult to understand where the flux lines come from. With the Ether, it is super simple. The Ether is LIKE a ferrofluid, only instead of being composed of polarizable NANO particles, the Ether is composed of polarizable QUANTUM particles.
@swieberdpicasso2215
2 ай бұрын
This is NOT about the Faraday paradox. You are talking about a different kind of inducted emf, the one with a changing magnetic field. The Faraday paradox is about a magnetic field that doesn't change! Its about a homogeneous magnetic field. With all the magnetich fieldlines parrallel to each other, and everywhere the same. Like the bed of nails of a fakir. When you move a conductor perpendicular through a homogeneous magnetic field, you also get voltage generated, that's the kind of induction the Faraday paradox is about!
@FractalWoman
2 ай бұрын
This IS about the magnetic field that doesn't change. When I spin the magnet about the polar axis, the magnetic field DOESN'T change and therefore the iron filing positions and orientations don't change. The paradox as I understand it is that, when you spin the magnet and not the copper disk, there is no voltage generated. If the magnetic field moved with the magnet, then there would be a voltage generated, but there isn't. There is no paradox. When you spin the copper disk and not the magnet, you get a voltage. This is because the charges in the copper disk are moving relative to the magnetic field. When you spin the magnet and not the copper disk, then there is not voltage. This is because the charges are NOT moving relative to the magnetic field since the magnetic field is not changing. When you spin BOTH, there IS a voltage since the charges are again in motion relative to the static, non-moving magnetic field. BTW, in the Faraday paradox experiment, the magnetic field in question is NOT homogeneous.
@swieberdpicasso2215
2 ай бұрын
@@FractalWoman Sorry but you don't quite understand what the Faraday paradox is about, and what the principles and problems are of an homopolar and an unipolar generator. I suggest you study the materail some more, it's very interesting! Also, in your experiment you don't proove anything. The fact that the iron filings don't move doesn't mean that the fieldlines don't rotate. The iron filings realy don't care if they are kept in place by one fieldline or by the next one, they won't change a bit. I don't mean to affend you, I just say it as it is....
@FractalWoman
2 ай бұрын
@@swieberdpicasso2215 The experiment in this video is about the Faraday DISK experiment and NOT about Faraday's Homopolar Generator Paradox: Faraday's Disk Paradox: Setup: A cylindrical magnet is rotated with a conducting disk such that both rotate together as a unit around a common axis. Observation: Despite both the magnet and the disk rotating together, an EMF is still observed between the center and the edge of the disk. Paradox: The paradox lies in the fact that the relative motion between the magnet and the disk is zero, so intuitively, one might expect no induced EMF. The homopolar paradox is quite a different thing. Faraday's Homopolar Generator Paradox: Setup: A conducting disk (the rotor) is rotating in a uniform magnetic field, typically produced by a permanent magnet or an electromagnet. The magnetic field is perpendicular to the plane of the disk. Electrical contacts are made at the center of the disk and at a point on its edge. Observation: An electromotive force (EMF) is generated between the center and the edge of the disk, even though the magnetic flux through the disk remains constant. Paradox: According to Faraday's law of induction, an EMF should be induced only if there is a change in magnetic flux through a loop. Here, despite the absence of a changing magnetic flux, an EMF is still observed. Again, the experiment in this video is about the Faraday DISK Paradox. That experiment shows that magnetic field lines do not rotate with the magnet. If they did, then you would see a voltage when the magnet is moving relative to the disk and this is not what we see. The fact that the iron filings don't move as well is further evidence that the magnetic field is not moving with the magnet. The magnet creates a static magnetic "field" in the Ether. When you rotate the magnet about its polar axis, the Ether "field lines" do not change.
@swieberdpicasso2215
2 ай бұрын
@@FractalWoman I won't go into further discussion, I still suggest you study the materail some more.........
@FractalWoman
2 ай бұрын
@@swieberdpicasso2215 so is there something I said that isn't correct? Can you point me to a peer reviewed publication that contradicts what I said? That would be more helpful than leaving me and my team hanging like you did.
@robadkerson
7 ай бұрын
Thank you
@lambda4931
8 ай бұрын
Interesting. Please try it with just a few iron fillings. I’m guessing you will see some rotation
@FractalWoman
8 ай бұрын
I just did as you suggested. kzitem.info03xxintqPWY?si=c1j9XF08bcPh0Ow5 Once the iron filings setting into a stable pattern (once all the magnetic moments of the iron filings align with the magnetic field of the magnet), there is no motion of the iron filings when I turn the magnet no matter how many iron filings I use.
@TravisTellsTruths
8 ай бұрын
@Fractalwoman it's definitely due to a fractal field effect, it seems to me.
@FractalWoman
8 ай бұрын
@@TravisTellsTruths When you spin a magnet about the polar axis, the flux lines of the magnet do not move. This suggests that the flux lines are not attached to the magnet. When a magnet is present, the Ether (consisting of tiny dipoles) self-organizes into the flux pattern around the magnet. Like the iron filings, once the Ether dipoles moments have reached equilibrium, then (like the iron filings) they don't move when you rotate the magnet about the polar axis. In my Ether model, the Ether behaves similar to (self-similar to) the iron filings. That is where the fractal paradigm comes in. Magnets themselves have the property of self-similarity. When you break a magnet in half, you get two self-similar magnets, each with a north pole and a south pole.
@lambda4931
8 ай бұрын
@@FractalWoman Thank you for trying my suggestion. What’s so odd is it sticks to the magnet at the poles but yet does not rotate with it.
@FractalWoman
8 ай бұрын
@@lambda4931 Before placing the magnet onto the bottom of the box, the iron filings are aligned randomly. When you put the magnet into place, it takes time (a split second) for the magnet moments of the iron filings to align with the magnet flux lines. Once they are in place, when you spin the magnet, the magnetic flux lines of the magnet do not change. That is why the iron filings don't move. They are not attracted to the "magnet" (the body of the magnet). The magnetic field (which I believe is an emergent property of the Ether) is doing all the work. The ETHER configuration doesn't move or change with you spin the magnet about the polar axis as I show in the videos.
@davidfredin4547
8 ай бұрын
I tried to undestand result of your experiment so borrowd your idea of the magnet and did a simple experiment. I drew concentric circles on a cardboard of 10,6 and 4 centimeters of radius and divided them in 36 arch segments of 10° degrees each, took two neodimium-boron-iron cubic magnets of 1centimeter side. placed one magnet at the center of the circles and the other on the path of the 4 cm. circle. I made the magnet at the center orientation north looking at the south face of the seccond magnet (four centimeters appart) for maximum attraction. then started moving the second magnet at increments of 10° taking care that the magnets faces remained parallel to each other at each step. at around 50° the attraction force diminished and one step further at 60° the force was of slight repulsion. Repelling forces continued with a maximum at 90°and continued to about 140° (second quadrant) the force turned from repulsion to a small attraction, with maximum attraction at 180° then again changed to small repulsion at around 215° remaining in this state all the way to 270° changing again to attraction at 320° for max attraction at 360° (complete cycle). The controversial issue in this exercise is that the measurements are from magnet to magnet (not an observer) or what would be a relational set-up. That is what I think the Ampere - Grassmann controversy is.
@FractalWoman
8 ай бұрын
This is not controversial at all. When two magnets are parallel to each other and aligned pole to pole (at your zero position), and the N pole of one magnet is facing the S pole of the other magnet and you will experience attraction. When two magnets parallel to each other but are side by side (at your 90 degree position), the N pole of one magnet is next to the N pole of the other magnet (and the S pole of one magnet is next to the S pole of the other magnet). In this situation, the magnets are in repulsion. When your magnet gets back to the 180 degree position, the S pole of one magnet is facing the N pole of the other magnet and they are in attraction again. You may want to watch this video to get a better idea of what is going on. kzitem.info/news/bejne/q31_1GhrZqSoaoI
@davidfredin4547
8 ай бұрын
Ok, saw your suggested presentation with magnets and agree. So then co-linear current elements should repel each other and longitudinal ampere forces should exist in cables. @@FractalWoman
@FractalWoman
8 ай бұрын
@@davidfredin4547 Not sure what you mean by co-linear. If you have two parallel wires separated by some distance, and the current is moving in the same direction in both wires, then the wires will ATTRACT each other. You need to distinguish between the current moving down the wire and the Ether circulation created BETWEEN the wires. The current moving down the wires is not the cause of attraction. The circulating Ether is the cause of attraction and/or repulsion, depending on the direction of the current in each wire. Current moving in OPPOSITE directions in the wires will cause the wires to REPEL. Hope this helps.
@rexford9019
7 ай бұрын
As I understand it, the Faraday paradox is when the copper disk is rotating with the magnet, emf is generated. Emf can be generated even when there is only a rotating cylindrical magnet with poles at the ends. Also no emf is generated when the circuit is rotated with the magnet. Apparently, there are relativistic effects involved.
@FractalWoman
7 ай бұрын
"Also no emf is generated when the circuit is rotated with the magnet" Not sure what you mean by this.
@rexford9019
7 ай бұрын
To clarify, when the magnet is part of the circuit (the Faraday generator), and the circuit is rotated with the magnet, there is no emf. However, when the magnet and the circuit (to and from the disc to the galvanometer), but not the disc, rotate in unison, an emf is generated across the disc. If you search “unipolar experiments a g kelly”, you will find a pdf with these results. There are other experiments, with math, which claim the unipolar generator is a demonstration of special relativity.
@thefakecyan
8 ай бұрын
it remind me of Hamid Ucar magnetic bound state
@davidfredin4547
8 ай бұрын
Your description of the ether sounds reasonable, however the ether concept has been somehow discarded by many scientists, educators and commentators, this is why I think your work presenting another point of view is important. Long ago as a student, it was taught as assumptions made by physicistsof the past, in the like of H.A Lorentz and others during the late XIX century. Regards.
@FractalWoman
8 ай бұрын
I try not to spend too much time in the past. I spend just enough time there to find out what mistakes they made. Then I move forward.
@areyouavinalaff
8 ай бұрын
3:21 looks like solar flares.
@2dazetake
7 ай бұрын
I would imagine if you sleep in a Faraday cage, you can block all the man made signals out,but our coaxial existence with the most high,we still receive the signal to our soul.
You have lost your marbles..When you flip the magnet, it's contact with the cardboard is lost temporarily. When you spin it, it never separates from the cardboard. The filings will always move when you break contact with the cardboard. And there is no such thing as magnetic attraction overriding gravity, nor are there magnetic poles...
@dwinantosaputra6679
8 ай бұрын
There is permutation, and she is exactly correct about dielectric inertia.
@FractalWoman
8 ай бұрын
"You have lost your marbles." Please don't insult my intelligence. If you want to challenge FractalWoman, you have to be polite. Those are my rules of engagement. Besides you are wrong. When I flip the magnet such that the dielectric plane touches the box (in this case, both poles are touching the box), you get a completely different pattern then when only one pole is touching the box. You can see it in the video. Do the experiment yourself (anyone can do this experiment), and then maybe go out and by some marbles, and then forget where you put them. LOL
@dwinantosaputra6679
8 ай бұрын
@@FractalWoman Hai, I hope my comment did not hurt your intelectual view. I do apologize when the commentary sound harsh, I could only said that life is very hard this day. Especially for me to know about USA influence in advance pyshics. I do really watch the news these day .. its like unfolding in cold war era.
@juperrr
8 ай бұрын
@@dwinantosaputra6679 She was replying to the dude above you (@mikewood3737)
@FractalWoman
8 ай бұрын
@@dwinantosaputra6679 My grand kids watch my KZitem channel. I want to set a good example for them. I don't want them to think it is OK to bully other people. I don't want them to think it is OK to tell someone else that they LOST THEIR MARBLES. That is not cool in my opinion. Yes, it is a harsh world. That is why it is extra important to "teach our children well". kzitem.info/news/bejne/pqGXsauOnZaFkn4
Пікірлер: 118