swansont

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.

So you keep saying, while repeatedly ignoring my request to reveal where you “learned” this (part of the issue: is the ring an isolated system?) Also ignoring examples you can see, e.g. a person jumping into the air

No, that’s not correct. You do not understand the 3rd law, and therefore misrepresent it. Action and reaction forces act on different bodies, so it’s nonsensical to do this math. It’s like saying energy is conserved, so nothing can move.

Why do you think a coil of wire exerting a magnetic force on the ferrite ring is an internal force in the ring? Work and momentum are nit the same thing, and I would be interested to know exactly where you got the “the net work of internal force is zero“ idea? It’s fairly obvious that you should examine the simplest system possible to clear up your misconceptions, but that’s not been your MO. Having three different misconceptions all colliding in an example makes this much more difficult. Plus the attitude that Newton is wrong, not you.

Action and reaction forces are both forces, so it doesn’t matter if it’s one or the other. Objects accelerate because a force acts on them. They don’t care if it’s an action force or a reaction force. The ring exerts a force on the table. The table exerts a force on the ring. As described by the 3rd law. We’ve covered the cause of the vibration. Your claim that internal forces can’t transferred outside is false; you already acknowledged that a person can jump in the air. (and if you now assert that one cannot, there is no point in further discussion)

The (vibrating) table exerts a force on the ring. But you didn’t miss this: Yes Not looking for. Found. You keep acting like the table isn’t there, which is ridiculous.