Is Faraday's Law Of Induction True?

[Vmedvil2]

I have not really "returned". This is just a flying visit, as I was amused to see a new crank had appeared, with an actual internet footprint. Good luck - I see electromagnetism is your stamping ground. :)

 

I was pleased to see that Polymath has finally been excreted, but I'm afraid the mod policy here encourages the cranks and nutters just a bit too much for my taste. I recently calculated that of the members online, about 75% are cranks, Aspergers or unambiguously mentally ill. You and OceanBreeze are about the only people still worth talking to here - and hazel once in a while of course. 

 

See you around. 

Love you too Exchemist bye!

 

Edited January 28, 2020 by VictorMedvil

[MitkoGorgiev]

Hello, non-cranks. I see you got excited. Why did you get excited? If you are so sure that you are right, just sit back and relax.

But you feel - you don't understand yet - but you feel that you are on the wrong side.

I am still waiting for your comment on the picture from the German textbook 

[GAHD]

I am still waiting for your comment on the picture from the German textbook 

Still not following what you're getting at. If you're talking as a motor the current follows the exact same AC 3-phase maximals as is put out by supply and averaged over the 3 phases, while torque and net field are smoothed from the 3 different coils having a net vector between them. From the generator perspective it's the same thing, since again net effects from the field vector on the 3 coils ramp up and down as you saturate vs the poles in motion.

 

Not seeing how you can look at anything different unless you're confusing DC stepper motors with a 3phace AC? How about you grab a fluke, a couple coke cans, and some 30+gauge to look at the winding and outputs away from a text?

 

Edit:

I'm going to take a step back to principles, do you know about the left and right hand rules?  You can test them with Standard 2-phase house AC by plugging 2 lamps into 2 extensions and 2 diff phases(your local sparky can show you which 2 are from from diff circuits and should probably be there when/if you do it...) and lying them next to each other. It's really easy to get the maths behind acceleration an total energies as well as saturation points of different materials too. you can check 'em yourself too

 

I'm going to describe an analogue demonstration that should help with understanding what's going on in either brushed or brushless 3 phase systems... 

 

get a ring  of arbitrary size, like say off a drum-set. Stretch a balloon over it ad raw a nice + on one face and a - on the other. Then find some way to fix it nice and vertical like. We'll call this plane "neutral space." It's effectively an analogue to a slice of space itself's polarity at any given time. draw another circle halfway to the edge-ish radius wise, roughly centered. Mark that inner circle at a point with one colour, measure 120 degrees  over, mark with next, measure 120  over again, mark 3rd colour.  Make sure you can see identical-ish marks and circle on the other side

 

Get a grey pencil/pen, a blue one, and a green one. (or any arbitrary colours you relabel as appropriate)

mark each pen/pencil/rod in 2 places, 2 and 4 cm (or other equivalent-ish unit, like say 3/4 inch  and 1 and a half) Tip you measured from is zero, the all important 3rd marking that doesn't really exist.

 

now get yourself 3 hands so you can push those rods into the circle and edge-wise to the loop see your markings.

 

Take your textbook picture, and use each position on the sign graph to push those pens in from either the + or the - side.

 

Pos 1, grey pen does nothing to the baloon, you can let it kinda touch either side or leave it on a table. blue and green are shoved in almost to the full 2nd mark, close enough you shouln't care. look at the baloon from the side/edge and notice the slopes between the 3.

 

Pos 2, grey pen at full depression, other two depressing from the other side equally to around the 1st marker (close enough). Note the slopes. note the way blue and green share a peak between them

 

Pos 3, Hmm, seen this before?

 

How about around 2/3 between Pos 4 and 5? 1/3 between?

 

 

Now have fun picturing or doing all that in all the analogue positions between. Well, you can probably just measure your shallowest angle from the baloon thingy and fix a paper plate onto a pen(cil)/rod at that angle off 90, then spin that looking from the side, that'll be good enough is you look at it though that same edge-on ring for displacement.

 

What's going down with EMF is space itself under influence of EMF warps, and when something is shoving it to either the + or - side other things like to listen to that shove's "slope."  When you get conflicting slopes the left and right hand laws start playing off each other to take it back to zero. This makes torque of one kind or another, both on the EMF and a reverse on whatever's causing it. From a pure magnet perspective it gets "sucked down" to anything that opposes it, and "neutral" stuff is closer to opposite than it is to antagonist. Thus you get N->S strong AF connections between identical magnets since they both "pull" each other back to zero, and lesser connection to things that just kinda stay neutral-ish but can relax that slope back closer to zero/flat.

 

the 3 phases between them build a mostly centered normalized slope in space, and rotate it as their Cumulative energy (directional volume/EMF) switches place between 'em. Can look at the offset bearing/guide wheel of a 3 cylinder rotary engine/compressor to see the same kinda effects.

 

3-phase is only used because it's a happy way to ensure the virtual/magnetic slope falls in a nice fairly even rotation between them from a virtual triangular slice of a perfect oval described through that membrane-poking. The gains in power transmission efficiency going from 3-4-5-6 are darn near identical to how much closer to a perfect circle that deformation of the balloon membrane's surface becomes. It's not ENOUGH gain to warrant winding things for more than 3 phases though, since conductors are expensive-ish, and even the offset of 1or2/3 of those phases is enough for a constant-ish rotation vs a center of each other or a neutral plane.

 

Going back to the slope and phase game, there's another neat live-wire experiment: grab a 3-coil (3 phase) motor assembly, a bowl and a couple conducting egg-shapes.Mount the 3 coils assembly under a bowl at their 120- separation plane. Get a sparky to wire up each phase onto independent switches with 2-3 different phases and see what the egg does in the bowl when you toggle between them through each coil. Hollow Eggs show a neat thing about centripetal energy mixing with EMF induction. Use a diamagnetic or magnetic egg like this with EMF at your own peril.

 

Side-note: DC often gets around the rotation-sputter with an off-angle commutator and momentum, which is why efficient-cheap DC motors-turned-generators have a ripple based off that off-angle brush switch.

 

Magic all in how you literally twist the universe unto itself in ways your eyes can't actually see....

 

Edit 2: a 3 cylinder version of this duke engine would have a recipricator that visualises well too. Increased pistons should follow roughly the same efficiency gain paradigm as increased conductors.

[MitkoGorgiev]

Still not following what you're getting at. If you're talking as a motor the current follows the exact same AC 3-phase maximals as is put out by supply and averaged over the 3 phases, while torque and net field are smoothed from the 3 different coils having a net vector between them. From the generator perspective it's the same thing, since again net effects from the field vector on the 3 coils ramp up and down as you saturate vs the poles in motion.

 

Not seeing how you can look at anything different unless you're confusing DC stepper motors with a 3phace AC? How about you grab a fluke, a couple coke cans, and some 30+gauge to look at the winding and outputs away from a text?

Maybe my English is not perfect, but I am positive that it is clear from my original post what I am getting at, especially for those who have not prejudices, think clearly and have an honest desire to understand.

 

I am not confusing anything. I speak SOLELY of SYNCHRONOUS GENERATORS and MOTORS. The picture from the German textbook refers to synchronous motor, but the same picture can also refer to synchronous generator. And that picture, as I said previously, is simply a LIE, an enormous LIE. The true picture should look like this:

 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MIuUEdOCdwiPyNHn5qCXtP_u370PTN60/view

 

I have cut the lower part of the picture, then moved it to the right and deleted the last part. The new last part should be now copied to the first place (marked with the added curved arrow).

[marcospolo]

Instead of trolling, why don't you try to answer my question about the picture from the German textbook? 

 

What is it in the human nature, when one has no arguments, immediately to begin with insults? Are there psychologists in this forum to answer this question?

This is exactly the response you always get from religious extremists. Which these guys are. I've run into their lack of logic and refusal to THINK critically, when discussing the massive errors on Einsteins theory of Relativity.

They just refuse to respond to questions, and jump to personal insults as if that can fix the problems.

The more I look into Physics, the more clashes of sound logic I find. There is a issue of reifying concepts, of pretending that metaphors are actual real objects or forces, and they skip over the hard questions.

[MitkoGorgiev]

The more I look into Physics, the more clashes of sound logic I find. There is a issue of reifying concepts, of pretending that metaphors are actual real objects or forces, and they skip over the hard questions.

I think that the most of the contemporary physics is just a made up story which has nothing to do with the reality Even the stories from 1001 Nights have more truth in themselves.

The problem with physics in the last centuries is that the people have become so conceited, that they believe they could jump to the last questions with their yet very little minds. They talk about Big Bang, about distant galaxies, black holes, white holes etc.etc,,. not realizing that they cannot explain even that what is in front of their eyes, let alone what is so far away from them. 

I want to show exactly that; that even the things which are in front of our eyes, which we can change and manipulate, we don't understand and have very bad explanations of them. 

And I will succeed. What I have done in the last 7-8 years through very hard work will be the basis of the future science. Maybe somebody will laugh at this. Laugh as much as you want. The truth is on my side and it will come to the surface sooner or later. 

 

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”

 

P.S. I have added a new text to my original post. 

[devin553344]

I think that the most of the contemporary physics is just a made up story which has nothing to do with the reality Even the stories from 1001 Nights have more truth in themselves.

The problem with physics in the last centuries is that the people have become so conceited, that they believe they could jump to the last questions with their yet very little minds. They talk about Big Bang, about distant galaxies, black holes, white holes etc.etc,,. not realizing that they cannot explain even that what is in front of their eyes, let alone what is so far away from them. 

I want to show exactly that; that even the things which are in front of our eyes, which we can change and manipulate, we don't understand and have very bad explanations of them. 

And I will succeed. What I have done in the last 7-8 years through very hard work will be the basis of the future science. Maybe somebody will laugh at this. Laugh as much as you want. The truth is on my side and it will come to the surface sooner or later. 

 

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”

 

P.S. I have added a new text to my original post. 

If you can prove it mathematically then we will add it to the list of current theories. But I wouldn't downplay the greatest minds of our time, Planck, Einstein, Bohr, Maxwell, etc. They have sounds reasoning and good ideas. And they have built off of thousands of years of advancement in physics. We started with written language after spoken language as a human species, and now have mathematics which can be proven. Physics is just mathematics that prove measured scientific experiments. Let's not re-invent the wheel, or say intelligent people are cranks.

[marcospolo]

If you can prove it mathematically then we will add it to the list of current theories. But I wouldn't downplay the greatest minds of our time, Planck, Einstein, Bohr, Maxwell, etc. They have sounds reasoning and good ideas. And they have built off of thousands of years of advancement in physics. We started with written language after spoken language as a human species, and now have mathematics which can be proven. Physics is just mathematics that prove measured scientific experiments. Let's not re-invent the wheel, or say intelligent people are cranks.

Wow, Pick out the 4 most screwed up fake "Physicists" of all time why don't you?

These guys are Math nerds, and their screwy ideas demonstrate just how wacky you can get when you actually believe that Math can supply any answers about Physics of the Universe questions.

 

None of these guys has a single idea based on "sound reasoning".  Their ideas and conclusions are based on numbers which are based on equations that have little to do with reality.

 

Blackboard math Physics is just playing with numbers and creating stories of pure fantasy, devoid of any reasonable hypothesis.

 

Look at the long list of stupid that we have now because of such Math nerds.

 

Black Holes, White Holes, Dwarf black holes,  Dark Matter and Dark Energy, CMB, 13 billion yo universe, spacetime, curved math causing what we call gravity, things that shrink and grow heavier with speed, different Time for everyone, electrons, photons, Quantum quackery, (calculated to 34 decimal places!) Particle Physics, Parallel Universes, Worm Holes, String Theory, empty space is not empty, universes started from nothing, Dead zombie cats in boxes.... the list grows each day.... one Math moron trying to out stupid the other..

 

Meanwhile real Physicists are using Newtons Physics to design space rockets and computers. 

[devin553344]

Wow, Pick out the 4 most screwed up fake "Physicists" of all time why don't you?

These guys are Math nerds, and their screwy ideas demonstrate just how wacky you can get when you actually believe that Math can supply any answers about Physics of the Universe questions.

 

None of these guys has a single idea based on "sound reasoning".  Their ideas and conclusions are based on numbers which are based on equations that have little to do with reality.

 

Blackboard math Physics is just playing with numbers and creating stories of pure fantasy, devoid of any reasonable hypothesis.

 

Look at the long list of stupid that we have now because of such Math nerds.

 

Black Holes, White Holes, Dwarf black holes,  Dark Matter and Dark Energy, CMB, 13 billion yo universe, spacetime, curved math causing what we call gravity, things that shrink and grow heavier with speed, different Time for everyone, electrons, photons, Quantum quackery, (calculated to 34 decimal places!) Particle Physics, Parallel Universes, Worm Holes, String Theory, empty space is not empty, universes started from nothing, Dead zombie cats in boxes.... the list grows each day.... one Math moron trying to out stupid the other..

 

Meanwhile real Physicists are using Newtons Physics to design space rockets and computers. 

I'm not going to entertain ignoring reality.

[marcospolo]

I'm not going to entertain ignoring reality.

you are an idiot.

really? curved spacetime is your idea of reality?

[devin553344]

you are an idiot.

really? curved spacetime is your idea of reality?

You're a crank. Welcome to crank land everyone.

[marcospolo]

You're a crank. Welcome to crank land everyone.

So let's get some perspective here.

You are repeating literally insane claims, such as a conceptual mathematically curved geometry you call spacetime, (itself a nonsense word) saying thaat this ilusionary concept that only exists on your blackboard, is responsible for planets curved orbits.

 

Any yet you have the gall to suggest that I am the crank?

 

Im sorry, but you suffer big time from Dunning Kruger, and are delusional.

[GAHD]

you are an idiot.

really? curved spacetime is your idea of reality?

 

.

 

You're a crank. Welcome to crank land everyone.

 

Both of you should try to go for the concept more than the person putting it forward. :)

 

The big thing in my opinion is simply "how accurate is the prediction when you feed it 5 month old data and compare to "right now." How close do you think is sigificant?

 

When you take a multymeter and some wire, and do a predictable action do you get predictable results?  Whatever imagery is used to explain, what maters is the observable results, right? Who's got those in their pocket?

[marcospolo]

.

 

 

Whatever imagery is used to explain, what maters is the observable results, right? 

Wrong.  A incorrect hypothesis can even provide reasonable predictions, but that not a reason to embrace the hypothesis.

But If your hypothesis is wrong, contradictory, illogical, contains math errors, and is irrational in both development and conclusion, then no magically correct prediction can possibly follow.

 

ALL of Einsteins predictions are better explained by classical Physics, all of them. And all of Einsteins predictions involve measuring minuscule variations that could be interpreted either way.

 

Like the old saying goes, "Statistics don't lie, but Statisticians do."

Its the same with Math based Physics, it can be twisted which ever way you want.

Math can be used to support almost  any theory, with an accuracy of 34 decimal places, but wrong never-the-less.

 

Like GPS... it is claimed that we must have absolute perfection in the Math and clocks accuracy, and that's why we need Special Relativity and General Relativity, However, while claiming the need for absolute perfection and extreme accuracy in Math for the clocks going slower due to SR, it suddenly is not at all important that those clocks don't fit the stringent rules for the Math of Einsteins SR.  The primary stringent condition is that the Math and effect is ONLY for Inertial Frames. Yet the Satellites, the earth and the cars on the Earth are all in Accelerating Frames.  But don't worry about it, just pronounce that its not important, when it suits us, but very important other times.

Also, Einstein  stated that his SR is INVALID in any inertial frame if its in any gravitational region. which is the Earth and the satellites. They are in several gravitational fields.

Einstein also stated that the speed of Light was NOT CONSTANT in any area where there was gravitational forces.

 

But lets not worry about it, but we do need 100% super accuracy right?  So a rough enough guesstimate and some complicated math is going to give the results you want to see. That does not sound like much of a scientific based method to me.

 

You fools say one thing but do the opposite.  

 

I can predict that the moon will pas overhead tomorrow night, with math support, but claim that its because millions of tiny invisible Fairies are carrying it. According to you, that's a good hypothesis, because predictions...

Edited August 6, 2020 by marcospolo

[devin553344]

So let's get some perspective here.

You are repeating literally insane claims, such as a conceptual mathematically curved geometry you call spacetime, (itself a nonsense word) saying thaat this ilusionary concept that only exists on your blackboard, is responsible for planets curved orbits.

 

Any yet you have the gall to suggest that I am the crank?

 

Im sorry, but you suffer big time from Dunning Kruger, and are delusional.

 

Since you cross talked and took over my post to MitkoGorgiev I will respond. Space-time curvatures are a proven fact. They're observed from satellite time differences from the surface of the earth and black hole light bending. What evidence do you have to support your claims that Einstein, Planck, Maxwell and Bohr are frauds? None.

 

But that's not what we are here to discuss which means your trolling instead of discussing the topic of this thread.

[GAHD]

Like GPS... the Satellites, the earth and the cars on the Earth are all in Accelerating Frames.  But don't worry about it, just pronounce that its not important, when it suits us, but very important other times.

 

Not really true? Satellites are inertial unless they are at that moment using fuel to accelerate, same with cars. I'm trying to think of what acceleration is applied to the 3rd rock from the sun too...

 

Do you even know what the word you're using means, or are you throwing buzz-words in a bowl and mixing them together into a salad?

[marcospolo]

Not really true? Satellites are inertial unless they are at that moment using fuel to accelerate, same with cars. I'm trying to think of what acceleration is applied to the 3rd rock from the sun too...

 

Do you even know what the word you're using means, or are you throwing buzz-words in a bowl and mixing them together into a salad?

You clearly do not know what inertial means.

Your wacky theory DEMAND inertial, but when pressed, you can simply dump inertial and claim that accelerating is now magically inertial.

 

What you are claiming is that ANY accelerating motion is really NOT accelerating motion at all!  No, its just a series of little short inertial motions all added end to end.

 

But in the world of ACTUAL RATIONAL PHYSICS, it is well known that ANY NON LINEAR movement is classified as being an "acceleration".

That would be your satellites, and the Earth, and the cars on the Earth, and the Sun. ALL are accelerating framed motions.

 

There is practically NO true INERTIAL motions, in Nature, And Einstein's theory specifically relates ONLY to TRUE inertial motion, and the Math and consequences are ONLY VALID for INERTIAL.

 

You are saying stuff that only a Math based Pseudo-Physicist would say.

 

A real Physicist knows the difference between Inertial and Accelerating.

 

Gahd, you reveal your lack of knowledge with your statements.

please just go play with your Casio, when the discussion comes to Physics.