Why are scientist using incorrect data for their studies?

[swansont]

2 hours ago, Jasper10 said:

Please see post explaining what “off” means.

I don’t see one.

Quote

It is claimed that these 2 forces are the same (identical)

Who is making this claim?

Quote

put they are not because as I have already pointed out, if these forces were the same (identical) then when 2 magnets are brought together and interface i.e. NN…NS…SN…SS then their interactions would be the same in all four cases (the result should give either 4 attractions or 4 repulsions),but they don’t.They give 2 attractions and 2 repulsions.

Yes, there is attraction and repulsion, but that’s just a sign difference. The form of the interaction is the same, i.e. the same equations apply. 

[Jasper10]

4 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

No it's not.

 

Please explain what you mean by that.  My guess is that you mean the north end of the magnet is one force and the south end of the magnet is the other force.  Is that what you are saying?

Yes, and both forces attract and repel depending on their interactions with other electromagnets

Edited June 15, 2022 by Jasper10

[Bufofrog]

3 minutes ago, Jasper10 said:

Yes, and both forces attract and repel depending on their interactions with other electromagnetics.

They are not different forces.  Just like electrostatic forces can be negative or positive, magnetic forces simply have a different sign for N and S.

Edited June 15, 2022 by Bufofrog

[Jasper10]

5 minutes ago, swansont said:

I don’t see one.

Who is making this claim?

Yes, there is attraction and repulsion, but that’s just a sign difference. The form of the interaction is the same, i.e. the same equations apply. 

Someone else explained it well in one of their posts just after my post.

Scientist have a foundational logic of 0,1 and 1,0, a logic which doesn’t  apply at the foundational level of magnetic force interactions.It has a logic of 0,0…0,1…1,0…1,1.

We have definitive proof of this by 2 magnets 4 interactions which also confirm that the 2 foundational magnetic forces are different.Therefore it is not just a sign difference.

8 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

They are not different forces.  Just like electrostatic forces can be negative or positive, magnetic forces simply have a different sign for N and S.

Nonsense,they are different forces even though they both attract and repel.

[swansont]

2 minutes ago, Jasper10 said:

Nonsense,they are different forces even though they both attract and repel.

Forgive me if I don’t take your word for this. Do you have any credible evidence of this? Mere assertion is not even close to being sufficient 

[Bufofrog]

2 minutes ago, Jasper10 said:

Nonsense,they are different forces even though they both attract and repel.

It seems like you are purposely trying to misunderstand me.

[Jasper10]

9 minutes ago, swansont said:

Forgive me if I don’t take your word for this. Do you have any credible evidence of this? Mere assertion is not even close to being sufficient 

What do you mean evidence? I have already said that nature has provided definitive proof!! Mere evidence is no good at the end of the day.

Edited June 15, 2022 by Jasper10

[StringJunky]

1 minute ago, Jasper10 said:

What do you mean evidence? I have already said that nature has provided definitive proof!! Mere evidence is no good at the end of the day.

You need to go and learn some science. This post tells me everything I need to know what you know, and it's very little.

[Jasper10]

1 minute ago, StringJunky said:

You need to go and learn some science. This post tells me everything I need to know what you know, and it's very little.

Ha Ha…Hi String Junky…..you can’t say that without providing  definitive proof of your claim…….guesses aren’t enough anymore.

[John Cuthber]

55 minutes ago, Jasper10 said:

Can you explain why therefore all the interactions of these magnets i.e. SS…SN….NS…NN are not the same?

 

Yes.
And I can do it with only one field.

[swansont]

44 minutes ago, Jasper10 said:

What do you mean evidence? I have already said that nature has provided definitive proof!! Mere evidence is no good at the end of the day.

Saying something is easy. What you need to provide is the evidence (i.e. point to the experiment) that others can examine. 

And you need to do this with your next post.

[Sensei]

Let me propose an experiment:

put two long magnets pointing NS ....[space]... SN into a test tube, place vertically.

put two long magnets pointing SN ....[space]... NS into a test tube, place vertically.

They will repel each other and the one on top will levitate. Compare how far they repel each other (how much force kept them levitated)....

 

[Jasper10]

36 minutes ago, swansont said:

Saying something is easy. What you need to provide is the evidence (i.e. point to the experiment) that others can examine. 

And you need to do this with your next post.

Simple …get yourself a couple of magnets and check out the 4 interactions.

As all the interactions are not IDENTICAL then this proves that the  2 magnetic forces in nature are not the same.

[swansont]

42 minutes ago, Jasper10 said:

Simple …get yourself a couple of magnets and check out the 4 interactions.

As all the interactions are not IDENTICAL then this proves that the  2 magnetic forces in nature are not the same.

Yeah, that’s nonsense. They attract or repel. The interaction only differs in that one aspect, just as physics says.

 

[Jasper10]

23 minutes ago, swansont said:

Yeah, that’s nonsense. They attract or repel. The interaction only differs in that one aspect, just as physics says.

 

Of course both forces attract or repel depending upon which force each is interacting with.

These 2 foundational forces of nature are not the same because if they were then all the 4 interactions would be IDENTICAL and they ain’t.

Its  amazing how something so simple completely undoes  the present scientific model.

[iNow]

33 minutes ago, Jasper10 said:

Its  amazing how something so simple completely undoes  the present scientific model.

You misspelled fictional. 

[Jasper10]

7 minutes ago, iNow said:

You misspelled fictional. 

It’s not fictional at all.

[iNow]

You keep repeating, but utterly failing to validate (or even attempt to confirm) that. 

The most probable description here is that you’re just another pathetic little troll.

I hope you can prove me wrong, but doubt you will. You have no credibility. 

Edited June 15, 2022 by iNow

[Arete]

While magnetic forces are not my "field" (see what I did there) of expertise, as a friendly suggestion, it might benefit discussion to frame your question like:

"Scientists assume that force A and force B are equal [citation]. This data demonstrates that they are not [citation]. What does that mean for the assumptions that they made? 

Also couldn't one just use a magnetic force meter to measure the strength of the magnetic field at each end of a magnet for a quick and convenient answer? 

[Jasper10]

36 minutes ago, iNow said:

You keep repeating, but utterly failing to validate (or even attempt to confirm) that. 

The most probable description here is that you’re just another pathetic little troll.

I hope you can prove me wrong, but doubt you will. You have no credibility. 

I have given a clear explanation……how would you know whether I have credibility or not? who are you?

33 minutes ago, Arete said:

While magnetic forces are not my "field" (see what I did there) of expertise, as a friendly suggestion, it might benefit discussion to frame your question like:

"Scientists assume that force A and force B are equal [citation]. This data demonstrates that they are not [citation]. What does that mean for the assumptions that they made? 

Also couldn't one just use a magnetic force meter to measure the strength of the magnetic field at each end of a magnet for a quick and convenient answer? 

You only need a couple of magnets to completely disprove the present scientific model.Observations are enough.

[iNow]

Yep. You’re a troll. 

[Jasper10]

18 minutes ago, iNow said:

Yep. You’re a troll. 

Do you want me to talk you through again slowly iNow?

[Phi for All]

21 minutes ago, Jasper10 said:

You only need a couple of magnets to completely disprove the present scientific model.Observations are enough.

This is the part people want you to explain, otherwise you're Begging the Question, a fallacy where you assume your premise is correct. It could be you're misunderstanding something fairly fundamental, or you're insisting on a rigid definition of certain criteria.

You might also define which "present scientific model" you're talking about. There are many and they each represent a particular set of phenomena. 

[Jasper10]

6 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

This is the part people want you to explain, otherwise you're Begging the Question, a fallacy where you assume your premise is correct. It could be you're misunderstanding something fairly fundamental, or you're insisting on a rigid definition of certain criteria.

You might also define which "present scientific model" you're talking about. There are many and they each represent a particular set of phenomena. 

Hi…there are two different forces associated with magnets.One common magnetic field,yes, but two different forces.Both these forces can attract or repel.

Please explain, if a magnet interacts with another magnet in the 4 possible ways NN…NS…SN…SS , why 2 of the interactions are different to the other 2 interactions if these forces are identical.

[Arete]

45 minutes ago, Jasper10 said:

You only need a couple of magnets to completely disprove the present scientific model.Observations are enough.

Observation without data is worthless.