Was Faraday wrong about magnetism?

[insane_alien]

i would hardly call tesla the greatest. definitely one of the most well known though.

 

anyway, what you have there is a logical fallacy called 'arguement from authority'

 

just because someone you revere with respect says something does not mean that it is actually true.

[John Cuthber]

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

Tesla's stance was that the physicists were doing too much maths and not enough experiments.

My stance is that the simple experiment of measuring a dip angle shows that this "new model" for magnetism is nonsense; no maths reqiuired.

I'm sure Tesla and I would agree on this.

[ydoaPs]

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

Tesla's stance was that the physicists were doing too much maths and not enough experiments.

My stance is that the simple experiment of measuring a dip angle shows that this "new model" for magnetism is nonsense; no maths reqiuired.

I'm sure Tesla and I would agree on this.

How do you know the expected dip angle with no maths? How can you compare them with no maths?

[swansont]

How do you know the expected dip angle with no maths? How can you compare them with no maths?

 

Since the angles differ by 90º (by inspection) at the equator, I think this is a case of "trivial maths" and not "no maths"

[John Cuthber]

I can tell "down" from "sideways" without maths.

[Captain]

If you think Tesla was just "one of the most well known" you have no idea what he accomplished. There is a reason that's he's been called "The Man Who Invented the Twentieth Century", and that's because he basically did.

 

Do you want to read a scientific study that proves that the North and South poles are different? Here you go. http://www.magnetage.com/Journal_Report.html

 

Here's an article on the United Nations website for you to read. Scroll to the bottom.

http://www.unep.or.jp/ietc/Publications/INSIGHT/Sum-95/7.asp

 

How does this meter tell the difference between the two poles if there isn't any? http://www.magnetlabs.com/shop/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=71&products_id=198&zenid=56faaafcb84c4879c850c5990184a9a7

 

How are you going to explain it away this time?

[uncool]

If you think Tesla was just "one of the most well known" you have no idea what he accomplished. There is a reason that's he's been called "The Man Who Invented the Twentieth Century", and that's because he basically did.

 

Do you want to read a scientific study that proves that the North and South poles are different? Here you go. http://www.magnetage.com/Journal_Report.html

 

Here's an article on the United Nations website for you to read. Scroll to the bottom.

http://www.unep.or.jp/ietc/Publications/INSIGHT/Sum-95/7.asp

 

How does this meter tell the difference between the two poles if there isn't any? http://www.magnetlabs.com/shop/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=71&products_id=198&zenid=56faaafcb84c4879c850c5990184a9a7

 

How are you going to explain it away this time?

 

It is ridiculously easy to find the difference between the two poles - just have another magnet in the meter. Or, make an electric pulse through the field and look at which way it turns. I personally think it's more likely to be the magnet. The idea that people have been using is this: If you switch EVERY magnet's north and south poles, and you switch left with right, then you will get effectively the same universe as you did before.

=Uncool-

[swansont]

Do you want to read a scientific study that proves that the North and South poles are different? Here you go. http://www.magnetage.com/Journal_Report.html

 

It proves no such thing. It cites Davis and Rawls' study, and then describes a small survey of NMR and ESR magnets, showing what the field orientation is.

 

Here's an article on the United Nations website for you to read. Scroll to the bottom.

http://www.unep.or.jp/ietc/Publications/INSIGHT/Sum-95/7.asp

 

There is no detail about what they purportedly do. "Using magnetic fields to enhance metabolism" is not necessarily the same as "using one field orientation to enhancet metabolism." But, in general, the existence of scam artists is not proof that they are right.

 

How does this meter tell the difference between the two poles if there isn't any? http://www.magnetlabs.com/shop/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=71&products_id=198&zenid=56faaafcb84c4879c850c5990184a9a7

 

How are you going to explain it away this time?

 

As uncool notes, finding the direction of the field is easy. That's what a magnetometer does. (probably a fluxgate device) The scam part is figuring out of a field in a particular direction is due to a north pole or south pole — it's both. Always.

[John Cuthber]

Well, the paper here

http://www.magnetage.com/Journal_Report.html

just says they could measure the magnetic field near MRI scanners and such (this isn't exactly shocking- all they would need would be a compass).

It also repeats a claim that a magnetic field was onece found to apparently affect the growth of some cells in a lab but that the results were not published.

 

This one http://www.unep.or.jp/ietc/Publications/INSIGHT/Sum-95/7.asp

doesn't really say anything; they could be talking about a magnetic stirrer from the description given. It certainly doesn't offer any proof that the asserted effect is real.

 

And re.

"How does this meter tell the difference between the two poles if there isn't any? http://www.magnetlabs.com/shop/index...50c5990184a9a7

 

How are you going to explain it away this time? "

 

What's to explain? Nobody ever said there wasn't a difference between the two poles. In fact, one of the arguments put forward was that these jokers had got thr poles the wrong way round; you can only say that if you already know the 2 poles are different.

Please come up a better straw-man next time.

[Captain]

Enviro-Magnetics, Inc., the company mentioned in the United Nations article is part of Biomagnetics International, Inc., Walter Rawls' company.

 

You say there is no explanation as to how the biomagnetic bioremediation process works. Read the patent. http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5709223-description.html

 

One argument I've heard many times is that there is no scientific evidence that magnetic fields have any significant effect on living organisms, but the United Nations article and the Journal study refute that argument. You haven't heard that in the media, have you?

 

The National Medical Association did a study and published the results. It's not a Davis and Rawls claim, it's the results of the study. If it was a drug in the study I'm sure you'd accept the results, but accepting these results means you're forced to consider that your teachings may not be entirely accurate. That can't be it. When has anyone in history ever withheld information or discoveries for power, money, control or simply because of their own egos?

 

It's accepted that magnetism has two poles, but not that they have different effects, and the Journal study clearly shows different effects.

 

I just bought that magnetometer, and each time I place it between the North and South poles of any magnet the magnetic field measures zero. Explain that. I purchased one of their videos too, and in it there are photos of scientists from Westinghouse, Toyota, and other companies that visited the Albert Roy Davis lab in the 1970's, but surely you guys know better than they do.

 

Do you want to see a few photos from the 1970's? This is a website about the work of Dr. Ralph Sierra, who was introduced to biomagnetics by Davis and Rawls. Look at the two photos on the bottom left and the bottom right of the page. On the left you'll see the figure eight I described in my first post. http://www.jarrotsierra.com/gallery.htm

[insane_alien]

I just bought that magnetometer, and each time I place it between the North and South poles of any magnet the magnetic field measures zero. Explain that.

 

you are holding the magnetometer perpendicular to the field direction. of course it isn't going to work. try rotating 90 degrees.

[Captain]

First of all, the magnetic field exits the magnet from the side too, not only from the surface of the pole itself. The strongest magnetic field does exit from each pole, but it can also be measured perpendicular to the pole. I've tried measuring the poles of a magnet with the magnetometer perpendicular to the magnetic poles and parallel to them, and it reads zero either way when I place the magnetometer between the two poles.

[ydoaPs]

you are holding the magnetometer perpendicular to the field direction. of course it isn't going to work. try rotating 90 degrees.

 

I thought it would be zero if the meter were parallel to the field, due to the occurrence of the cross product in the equation for force on a charged particle in a magnetic field(right hand rule, etc).

 

The strongest magnetic field does exit from each pole, but it can also be measured perpendicular to the pole.

Try perpendicular to the field, not the pole.

[insane_alien]

I thought it would be zero if the meter were parallel to the field, due to the occurrence of the cross product in the equation for force on a charged particle in a magnetic field(right hand rule, etc).

 

yeah thats what i meant, got my terms mixed up there. thanks for spotting that.

[John Cuthber]

Is it an AC magnetometer?

Anyway, since these people have a demonstrably wrong view of the earth's magnetic field I don't see any reason to credit the rest of their beliefs.

Since the UN article and the other journal article are just repeating these same error prone guys it doesn't really say a lot.

[Captain]

No, the magnetometer requires no power source. I've tried it every which way and the results are the same, the measurement of the magnetic fields goes from positive, to zero, to negative or vice versa.

 

I don't see how you can just ignore the evidence I have accumulated. The saying, "there are none so blind as those who will not see" comes to mind. You must at least consider the possibility that Davis and Rawls are not the ones who are "error prone".

 

Physics is still full of unproven theories. Maybe this is the reason they haven't be proven. They're wrong. If they are wrong, you'll never know it being in such a rush to dismiss Davis and Rawls.

[Klaynos]

No, the magnetometer requires no power source. I've tried it every which way and the results are the same, the measurement of the magnetic fields goes from positive, to zero, to negative or vice versa.

 

I don't see how you can just ignore the evidence I have accumulated. The saying, "there are none so blind as those who will not see" comes to mind. You must at least consider the possibility that Davis and Rawls are not the ones who are "error prone".

 

Physics is still full of unproven theories. Maybe this is the reason they haven't be proven. They're wrong. If they are wrong, you'll never know it being in such a rush to dismiss Davis and Rawls.

 

Several points, how does this magnetometer work? If you cannot explain in a rigorous manor, you have proven NOTHING.

 

And frankly given your last comment you don't actually understand how science works, or the burden of proof required, or what a theory is...

 

I REALLY REALLY hope that this site is wrong (I know that it is) because if it's not I'm pretty sure the GMR and TMR probably wouldn't work, and that would cause serious issues to my research group (and the people who bought the millions of pounds worth of laser are going to be deeply annoyed about that), and of course your hard disk wouldn't be working...

[insane_alien]

so, captain, how do you explain this picture then?

 

and really, it does work, don't take my word for it, or the pictures. get some iron fillings(which essentially act like tiny compasses) a sheet of paper and a magnet and try it for yourself.

 

the iron filing align along the field lines. if their hypothesis was correct then they should converge in the middle as well.

 

also, as for your 'evidence' we have no information on,

 

the magnet used,

the magnetometer used,

the method of use,

your competency,

 

...well anything but some anecdotal evidence which is useless.

[John Cuthber]

Captain, you said "You must at least consider the possibility that Davis and Rawls are not the ones who are "error prone"."

 

I considered it. They are the only people who believe in their idea.

 

All the other reports you cited just refer to their work. More people reporting ther work doesn't make a difference to the fact that it's wrong.

It only takes a compass or a bit of paper, a magnet, and some iron filings to prove that they are wrong.

Perhaps it's you who needs to do some reconsidering.

[Captain]

There is no magnetic field in the center of a magnet. Try the pin experiment I mentioned and you'll see - there's no pull on the pin, none.

 

Davis and Rawls aren't the only ones that say the North and South poles of a magnet spin in opposite directions or that the magnetic field does not go directly from the South pole to the North pole. Read a little about the work of Howard Johnson. http://aias.us/documents/otherPapers/Johnson-Magnets.pdf

 

Here are a few more scientists that don't agree with mainstream science on this issue. http://www.guns.connect.fi/innoplaza/energy/story/Shad/index.html

 

It seems to me mainstream science is designed to keep everyone thinking in little boxes.

[ydoaPs]

There is no magnetic field in the center of a magnet. Try the pin experiment I mentioned and you'll see - there's no pull on the pin, none.

Look up vector addition.

[swansont]

Davis and Rawls aren't the only ones that say the North and South poles of a magnet spin in opposite directions or that the magnetic field does not go directly from the South pole to the North pole. Read a little about the work of Howard Johnson. http://aias.us/documents/otherPapers/Johnson-Magnets.pdf

 

Here are a few more scientists that don't agree with mainstream science on this issue. http://www.guns.connect.fi/innoplaza/energy/story/Shad/index.html

 

Yes, there are quite a lot of cranks out there. You really want to throw your hat in with someone who claims "I am even convinced that permanent magnets receive their magnetism from cosmic radiation." Good luck with that.

 

What it boils down to is evidence. You've mentioned papers but not provided links to them, so that one could evaluate them for errors. You aren't going to convince scientists without evidence. "But I'm sure I'm right" doesn't work too well.

 

It seems to me mainstream science is designed to keep everyone thinking in little boxes.

 

Ah yes, "think outside the box," an offshoot of the Galileo gambit. "The box" is nature. Come up with compelling evidence that mainstream science is incomplete or wrong, and scientists will (eventually) listen. The problem here is that Faraday's law/Maxwell's equations (and the associated magnetism concepts) work just fine for thousands of applications. You need to do much more to make people toss that away.

[John Cuthber]

"Here are a few more scientists that don't agree with mainstream science on this issue"

Define "scientist".