The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Ben Fraklin, magnets and attractive/repulsive forces  (Read 2784 times)

Offline CliffordK

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6321
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • Site Moderator
    • View Profile
There is no attraction force in this universe. If you want to move something you have to push it....

The refrigerator magnet is not sucked, pulled or attracted to the refrigerator. The area between the two objects is made less repulsive by a flow of particles setup by the magnet, between the two objects...

You will find no Scientist that demonstrates attraction forces. Just offering you an old tried and true understanding of the Universe.

                            William McCormick

William,

You need to expound on this further.  Perhaps under "New Theories". 

For example, it is difficult to think of gravity as only a repulsive force.  How do you account for objects of different densities, but the same mass being measured to have the same weight on Earth?  Shouldn't the lower density object displace more "space", and thus have more mass?  If the low density object is compressed, it's mass doesn't change (except for perhaps a minor component of air displacement, which would not be a problem in a vacuum chamber).

Likewise, you will have difficulties explaining the N/S attraction of magnets, but the N/N and S/S repulsion of magnets through a distance.  What is missing between the magnets?  What causes a compass to work?

What about covalent chemical bonds?  Ionic chemical bonds?  Van der Waals forces and H bonding?

Anyway, if you wish, follow up with a new discussion under "New Theories".  Add a link here if you wish.
« Last Edit: 14/08/2012 01:20:53 by CliffordK »


 

Offline William McCormick

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 153
    • View Profile
Re: Ben Fraklin, magnets and attractive/repulsive forces
« Reply #1 on: 15/08/2012 04:03:42 »
There is no attraction force in this universe. If you want to move something you have to push it....

The refrigerator magnet is not sucked, pulled or attracted to the refrigerator. The area between the two objects is made less repulsive by a flow of particles setup by the magnet, between the two objects...

You will find no Scientist that demonstrates attraction forces. Just offering you an old tried and true understanding of the Universe.

                            William McCormick

William,

You need to expound on this further.  Perhaps under "New Theories". 

For example, it is difficult to think of gravity as only a repulsive force.  How do you account for objects of different densities, but the same mass being measured to have the same weight on Earth?  Shouldn't the lower density object displace more "space", and thus have more mass?  If the low density object is compressed, it's mass doesn't change (except for perhaps a minor component of air displacement, which would not be a problem in a vacuum chamber).

Likewise, you will have difficulties explaining the N/S attraction of magnets, but the N/N and S/S repulsion of magnets through a distance.  What is missing between the magnets?  What causes a compass to work?

What about covalent chemical bonds?  Ionic chemical bonds?  Van der Waals forces and H bonding?

Anyway, if you wish, follow up with a new discussion under "New Theories".  Add a link here if you wish.

It is not a new theory, fortunately or unfortunately, it is a rather tried and true science that built everything we have. I would feel disingenuous trying to label it as new. I don't think it will amount to anything if it is built or re-built on lies. When what I say makes too much sense, on some science forum, they just remove the whole discussion from the pseudo science area.

It might seem amazing to you, if you never heard of it. But it is from our Founding father Benjamin Franklin. There were just so few people that were interested in his level of science, that he was unable to get it into everyone's hands quickly. Because there was no communication setup. He was not amazingly smart or anything, he just had guts and courage. He got shocked, he got burned, and he just kept going. He had heart. He was after truth, if he had to burn the new country he formed to the ground to get it. He had no false patriotism.

I was talking to an English fellow about this for a while on the internet, and he had the same view as many do about old Benjamin Franklin. It is a view taught by colleges. After a while, though he realized that history painted Benjamin Franklin as a bumbler, when he was so precise, that it is perhaps, almost described as scary, or ominous, by people that know of the actuality. He actually pointed me to some books about Benjamin Franklin archived in England. After you read them, you realize that  Benjamin Franklin was very honest, very smart. He was just recording his experiments precisely. And then adding them up and creating new experiments.

He was fighting Du Fay and his crazy theories, that tried to go around the ARC. I think that is a pun. Ha-ha. So Benjamin Franklin had to make up his own language to fit the times, as well as talk through Du Fays theories as nonsense. He ended up with the Copley award England's highest scientific award. Of course that was many years after his papers on the sameness of lighting and static electricity were laughed at for over thirty minutes at a gathering of the Royal Science Academy.   

Colleges claimed that Benjamin Franklin just got lucky by correctly labeling the flow of electricity. He did what colleges say cannot be done in his day. And yet he did it all with pointed and flat electrodes. Something that colleges will try to ban, by making light of them or calling them a fools learning tool. Their weapon will be "Why learn electricity from points and flats? When you can buy the new ten thousand dollar computer, electricity decipher instrument?" That will kill that idea, and avenue of learning.

Or perhaps they have already won, by creating a whole race of kids that have no interest in one of the most important staple energy sources we use to live. I hate to say this but if you understand electricity then perpetual motion exists, at least for one lifetime, before the components wear out. That definition of perpetual motion is recorded in encyclopedias.

The fact that you never hear about pointed and flat electrodes, is perhaps all the proof I need. If you know the story of the labeling on the front of American welding machines. You know what working men have had to endure, with the governments scheme to hide polarity and of course the atom and electricity, you cannot hide any one of them without the other.
The World War Two era welders, were not labeled with a (+) or (-) by quality manufacturers, because the manufacturers knew better. They called one direction, straight polarity, and that polarity left the torch and went to the work piece. The other polarity was called reverse polarity, that polarity flowed from the work piece to the torch and then of course after melting the electrode back to the work piece. It was all they could do to maintain sanity, and make and sell products.

Later manufacturers were unaware of the problem and they started labeling straight polarity, as (-) and reverse polarity as (+). Backwards of course to the reality. The positive electromotive force and positive electromotive pressure flows from the incorrectly marked (-) terminal on a modern American battery.

Today they use a new labeling on welders. DCEP (Direct Current Electrode Positive) And DCEN (Direct Current Electrode Negative). Of course the simple garden hose water flow like analogy that Benjamin Franklin proved is lost in those terms.

Years ago MIG used to mean (Molten Electrode, Inert Gas) Today MIG means (Metal Electrode inert gas). Very, not descriptive. Considering all types of welding use, a metal electrode. All of these little older conventions pointed to the truth. That is why they are being phased out. And of course there is the ARC rod, (Anode, Rectified Cathode) which used to be fed by the reverse polarity polarity power terminal on the welder. The power flowed from the anode to the rectified cathode and then reversed direction. I always thought of it as the anode was a rectified cathode. It really means the same thing in actuality. That the power supply sends power to the electrode and the electrode melts and returns a ray back to the work piece, against the flow of electricity from the power supply.

It is not a conspiracy anymore just about everyone knows, something is terribly wrong. There is a conspiracy not to make them face it though, Haha.

You have to wonder about the color coding of electricity as well. I mean, red is considered hot. But at a bank red is considered short or lacking. Black usually means terrible, yet having a lot of money, if you are a good person it is a wonderful thing. Abundance and black seem to go together at the bank, and with who ever colored the abundant terminal on electrical connections. Short at the bank seems to go together with the terminal lacking particles of electricity, at the power supply, currently marked red, incorrectly labeled (+).  None of this seems to me like a clear cut learning helper.  Next time you get in an elevator, consider the people working on them, and what they have to go through to make your ride safe. Hieroglyphics on new components might be the only thing to kill their love for humanity.

Benjamin Franklin, was truly a man of God. He was not interested in the money or power. He joked and mocked those things with good humor. The fact the colleges started to claim that particles of electricity are somehow, negative is also one they will never live down. Benjamin Franklin observed, that particles of electricity repel all things, in some of his first experiments. Experiments kids no longer even do.   

Magnets are cool. They are creating a constant, flow through the magnet,  a flow of magnetism leaves one end naturally, and a secondary outgoing flow, of magnetism is setup on the other end. The reason a single magnet does not just fly away, is because they create an ARC like effect, with the magnetic rays, they absorb. One end pushes them out, the other is a vacuum for them. The vacuum side creates a bottleneck that produces a counter repulsive force and flow away from the magnet. Just like an ARC rod does.

That is why both North to North pole and South to South pole repel. Anything else and a flow is created through both magnets. That is why a magnet will work on ordinary iron as well. A flow is set up between the magnet and the iron. The air is not as good a conductor as metal or another magnet is. So either side of the magnet will cause the same flow to be setup with iron. A lack of repulsion is setup, by the flow.

In Universal Science it is all the same force the same particle at different velocities. I just would not even know where to begin. I have honestly tried many times over the years. And it seems that even if I am exactly correct, the modern scientists of today will not be able to benefit from truth alone, by their own admission. I am sure that very, very good scientists have lost grants for finding something the government did not want to find. A couple of times it made it to specials on TV, but not enough people saw it, or knew what to do with it.

We can have a solar project now on our roofs, but since we demonstrated the solar cell, before World War Two, I think it is a bit moldy. It was moldy back then, if you knew Benjamin Franklin or Tesla's work. It appears the businesses of today, to push solar power through, have to take so much of the worth as profit, to get it delivered as a product. That when you are done and weigh all the gains and loses, it is probably not a good deal, or good for our country.

If there was a topic called, "The science you may not want to know, or live through". I might post there. Ha-ha.



                      Sincerely,

                            William McCormick 

 

Offline William McCormick

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 153
    • View Profile
Re: Ben Fraklin, magnets and attractive/repulsive forces
« Reply #2 on: 15/08/2012 05:02:12 »
This is a process that I learned about when I was a teenager. They used this process at the plant, these are some pictures of the process and what they used to make with it. You can see that even aluminum is effected by magnetism nicely if you use the right magnetism.

 





My point here is that, in this case the magnet does not have the physical integrity to push out the walls of the metal tubing that it is forming. So the effect is completely an electromagnetic effect, created purely by repulsing rays.



                      Sincerely,

                            William McCormick
 

Offline daveshorts

  • Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2583
  • Physics, Experiments
    • View Profile
    • http://www.chaosscience.org.uk
Re: Ben Fraklin, magnets and attractive/repulsive forces
« Reply #3 on: 21/08/2012 15:50:59 »
I think that magnetoforming of aluminium is probably done with a rapidly changing magnetic field, not a static one. This induces eddy currents in the aluminium, turning it into an electromagnet, and it is these currents which are repelled by the coils inside, and push the aluminium away.

This is very standard electromagnetism.

The flow of magnetism you are talking about is normally called magnetic flux. It isn't a real thing, it is just a way of interpreting the equations of electromagnetism in terms of something which the human mind can get a handle on.

Arguably positive and negative were labelled the wrong way it might make more sense for electrons to be positive, but that is the way the convention was set up, so we are stuck with it.

Possibly some of the reason that WWII era welders were not marked +ve and -ve was that they were probably running AC not DC, in which case there isn't a +ve and -ve electrode, just live and neutral, or whatever you want to call that.
 

Offline William McCormick

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 153
    • View Profile
Re: Ben Fraklin, magnets and attractive/repulsive forces
« Reply #4 on: 26/08/2012 01:41:58 »
I think that magnetoforming of aluminium is probably done with a rapidly changing magnetic field, not a static one. This induces eddy currents in the aluminium, turning it into an electromagnet, and it is these currents which are repelled by the coils inside, and push the aluminium away.

This is very standard electromagnetism.

The flow of magnetism you are talking about is normally called magnetic flux. It isn't a real thing, it is just a way of interpreting the equations of electromagnetism in terms of something which the human mind can get a handle on.

Arguably positive and negative were labelled the wrong way it might make more sense for electrons to be positive, but that is the way the convention was set up, so we are stuck with it.

Possibly some of the reason that WWII era welders were not marked +ve and -ve was that they were probably running AC not DC, in which case there isn't a +ve and -ve electrode, just live and neutral, or whatever you want to call that.

No, they had changed the labeling on the batteries and other apparatus. World War Two just ended the battle and debate. The problem was that those that knew something about the battle, and all the cheers after the war, just assumed that they got it right.

There were many books written showing the flow of pressure in an electrical system, from the (+) terminal to the (-) terminal. Highlighting that the "experts" were even fooled. They thought it was still the convention that they learned it as, the convention that Benjamin Franklin had setup correctly.

Colleges came out and said that they, were proud of their convention, and that Benjamin Franklin could not have known, using antiquated equipment. Since Benjamin Franklin created a transistor in his basement, and was using pointed and flat electrodes, to tell precisely which way electricity was flowing, only someone that trembled putting batteries in a flashlight would, not understand what Benjamin Franklin did.

You won't be seeing these books on your shelf in a slave nation.

http://www.rockwelder.com/electricity/Electricwebpage/Howto.htm

















What you said about maybe they should have labeled electricity the other way around, could not even be said on a forum a few years ago. Unless it was my forum.

They actually went back to the Du Fay method of electricity, after Benjamin Franklin won the Copley award for doing away with it. And introducing the garden house single fluid theory. It would be hysterical if it did not mean we live in a slave nation.


                      Sincerely,

                            William McCormick



 

Offline William McCormick

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 153
    • View Profile
Re: Ben Fraklin, magnets and attractive/repulsive forces
« Reply #5 on: 26/08/2012 02:27:23 »
I think that magnetoforming of aluminium is probably done with a rapidly changing magnetic field, not a static one. This induces eddy currents in the aluminium, turning it into an electromagnet, and it is these currents which are repelled by the coils inside, and push the aluminium away.

This is very standard electromagnetism.

The flow of magnetism you are talking about is normally called magnetic flux. It isn't a real thing, it is just a way of interpreting the equations of electromagnetism in terms of something which the human mind can get a handle on.

Arguably positive and negative were labelled the wrong way it might make more sense for electrons to be positive, but that is the way the convention was set up, so we are stuck with it.

Possibly some of the reason that WWII era welders were not marked +ve and -ve was that they were probably running AC not DC, in which case there isn't a +ve and -ve electrode, just live and neutral, or whatever you want to call that.

I know angel hair magnet winding wire, near that gauge. That looks like it is around the high 30's, there is no way it could withstand the pressure of pushing out the barrel like that. It would get crushed.

So the pressure is created by effecting the flow of ambient radiation, that in turn effects the barrel. The winding is a filter that effects the velocity, of the undetected velocity, or invisible to a human, particles of electricity, that are always racing through all matter. Creating it, sustaining the matter, and stabilizing it.

You can hurl just about any object of any size to just about any velocity, using ambient radiation.   

                      Sincerely,

                            William McCormick
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: Ben Fraklin, magnets and attractive/repulsive forces
« Reply #5 on: 26/08/2012 02:27:23 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums