Kyle R. Mcallister wrote:
Mega tax dollars being spent on superstring theory and the like is
perhaps the largest 21st century violation of separation of church and
state that exists. No one seems to know if the thing can be proven or
disproven at all, its a big argument. This is not science,
On 2/2/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If M-theory were even 1/10 as negative as you feel then the physics
community has fallen because a great deal of the top physicists around
the world are working on it. It does indeed predict and seems
promising, which is why they are
Terry Blanton wrote:
On 2/2/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If M-theory were even 1/10 as negative as you feel then the physics
community has fallen because a great deal of the top physicists around
the world are working on it. It does indeed predict and seems
promising,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If M-theory were even 1/10 as negative as you feel then the physics
community has fallen because a great deal of the top physicists around
the world are working on it. It does indeed predict and seems
promising, which is why they are spending so much time and money
Harry Veeder wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If M-theory were even 1/10 as negative as you feel then the physics
community has fallen because a great deal of the top physicists around
the world are working on it. It does indeed predict and seems
promising, which is why they are spending so
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Terry Blanton wrote:
On 2/2/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If M-theory were even 1/10 as negative as you feel then the physics
community has fallen because a great deal of the top physicists around
the world are working on it. It does indeed
: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics
OrionWorks wrote:
From: Michel Jullian
Indeed the double slit experiment with only one single photon or
electron traversing the experiment at a time is an awesome proof
of the shortcomings of our common sense (mine in any case)! Can
anyone
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics
OrionWorks wrote:
From: Michel Jullian
Indeed the double slit experiment with only one single photon or
electron traversing the experiment at a time is an awesome proof
of the shortcomings of our common sense (mine
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Michel Jullian wrote:
A wave packet coalescing into a point-like particle when it hits
the screen, yes that's about as close to common sense understandability
as it can get. Makes one realize the wave aspect of particles is a hard
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 11:36 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics
No offense to anyone, but I just cannot imagine not hearing about
M-theory. It's by far the biggest thing
Terry Blanton wrote:
On 1/30/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Do you have a link to the rexresearch vortex image?
Oh, I'm sorry. I thought everyone ou true believer knew about RR :-)
http://www.rexresearch.com/1index.htm
It's really kewl!
Terry
I knew of rexresearch,
On 1/31/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I knew of rexresearch, as I purchased nearly 3 feet stacked high of
their infolios ~20 years ago. :-) What I still don't know is what
vortex image you are referring to.
Let's see if I can attach it to a Vortex-l post.
Terry
-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 9:53 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics
On 1/31/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I knew of rexresearch, as I
KE. :-)
Regards,
Paul Lowrance
- Original Message -
From: Paul
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 9:02 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics
Michel Jullian wrote:
I suppose that's one way to look at it. Does this
allow you
Terry Blanton wrote:
On 1/31/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I knew of rexresearch, as I purchased nearly 3 feet stacked high of
their infolios ~20 years ago. :-) What I still don't know is what
vortex image you are referring to.
Let's see if I can attach it to a Vortex-l
Hi Paul,
Here's an interesting 4-dimensional vortex of an atom. The flat plane
slicing through the center would be the 3-dimensions; i.e., where the
two vortexes meet.
http://www.unarius.org/plasma/vortex.gif
This is a very nice image.
Are all the dimensions length dimensions? What is
David Thomson wrote:
Hi Paul,
Here's an interesting 4-dimensional vortex of an atom. The flat plane
slicing through the center would be the 3-dimensions; i.e., where the
two vortexes meet.
http://www.unarius.org/plasma/vortex.gif
This is a very nice image.
Those are great questions.
]
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 5:41 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics
Michel Jullian wrote:
Well I am surprised, I thought you were expecting free energy from
such setups.
As I've stated many times before, it's *temporary* energy
will yield those patterns
all right, but does QM itself make common sense?
Michel
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 7:51 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics
David Thomson wrote:
Hi Paul
Michel Jullian wrote:
Temporary energy, which you can retrieve once but have to expend
entirely to be able to retrieve it once more.
Under normal circumstances, yes. Note that I've stated from the start
of this thread that it's temporary energy. On the other hand, read my
previous posts
From: Michel Jullian
Indeed the double slit experiment with only one single photon or
electron traversing the experiment at a time is an awesome proof
of the shortcomings of our common sense (mine in any case)! Can
anyone _really_ make sense of why they form interference
patterns? I mean,
OrionWorks wrote:
From: Michel Jullian
Indeed the double slit experiment with only one single photon or
electron traversing the experiment at a time is an awesome proof
of the shortcomings of our common sense (mine in any case)! Can
anyone _really_ make sense of why they form interference
Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 3:58 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics
OrionWorks wrote:
From: Michel Jullian
Indeed the double slit experiment with only one single photon or
electron traversing
of the magnetic dipole moment, or gravity
field in the case of mass.
Regards,
Paul Lowrance
- Original Message -
From: Paul
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 5:14 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using
*standard* physics
Michel Jullian wrote
On 1/30/07, Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The million-dollar
question is regarding charged particles
such as the electron. So far we can only speculate
where the electrons energy exists or
what sustains the electron. Indeed many QM physicist
claim the electron has no size as we
understand.
Terry Blanton wrote:
On 1/30/07, Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The million-dollar
question is regarding charged particles
such as the electron. So far we can only
speculate
where the electrons energy exists or
what sustains the electron. Indeed many QM
physicist
claim the
On 1/30/07, Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks! That's a powerful theory. I'll have to study
it when time permits. You forgot
part 2 --
http://www.geocities.com/terry1094/HotsonPart2.pdf
Paul,
I have read it about 5 times now and am beginning to grasp the
meaning. Look at the image of
Terry Blanton wrote:
On 1/30/07, Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks! That's a powerful theory. I'll have to study
it when time permits. You forgot
part 2 --
http://www.geocities.com/terry1094/HotsonPart2.pdf
Paul,
I have read it about 5 times now and am beginning to grasp the
On 1/30/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Do you have a link to the rexresearch vortex image?
Oh, I'm sorry. I thought everyone ou true believer knew about RR :-)
http://www.rexresearch.com/1index.htm
It's really kewl!
Terry
, January 30, 2007 9:02 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics
Michel Jullian wrote:
I suppose that's one way to look at it. Does this
allow you to find E - E' ?
The equations remain the same. I'm merely suggesting
what we call PE is an existing form
of energy
@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 3:16 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics
Michel Jullian wrote:
I agree with all the interesting comments below,
both Stephen's and yours, relative to
the unavoidable antenna aspect of a coil, which makes
it non purely
particle is purely electric in that particle's rest frame)
Michel
- Original Message -
From: John Berry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 2:02 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics
The magnet moving towards the loop
Michel Jullian wrote:
Your new experiment (attraction rather than
alignment) simplifies things somehow (no
torque, just linear acceleration), but let's stick to
the non-wire-resistive loop shall
we, it makes things simpler, and closer to the
electron orbit or spin counterpart you are
How can you produce an opposing voltage in a _closed_ non-resistive current
loop?
Michel
- Original Message -
From: Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 4:55 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics
Michel Jullian
Never mind, let's assume you're right. How can you draw energy more than once
from this, or from a falling weight?
Michel
- Original Message -
From: Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 5:58 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using
Michel Jullian wrote:
Never mind, let's assume you're right. How can you
draw energy more than once from
this, or from a falling weight?
From what-- magnetic dipole moment, charged space, or
what? If two magnetically
attracted current loops move closer then energy is
moved away from the
Let's say from a falling weight, if that's ok with you.
Michel
- Original Message -
From: Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 7:07 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics
Michel Jullian wrote:
Never mind, let's
it will require energy
to generate a gravity field from such
an electro-gravity coil. :-)
Regards,
Paul Lowrance
- Original Message -
From: Paul
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 7:07 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using
*standard* physics
Michel Jullian wrote:
Never mind, let's assume you're right. How can you draw energy more than once
from this, or from a falling weight?
Michel
You could periodically generate power from a bodies weight, if you could
electrically modulate the body's weight while it is sitting on a spring,
, January 29, 2007 8:18 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics
Michel Jullian wrote:
Let's say from a falling weight, if that's ok with
you.
Are we going back to gravity? We know less about
gravity than magnetic electric fields.
Perhaps when we are able
Michel Jullian wrote:
Ok, electric then. Can you draw energy more than
once from the coulombic attraction of
a charged body of say +1 coulomb accelerating towards
a fixed equal and opposite charge? I
mean for example:
- How much energy E do you retrieve by releasing it
from 1m away and
I suppose that's one way to look at it. Does this allow you to find E - E' ?
Michel
- Original Message -
From: Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 5:14 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics
Michel Jullian wrote
freaking basic stuff!
Michel
- Original Message -
From: John Berry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 2:02 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics
The magnet moving towards the loop will induce the opposite voltage
-
From: John Berry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 7:12 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics
On 1/30/07, Michel Jullian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Where did this [kinetic energy] come from? Simply the energy you put
there is a net gain of
energy. Do I interpret correctly your line of thought?
Michel
- Original Message -
From: Michel Jullian [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 7:07 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics
I suppose that's one way
consumes it.
Over and out, enjoy your simulations :)
Michel
- Original Message -
From: Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2007 5:52 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics
Michel Jullian wrote:
You insist, very aggressively
You folks are mostly arguing definitions at this point IMHO and I don't
want to get involved in that. However, there's something here that bugs
me whenever I think about this stuff.
Michel Jullian wrote:
Energy stored in a pure inductor is fully recoverable actually
Yes, of course, v = -L
Michel Jullian wrote:
Indeed you're right there are several universes,
the one that works as you believe,
plus the real one lol :)
According to MWI all universes are real. :-) I read
of a poll that revealed most top
physicists believe in MWI, including Stephen Hawking.
Energy stored
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
[snip]
However, there's something here that bugs
me whenever I think about this stuff.
Michel Jullian wrote:
Energy stored in a pure inductor is fully
recoverable actually
Yes, of course, v = -L dI/dt and what goes in must
come out.
But as someone
plus any radiated energy to verify coe.
Michel
- Original Message -
From: Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2007 6:29 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
[snip]
However, there's something
Michel Jullian wrote:
I agree with all the interesting comments below,
both Stephen's and yours, relative to
the unavoidable antenna aspect of a coil, which makes
it non purely inductive to some
extent when current varies with time.
However, may I remind you that my initial
statement,
the energy be drawn from the loop if voltage is zero?
Michel
- Original Message -
From: Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 3:16 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics
Michel Jullian wrote:
I agree with all
@eskimo.com
Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 7:55 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics
Michel Jullian wrote:
I didn't understand your reply, would the
elementary particle (any particle, e.g. a
neutron, a quark) lose something while falling towards
a planet
such derived words
as universal. If you dislike the
word, nature is fine for me too.
- Original Message -
From: Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 7:55 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using
*standard* physics
Michel Jullian wrote
Paul wrote:
Michel Jullian wrote:
Paul, I suggest you try and do some simple physics
derivations (analytically) without
the help of PE, and post them here. Max speed
reached by the ball in a pendulum released
at an angle of 90° from the vertical as a function
of string length, this kind
Paul sez:
...
I've adapted my own style of physics and retired the
pen and paper, lol. IMHO the future of physics is
computer software. Computers are best at mathematics,
speed, and memory. I view the Omniverse as one large
computer. As far as PE, my present simulation software
has no
Message -
From: Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2007 5:13 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics
Michel Jullian wrote:
Paul, I suggest you try and do some simple physics
derivations (analytically) without
the help of PE
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
Paul wrote:
Michel Jullian wrote:
Paul, I suggest you try and do some simple
physics
derivations (analytically) without
the help of PE, and post them here. Max speed
reached by the ball in a pendulum released
at an angle of 90° from the vertical
OrionWorks wrote:
Paul sez:
...
I've adapted my own style of physics and retired
the
pen and paper, lol. IMHO the future of physics is
computer software. Computers are best at
mathematics,
speed, and memory. I view the Omniverse as one
large
computer. As far as PE, my present
@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics
OrionWorks wrote:
Paul sez:
...
I've adapted my own style of physics and retired
the
pen and paper, lol. IMHO the future of physics is
computer software. Computers are best at
mathematics,
speed
OrionWorks wrote:
Paul sez:
...
I've adapted my own style of physics and retired the
pen and paper, lol. IMHO the future of physics is
computer software. Computers are best at mathematics,
speed, and memory. I view the Omniverse as one large
computer. As far as PE, my present
Michel Jullian wrote:
I've adapted my own style of physics...
No problem, I was only suggesting this as a way for
you to realize you can't do away
with PE. Simulation software is usually based on
forces and fields, so indeed it doesn't
have to compute energy to solve things. Which
Steven Vincent Johnson wrote:
Enjoy your simulations!
Thank you!
PS: I never said I would take pen and paper over
a computer. Do not infer
what was never said.
One can only go by the words of another. May I ask
what you meant by the uppercased words
in, Living and experiencing the
Harry sez:
...
One man's garbage is another man's gold.
However, feeding gold to a computer seems pointless
to me... unless _we_ are the computer. ;-)
Harry
Yes, indeedie!
Couldn't have articulated any better than that!
Which one will it be today, the red or blue pill.
Regards,
---
Hi Paul,
...
One can only go by the words of another. May I ask
what you meant by the uppercased words
in, Living and experiencing the universe within the
context of one's own created computer
'simulations' is no doubt a fascinating learning
experience. No doubt, it has its place in
Paul wrote:
For example, many centuries ago people did not
understand where the energy contained in
compressed air came from. They could have easily
attributed it to a separate hidden energy
storage compartment created and handled by nature,
called PE. We now know that's a silly
idea
you admit being in error Paul? ;-)
Michel
- Original Message -
From: Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2007 6:40 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics
...
I am blunt, and make no apologies for it. When in
error I
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using
*standard* physics
...
I am blunt, and make no apologies for it. When in
error I ***gladly*** admit such error.
Saving face IMHO it pitiful.
I know about induced emf, my comment
mentioned no other current loop around, in which
context
Blank
Excerps from Paul's post..
You are asking way too much from nature.
Nature?.. do you mean Physics? we actually know little about physics..
perhaps some assumed values is all.
My theory simply states energy is simply moved from
one location to another.
Location? do you mean
)
- Original Message -
From: Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 6:58 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using
*standard* physics
Michel Jullian wrote:
---
Paul, if I understand correctly your long
comments
below (BTW could we
RC Macaulay wrote:
Blank
Excerps from Paul's post..
You are asking way too much from nature.
Nature?.. do you mean Physics? we actually
know little about physics.. perhaps
some assumed values is all.
Some call it nature. Some call it the universe, etc.
The name universe
, by definition. Parallel universes
should be called something else.
Michel
- Original Message -
From: Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 5:01 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics
Hi,
Michel Jullian wrote:
I did read
That begs the question how much PE does the universe have?
Harry
Michel Jullian wrote:
I didn't understand your reply, would the elementary particle (any particle,
e.g. a neutron, a quark) lose something while falling towards a planet?
BTW, I wonder if PE shouldn't be viewed as a property
Michel Jullian wrote:
I didn't understand your reply, would the
elementary particle (any particle, e.g. a
neutron, a quark) lose something while falling towards
a planet?
Basically you're asking what sustains such particles.
To perhaps provide you with a
different POV, here's an analogy
Harry Veeder wrote:
Paul,
I think what you are alluding to is more correctly
called power
rather than energy. Indeed, power can be
defined without the
concept of energy.
Hi Harry,
The discussion was regarding PE. So I was referring
to energy.
Harry Veeder wrote:
That begs the
Paul wrote:
Harry Veeder wrote:
Paul,
I think what you are alluding to is more correctly
called power
rather than energy. Indeed, power can be
defined without the
concept of energy.
Hi Harry,
The discussion was regarding PE. So I was referring
to energy.
I know. Let be
Harry Veeder wrote:
Paul wrote:
Harry Veeder wrote:
Paul,
I think what you are alluding to is more
correctly
called power
rather than energy. Indeed, power can be
defined without the
concept of energy.
Hi Harry,
The discussion was regarding PE. So I was
referring
in standard physics, unsurprisingly.
Michel
- Original Message -
From: Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 6:22 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics
Michel Jullian wrote:
- Original Message -
From
Michel Jullian wrote:
a violation of energy conservation? No. Electric potential
energy is decreasing somewhere, I'll let you find where :)
...
...We want to know, lol! :-)
Oops I have found in the meantime that my initial explanation was
wrong, so it's just as well I kept it to myself
Michel Jullian wrote:
a violation of energy conservation? No. Electric
potential energy is decreasing somewhere,
I'll let you find where :)
...
...We want
to know, lol! :-)
Oops I have found in the meantime that my initial
explanation was wrong, so it's just
as well I kept it to
- Original Message -
From: Stephen A. Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 2:29 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics
Michel Jullian wrote:
a violation of energy conservation? No. Electric potential
On 1/25/07, Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On the other hand, electrons are more complex that
just magnetic dipole moment.
You might find this model of interest:
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/2787/2214/1600/app%206-7.jpg
Terry
?
Michel
- Original Message -
From: Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 5:17 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics
Michel Jullian wrote:
a violation of energy conservation? No. Electric
potential energy
Michel Jullian wrote:
---
Paul, if I understand correctly your long comments
below (BTW could we be as concise as
possible, and stick to the convention of new stuff on
top whenever possible?),
---
Sorry, I was merely replying to your comment.
Michel Jullian wrote:
---
you believe that
once on another mailing list)
- Original Message -
From: Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 6:58 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics
Michel Jullian wrote:
---
Paul, if I understand correctly your long comments
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 5:48 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics
...
No, it's the process of two *unaligned* dipoles in the
act of rotating to alignment. That
generates kinetic energy in addition to an increase in
net magnetic field.
...
Michel Jullian wrote:
Indeed both kinetic and magnetic field energies are
increasing in the process. Is this
a violation of energy conservation? No. Electric
potential energy is decreasing somewhere,
I'll let you find where :)
Michel
The old I know, but I don't want to tell you trick?
:)
Arrgh. There is more than one way to orient magnets such that they
attract each other, and our mental pictures have been misaligned.
By the way, I actually have worked out a lot of this stuff already,
in a somewhat more precise form. For permanent dipoles:
- Original Message -
From: Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 3:46 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics
Michel Jullian wrote:
Indeed both kinetic and magnetic field energies are
increasing in the process
Michel Jullian wrote:
- Original Message - From: Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 3:46 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics
Michel Jullian wrote:
Indeed both kinetic and magnetic field energies
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
[snip]
They attract until they are perfectly aligned NS
NS.
When they're aligned
N
|
|
|
|
S
N
|
|
|
|
S
they can flip (rotate) so that they're aligned
NS
||
||
||
||
SN
Sure if you
Michel Jullian wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 3:46 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using
*standard* physics
Michel Jullian wrote:
Indeed both kinetic and magnetic field energies
Well not quite entirely, the current loop
consisting in the orbiting motion has got to
contribute _some_ magnetic dipole moment to the
atom,
however small this effect may be
compared to that of the rotating motion.
That's very true. Most of the field in ferromagnetic
atoms comes
Michel Jullian wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 3:46 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using
*standard* physics
Michel Jullian wrote:
Indeed both kinetic and magnetic field energies
Paul wrote:
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
[snip]
They attract until they are perfectly aligned NS
NS.
When they're aligned
N
|
|
|
|
S
N
|
|
|
|
S
they can flip (rotate) so that they're aligned
NS
||
||
||
||
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
[regarding NS-NS versus N/S S/N alignment preference:]
And we don't
have any sufficiently whizzy bar magnets here to let me test it
macroscopically.
More fool me. Bar magnets are the wrong shape, but we do have a set of
magnetic marbles, and I already knew
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
Paul wrote:
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
[snip]
They attract until they are perfectly
aligned NS
NS.
When they're aligned
N
|
|
|
|
S
N
|
|
|
|
S
they can flip
Paul wrote:
Variation #2:
And the final blow to your theory (no offense
intended) is the fact that two electromagnet
dipoles that accelerate toward each other
***consumes*** energy from the current source,
especially if you negatively or positively charge both
electromagnets. This clearly
The books must always balance in double entry bookkeeping.
Double entry bookkeeping was devised well before classical
mechanics. It may have given credence to concepts like the
conservation energy.
Harry
- Original Message -
From: Stephen A. Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2007 5:06 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics
...
Good, then you do acknowledge there is *real work*
being done while two magnetic dipole
1 - 100 of 119 matches
Mail list logo
