Was Faraday wrong about magnetism?

[Captain]

According to a scientist named Albert Roy Davis, magnetism consists of two separate energies with opposite effects. The North pole has a counterclockwise spin and causes matter to contract while the South pole has a clockwise spin and causes matter to expand.

 

Davis and Rawls describe in their first book, Magnetism and Its Effects on the Living System, that the currently accepted method of showing the lines of force of a magnet (Faraday's) is incorrect. There are other incorrect conclusions according to Davis and Rawls regarding the directional flow of magnetic energy.

 

Here is what they have to say about Faraday's method. "The use of a flat piece of paper with iron filings placed on its top and the bringing up under that paper a magnet to show the magnet's lines of force is incorrect and should not be used in textbooks of many types to educate students, because each fine particle of the steel or iron filings when placed in the field of the magnet under the paper becomes a miniature magnet in itself; thus the total picture is incorrect and misleading. As each miniature magnet then attracts and repels, the picture is distorted to present a mistaken concept."

 

Instead, take a large glass or plastic bowl, such as a fish bowl, fill it with water and pour in a handful of barium ferrite particles. Use a cylinder magnet that is 3 inches long, like an alnico "cow magnet", and stir the water briskly so the particles become suspended in the water. Keep the magnet in a vertical position and then stop stirring. The least amount of particles will be at the exact center of the cylinder magnet. The shape of the particles will form what looks like a figure eight.

 

In science it is still taught that magnetism flows in one direction, usually said to be from the South pole to the North pole. Davis and Rawls state that magnetism flows in both directions simultaneously, S to N and N to S. This experiment explains how they came to this conclusion. "This test consists of a microscope slide, a few drops of diluted sulfuric acid, a medium power microscope, placing a magnet at each end of the slide, the diluted acid touching each magnet. Microscopic viewing after a few minutes allows one to see the energies of the two pole effects and the two directional movements of the sulfuric acid hydrogen bubble movement."

 

Yet another error that they discovered is that magnetic energy doesn't flow in a semicircle from one pole to the other. Again, this experiment explains how they arrived at this conclusion. "The simple test to support this incorrectness is to take a three- to six-inch bar or cylinder magnet and place it on a wood or plastic table, any base material that is not magnetic. Next, take a straight pin and, holding it between the thumb and the index finger, place it at one end of the magnet. Moving the pin very slowly the length of the magnet, maintaining a slight upward pull, yet keeping the pin in contact with the magnet, at the exact or almost exact center of the length of the magnet you will find one fractional place at that center where there is NO PULL. Therefore, no measurable amount of magnetism exists at the direct center of the magnet." I've found that placing the pin (I used a sewing needle) perpendicular to the cylinder magnet worked very well. I couldn't feel any magnetic pull on the needle at the center of the magnet.

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Mr Skeptic]

Magnetism doesn't "flow" in the way you think. In a static magnet there is no "flow" of energy. The whole thing about magnetic field lines "flowing" is just an analogy. The field lines are just the direction that a magnetic monopole would move if it was stationary at that point (magnetic monopoles don't exist). Magnetic field lines are also the direction the north end of a compass would point if it were at that point.

 

Playing with magnets in 3D is a cool idea though. I would suggest using a viscous fluid so that the particles don't move too quickly.

[swansont]

I would not trust any explanations of magnetics from this person.

 

This would be the same Albert Roy Davis that sells magnetic therapy bracelets, etc., right? It's a croc. ("north pole good, south pole bad" is laughable and trivial to debunk - since the divergence of B is zero, any field line that goes into the body also goes out, so there is no difference which pole faces the skin)

 

Maxwell's equations have been tested for over a hundred years. Motors, speakers, electromagnets all work, just as the theory says they should.

[Captain]

Here's a very interesting article that does seem to show pretty convincingly that magnetism does indeed flow. http://www.magnetlabs.com/labs/flow.html

[insane_alien]

if magnetism were energy then fine. but magnetism is a force. forces do not flow as far as i am aware.

[ydoaPs]

Here's a very interesting article that does seem to show pretty convincingly that magnetism does indeed flow. http://www.magnetlabs.com/labs/flow.html

This is a pseudoscience site trying to hock magnets. It is the same type of stuff that swansont was talking about above.

 

http://www.magnetlabs.com/labs/equation.html even seems to suggest the existence of magnetic monopoles(which, IIRC, is wrong considering [math]\nabla\cdot{B}=0[/math]) and even a NEUTRAL POLE!

 

Wow. I just read their article on how to tell the difference between North and South, and apparently, they can't even do it.

The side of the magnet which is attracted to the needle point that points to the north pole of the earth is the healing north pole energy.

 

Carefully affix a thread to the center of a magnet' date=' so that the two poles can spin freely, the side of the magnet which faces the south pole of the earth has the healing north pole energy.[/quote']

[Captain]

According to Davis and Rawls, the magnetic North pole of the earth is in the Northern hemisphere, not the Southern hemisphere, so by that definition, it is desribed correctly.

[ydoaPs]

According to Davis and Rawls, the magnetic North pole of the earth is in the Northern hemisphere, not the Southern hemisphere, so by that definition, it is desribed correctly.

By evidence, they are wrong. Where are their actual studies?

[insane_alien]

they also got the positions of the geographic and magnetic poles mixed up. and if the magnetic fields were anything like in figure b compasses would not work when crossing the equator.

[Klaynos]

figure b is a joke right?

 

Please tell me it's a joke!

[swansont]

figure b is a joke right?

 

Please tell me it's a joke!

 

Well, it IS a joke, but I don't think it was intended as such.

[ydoaPs]

So, that explains why Americans are super-healthy and Australians are sick all the time!

[John Cuthber]

Someone ought to tell the aviation world about this "new discovery".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_dip

[Captain]

It wasn't easy, but look what I found. Scroll down about two thirds of the way down the page, in the third paragraph under "Cometary tails". Read the third sentence. The description is of the magnetic lines of the solar wind around the cometary ionosphere of Comet P/Giacobini-Zinner.

http://www.britannica.com/dday/print?articleId=110156&fullArticle=true&tocId=54338

[swansont]

It wasn't easy, but look what I found. Scroll down about two thirds of the way down the page, in the third paragraph under "Cometary tails". Read the third sentence. The description is of the magnetic lines of the solar wind around the cometary ionosphere of Comet P/Giacobini-Zinner.

http://www.britannica.com/dday/print?articleId=110156&fullArticle=true&tocId=54338

 

You mean "Two magnetic lobes separated by a current-carrying neutral sheet were observed as expected?" Note that "as expected" would mean "as expected by using Faraday's model/Maxwell's equations"

[Farsight]

Hmmn. I provide a simple and coherent exposition of magnetism, but my material gets kicked into pseudoscience whilst this junk does not. Ridiculous.

[Klaynos]

Hmmn. I provide a simple and coherent exposition of magnetism, but my material gets kicked into pseudoscience whilst this junk does not. Ridiculous.

 

You're right it is ridiculous, they both should be in there....

[YT2095]

done.

[Captain]

If there is no truth to their work, and it's just pseudoscience, how do you explain this? http://www.magnetlabs.com/articles/biorem_art.html

 

-or this (scroll down half way)http://www.magnetlabs.com/articles/biomagrev.html

[swansont]

If there is no truth to their work, and it's just pseudoscience, how do you explain this? http://www.magnetlabs.com/articles/biorem_art.html

 

-or this (scroll down half way)http://www.magnetlabs.com/articles/biomagrev.html

 

 

One needs to be able to read the actual article to ensure that the results were summarized accurately. One would also like to see if anyone else has been able to replicate the results. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and all that.

[John Cuthber]

Even without reading the originals I can be sure its bs because they use terms like "Positively charged magnetic energy" which doesn't mean anything.

[Captain]

In their book, Magnetism and Its Effects on the Living System, they list dozens of doctors and scientists that have duplicated their work (and they detail some experiments). They've worked with the Dr. Yerkes, from the famous Yerkes Primate Biological Laboratories, Professor Bessie O'Conner, from Midnapore, Alberta, Canada, Dr. N. S. Hanoka, from the University of Israel and many others. Buckminster Fuller has apparently endorsed their work, as has Morris Tischler, inventor of the first solid-state pacemaker, and Hans Selye, all of whom are famous in their fields of study. If there's nothing to the Davis and Rawls discoveries, they sure fooled some brilliant people.

 

I think too many of you are prematurely judging their work without obtaining any knowledge of it. How many researchers in the past have been labeled quacks by the mainstream, and end up being vindicated many years later? There have many, most notably Nikola Tesla. Wireless communication, robots, radio, AC electricity and so on, were once considered the ravings of a quack. As it turned out Tesla was just way ahead of his time.

 

Interestingly, some people still don't give him the credit he deserves. I recently saw a show on the History Channel about electricity, and when the discovery of alternating current electricity was discussed, Westinghouse was credited with it. There was no mention of Tesla at all. What kind of "history" is that? He's only the one who discovered that is was possible, and how to do it. That's like discussing the general theory of relativity, and never mentioning Einstein.

[swansont]

In their book, Magnetism and Its Effects on the Living System, they list dozens of doctors and scientists that have duplicated their work (and they detail some experiments). They've worked with the Dr. Yerkes, from the famous Yerkes Primate Biological Laboratories, Professor Bessie O'Conner, from Midnapore, Alberta, Canada, Dr. N. S. Hanoka, from the University of Israel and many others. Buckminster Fuller has apparently endorsed their work, as has Morris Tischler, inventor of the first solid-state pacemaker, and Hans Selye, all of whom are famous in their fields of study. If there's nothing to the Davis and Rawls discoveries, they sure fooled some brilliant people.

 

But, as I mentioned before, one needs to look at the actual papers in order to evaluate this claim. Absent that, this is just anecdotal

 

I think too many of you are prematurely judging their work without obtaining any knowledge of it. How many researchers in the past have been labeled quacks by the mainstream, and end up being vindicated many years later? There have many, most notably Nikola Tesla. Wireless communication, robots, radio, AC electricity and so on, were once considered the ravings of a quack. As it turned out Tesla was just way ahead of his time.

 

This is just the Galileo gambit. Along with Argumentum ad ignorantiam/shifting the burden of proof. One does not assume the premise is true; it's up to the claimant to provide evidence. You have not done so. (Circular arguments don't count)

[John Cuthber]

Never forget that for every tormented genius unfairly labeled as a madman, there are a thousand reall madmen acurately labeled as madmen.

 

Anyway, if they are so really so clever why do they talk such nonsense?

 

All I need to do is turn a compass on its side and measure the dip angle and I can prove that in the real world they are wrong.

 

It only takes one false prediction to falsify a theory and I can demonstrate that their diagram is simply not right.

If your theory doesn't agreee with reality it's not reality that needs changing.

[Captain]

Here are a couple of quotes from the greatest scientist that has ever lived. I just found them. It's funny how directly they address the previous post. What synchonicity.

 

"The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane." Nikola Tesla

 

"Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality." Nikola Tesla

 

Considering Tesla's stance, maybe you should reconsider yours.