Magnets are a potential power source

Originally posted by Connected


Not really, no he hasn't proven that. You are going to believe that gravity is nothing but a "visual effect", oh wow, you are going to be stuck in a rut forever with that mentality.

Indeed he didn't prove it was the visual effects of curved space-time. Why i said gravity was a visual effect i have no clue.

Except maybe that i was tired and retarded. Well maybe just retarded

Originally posted by Connected

A magnet creates its own "gravity". There for it works in zero g. Also, the Earth creates its own "gravity", there for it also works in zero g. The Earth is a giant magnet floating in space. If you got a giant man made magnet and put it out in space by itself, it would still work, because it creates its own "gravity" called magnetism.

Sorry but magnets do not creat their own gravity, if this was so then why are only certain metals attracted to the magnet. Wouldn't every thing be attracted if they did indeed creat their own gravity?

Although recent research i found using the almighty google, had found that the Earths magnetic field is possibly created by gravity.

So i stand corrected, well partially. Until the above is proven.

When actually "thinking" I noticed what i said about Einstien was incorrect, the thoery i said he had proven was that gravity can have an effect on light and "bend" it, if you will. But this also does in part prove that curved space-time is the possible cause of gravity.

But there is still no definite proof that gravity and magnetism are "the same". But they may have some similarities.

Thanks

.:*IM*:.

Originally posted by Infinite motion

Except maybe that i was tired and retarded. Well maybe just retarded

You are a good person to admit to such faults, you have my respect.

Originally posted by Infinite motion

Sorry but magnets do not creat their own gravity, if this was so then why are only certain metals attracted to the magnet. Wouldn't every thing be attracted if they did indeed creat their own gravity?

Everything IS attracted to magnets, just not noticably. Magnets more obviously attract metals of various types because they have very high "premeability". Everything has a measurable permeability: people, gases, and even the vacuum of outer space. The reason Earths magnetic field attracts everything is because it is such a powerfull magnet that it doesn't matter how much premeability an object has, it will still attract it.

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by Infinite motion

When actually "thinking"

I noticed what i said about Einstien was incorrect, the thoery i said he had proven was that gravity can have an effect on light and "bend" it, if you will. But this also does in part prove that curved space-time is the possible cause of gravity.

That also proves that photons, although massless, have a magnetic attraction. There for Earths magnetic field has the ability to attract and "bend" light, which is made of photons.

Earth = Large Magnet



Remember, our bodys actually have metal in them.

[edit on 12-2-2007 by Connected]

This is a very interesting subject. I've read Leedskalnin's pamphlet on electricity and visited several websites and seen some videos that deal with the subject of free generation of electricity. There are a lot of people working on this and a lot of information on the subject out there where the rabble (people like me) can get their grimy busy hands on it. At the moment I'm trying to find a dollar store where I can buy pile of fridge magnets to start my own experiments. Don't really have much to say in this post except for a couple of things.

Perpetual motion machines: What do you mean by "perpetual"? Sounds like a dumb question but human beings with their limited span of life should be satisfied with something short of "perpetual". Would a machine that worked for a hundred years without maintenance except for the occaisional drop of WD-40 suffice? I think so.

Einstein: Otto Von Bismarck once said that people who like politics and sausages shouldn't go into the factory to see how they are made. Looking too deeply into the emergence of relativity theory leaves one with a more realistic estimation of Einstein. He himself was embarrassed by the adulation of the throng. He wrote that he was being made to pay for a lifelong contempt for authority by being turned into an authority himself. A real deciple of Einstein would have contempt for the authority of Einstein.

Originally posted by Connected


Everything IS attracted to magnets, just not noticably. Magnets more obviously attract metals of various types because they have very high "premeability". Everything has a measurable permeability: people, gases, and even the vacuum of outer space. The reason Earths magnetic field attracts everything is because it is such a powerfull magnet that it doesn't matter how much premeability an object has, it will still attract it.

Yeah your making sense. I heard about frogs being levitated by huge electromagnets, causing no harm to the frog.

Excuse my ignorance when it comes to magnetism like i said it really isn't my field of research.

Well i stick to a proverb "A smart man learns from his mistakes but a wise man learns from others"
So i hold my hands up and admit i was wrong


Thanks Connected for the links, have provided a usual insight into magnetism.

.:*IM*:.

Enter Albert Einstein. In 1915 he proposed the theory of general relativity. General relativity explained, in a consistent way, how gravity affects light. We now knew that while photons have no mass, they do possess momentum (so your statement about light not affecting matter is incorrect). We also knew that photons are affected by gravitational fields not because photons have mass, but because gravitational fields (in particular, strong gravitational fields) change the shape of space-time. The photons are responding to the curvature in space-time, not directly to the gravitational field. Space-time is the four-dimensional "space" we live in -- there are 3 spatial dimensions (think of X,Y, and Z) and one time dimension.

Sorry, had to include this. Photons respond to the curvature in space-time. Not the magnetic field of earth.

Although, your theory could also be true, but unproven

imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov...

sodom

o.k., now im coming....

take a look at steorn
here you have your magnetic-perpetual-machine.



sodom

The Perendev company in Europe appears to lease generators that rely on magnetism as a source of energy. You can check out their site here. Perhaps they lease them because they need to replace or recharge the magnets.

You can see an (alleged) working prototype of the motor running in this video here.

If you scour the net you can find a number of key ingredients for building something like this, but nowhere could I find specific details for building a working version of the device. From what I can determine building one would could cost around $1000 USD, probably more. Most of that cost is just the magnets alone. You're talking about $15-$20 per magnet, and you would need around 90 I figure. In order for this to be a viable solution I would need to get at least that much out in electricity. I don't know about you but a thousand dollars equates to about three years of electricity use for me based on my utility bill. I question if building a device like this can be justified.

[quote]Enter Albert Einstein. In 1915 he proposed the theory of general relativity. General relativity explained, in a consistent way, how gravity affects light. We now knew that while photons have no mass, they do possess momentum (so your statement about light not affecting matter is incorrect). We also knew that photons are affected by gravitational fields not because photons have mass, but because gravitational fields (in particular, strong gravitational fields) change the shape of space-time. The photons are responding to the curvature in space-time, not directly to the gravitational field. Space-time is the four-dimensional "space" we live in -- there are 3 spatial dimensions (think of X,Y, and Z) and one time dimension. [/quote]

Personally, I think a lot of Einstein's ideas are misunderstood by people who aren't used to the thought processes of mathematicians and logicians. Unfortunately a lot of physicists fall into this category. The Einsteinian "universe" is a universe as understood in set theory. It is the universe of discourse, the complete population of a set. The set in this case are the phenomena which satisfy Einstein's mathematical descriptions. In philosophy there is only one universe, but because of the grandeur and (snicker) "elegance" of Einstein's ideas coupled with the naive hubris of every new generation of physics parrots the older quite useful definition has been usurped by a narrower one.

But there is more. As physicists begin to see the limitations of Einstein's work we are led to the absurd proposition of multiple universes. These exist but only as "universes of discourse" obeying the rules of new mathematical descriptions. Of course all of this occurs within the old definition of the universe known to philosophers. What is that universe? An infinite space in which everything occurs.

In the above quote we are told that "General relativity explained, in a consistent way, how gravity effects light." I think it is more accurate to say that general relativity "describes the effect of gravity on light" rather than explains. I don't think Einstein knew anything about how light is affected by gravity. To my knowledge no-one knows how gravity works, but Galileo, Newton and Einstein were able to provide more or less accurate mathematical descriptions of the effect.

The next quoted statement is another example of science mystified by it's own concepts. "We also knew that photons are affected by gravitational fields not because photons have mass, but because gravitational fields (in particular, strong gravitational fields) change the shape of space-time." Space-time has no ontological characteristics off the surface of a piece of graph paper. Like the Einsteinian "universe" it only exists conceptually as a set of measured results that satisfy a mathematical description. When you say that photons are affected by gravity not because they have mass but because they change the shape of space time it is like saying that a lady is fat not because she has mass but because she depresses a scale further than someone else. Einsteinian physics begs a lot of questions.

This becomes obvious when you give some thought to time. Time exists only as a conception used by the mind to order events. There is only now. There are sequences of events and we remember them. We say that they happened in time past. All our measurments of time are based on observations of phenomenal events. Nobody has managed to isolate a unit of time and see what it's characteristics are. If it has ontological existance, it must have more than one characteristic. Time exists only as a conception. Imparting ontological status to time is one of the most pernicious results of misunderstanding Einstein's ideas.

The most primitive men anthropomorphised everything that they couldn't understand. This tradition is carried on in physics by the uncritical thinkers who have ontologised Einstein's concepts.

Originally posted by ipsedixit

To my knowledge no-one knows how gravity works, but Galileo, Newton and Einstein were able to provide more or less accurate mathematical descriptions of the effect.

True, but quantum theory suggest that there is a particle.
We know that when gravity is applied to a EM wave, such as light, the effects it has on it are unexplained. But thinking of light as a particle, a photon, and it's now simple to to explain the effect of gravity on light.

Now scientists have found gravitational waves emitted from neutron stars and other bodys of huge gravitational fields.
Quantum theory suggest that there is a particle that creates the effects of gravity, a graviton. But this still doesn't contridict Reletivity.

Originally posted by ipsedixit
When you say that photons are affected by gravity not because they have mass but because they change the shape of space time

I didn't say that. Photons respond to the "dent" made in space-time by huge celestail bodys, eg the sun. This has been proven, by gravitational defraction of stars originally behind the sun. During a solar eclipse, measurments were made of stars close to the sun. Then at night these stars were measured again. We found that these stars should not have been visible for they would have been near the corana of the sun, yet were made visible by gravitational defraction.

Originally posted by ipsedixit
This becomes obvious when you give some thought to time. Time exists only as a conception used by the mind to order events.

True. But begins easier to understand when thought of as a dimension

For example, when thinking about time as a dimension we are able to explain why near light speed would have these effects on particles.
Muons are particles created high in the atmosphere by cosmic rays. Typically these have a very short life span, due to there instabillity. Yet we are able to witness them. Why?
Time dilation, these sub-atomic particles move close to the speed of light. From are refrence frame (Earth) they slow down.

Thanks

.:*IM*:.

I stand by what I've written. I'm arguing from very basic principles. I think it is wrong to start to posit the existence of a space-time continuum and further say that time dilates or contracts without making it very clear that you aren't really talking about changes in time but rather the speeding up or slowing down of physical processes.

Einsteinian notions like time dilation are obfuscations when it comes to deeper understanding. They may make some sense in terms of relativistic math and produce neat equations (I'm out of my depth here), but I believe that anyone wracking his brain about the properties of time is going down a blind alley. Of course people can do whatever they want to. Perhaps I've just become a little peevish on the subject of Einstein because over the years so much of what I've heard related to his work has seemed like bafflegab designed to fool the squares.

When I hear physicists talking about the dilation of time and multiple universes, I just cringe. Aren't people stupid enough? Listening to scientific authorities throwing these conceptual postures at people and investing them with ontological status makes me want to throw up. Maybe I'm just overly fussy about this sort of thing.

Einstein was one of the greatest conceptualists in the history of science. He's the real father of the atomic age and the atomic bomb age. I wish people were smart enough to honor the concept and the conceptualist yet realize the limits of conceptualisation.

Quadrapole magnets are fun to play with. They can generate some power. You need permanent magnets to not consume any fuel. You need, very, very, powerful permanent magnets to create a motor without any fuel needed. Interesting enough, magnets are used to hold antimatter, well, at least their magnetic fields...

And i wasn't trying to "convert" you.

Just pointing out that relativity has mounting evidence that proves it right.

They don't just provide neat equations, but have been physically observed. Controlled experiments have proven time dilation aswell.
Also "time" travel into the future has been done.

An astronaut orbiting earth was found to have aged less by about 2 seconds. Thus coming back to earth 2 second infront of everyone else. Not amazing to most, but astounding to relativist and physicists alike.
This proves that indeed "time" travel into the future would be possible at near light speeds.

Also it is to note that Einstiens work mainly consisted and focused on the interaction of matter at light speed. For instance that the fuel used to approach that speed would become infinite, therefore making it impossible for any lifeform to aquire that speed. What we have today, for instance "worm holes" etc.. Is the consequence of applying that equation to others.
So really it isn't Einsteins fault, no more so then the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima.

One more thing. Believe in what u want
If u don't feel this makes sense then why believe in it.
It is after all a free country.....(well so we believe :lol

Thanks

.:*IM*:.

I give up. We`ll just have to agree to disagree. In the meantime I`ve got to find fridge magnets.

Think thats fair to say.

Because i stick by relativity.

.:*IM*:.

Sticking to the beliefs of relativity is the reason mainstream scientists today are still trying to figure out what gravity is. While others are already defying it.

john hutchinson, look him up, and find his videos with google or youtube.

Of course you know that the internet has a lot of 'false prophets' regarding energy. There are millions of pages claiming 'free energy', 'perpetual motion' etc but no one has delivered anything yet (and Steorn will fall flat in a few months).

It's a shame that you keep mentioning that gravity and magnetism are linked some how, while, in reality, there are two totally different things.

Gravity is a curvature of space time, as many have already said. Gravity is not a dipole, i.e. it does not have a positive and negative pole. Gravitational attraction is the same from all sides, whereas in magnets attraction becomes repulsion if we turn the magnet 180 degrees.

Mass does not play a role in gravity: the moon and a feather fall with the same speed to Earth, and this has been proven a long time ago. You can do it yourself, if you like: take a tube, remove the air, then put a stone and feather in it, then flip the tube upside down: both items will fall with the same speed.

On the other hand, not all objects are attracted equally to magnets. This is because not all objects have the same permeability.

Magnets are not infinite energy sources. There is a circuit of electricity in magnets, and the electrons go round and round, and this creates the impression of 'infinite' energy...but in reality, magnets wear out too.

[edit on 19-5-2007 by Corbin Dalus]

[edit on 19-5-2007 by Corbin Dalus]

Originally posted by 2PacSade

Originally posted by Beer_Guy

We've got cars with fuel injection, variable spark advance, variable duration timing, roller valvetrains, cleaner & better burning fuels, synthetic lubricants, advanced spark plugs & wires, electronic coils with hotter & longer duration sparks, aluminum & magnesium blocks & heads, double overhead cams, and many other advances in automotive engine technology.

They come standard with 20 or 30 computers that monitor & maintain proper function of all subtending components much better that their old mechanical predecessors used to in the past and make the car much more advanced in many areas.

Cars accelerate faster, weigh less, stop quicker, steer better, park themselves, have air bags & crumple zones, drive with no oil or on punctured tires, have heated & power everything, navigate you to a destination, AND tell you everything going on in the vehicle through numerous digital displays while you listen in comfort to hi fidelity satellite radio or CD while the kids watch their favorite DVD, BUT-

Most of them still get 20 or 30 MPG just like they did 20 years ago!

( WTF squared! )

2PacSade-

YES,YES,YES!!! I've been sayiong this for sooo long and noone seems to comprehend the obvious absurdity of it. With all of the technological advances, in general, not to mention the multitude of technical automotive advances, and little if any change IN THE DAMNED MPG's!!! Go Figure!

Here's a link regarding the Reed Electric Motor bby the guy from Tulsa, as mentioned earlier www.kbmorgan.com...