Cant believe what I just saw

[Kirk]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fn4A6VJodow you tube video How to make a "monopole" magnet

I thought it impossible

[Grimer]

Thanks very much Kirk.

That is what I call reeee...aly interesting. ...:-)

[Oystein]

You could start by looking at where the movie is cut and pasted.. It is even cut where it doesn`t have to, if it was real. But if it is a fake, it is cut just where it has to.

I am not telling you it is a fake. Just telling you what is in the movie. There are no proof that the disk-magnets always is the same, because the movie is cut between each time the objects change in property or measurement.

[Kirk]

at 4 minutes in there is no edit, just watch

[Grimer]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fn4A6VJodow you tube video How to make a "monopole" magnet

I thought it impossible

And why do I find it really interesting?

I'll tell you.

The pattern of flux around a magnet is the same as the pattern of flow around a source and a sink at the bottom of a deep ocean.

Now I believe that is precisely what it is. A manifestation of a real continuous flow of some kind of fine entity from south to north (or the other way around since we don't yet know which is the source and which is the sink) from one pole to the other.

I have stated this belief before. You will find this statement of mine in the forum archives somewhere.

Conventional physics doesn't accept this view. Instead of seeing a FLEID (pronounced fluid), it sees a FIELD.

A combination of my poor hearing and the author's atrocious accent meant I couldn't follow what he said too well but on going to the comments I saw the following:

Nishant Nair 2 weeks ago
1:36 magnetic particles are moving inside the magnet??? are you serious??!!!

Which shows that the video author and I are in agreement.
Nishant will be shocked.

The beauty of the Internet is that the truth can't be suppressed and will leak out despite the efforts of the scientific establishment.

I have to go. More later.

[Grimer]

You could start by looking at where the movie is cut and pasted.. It is even cut where it doesn't have to, if it was real. But if it is a fake, it is cut just where it has to.

I am not telling you it is a fake. Just telling you what is in the movie. There are no proof that the disk-magnets always is the same, because the movie is cut between each time the objects change in property or measurement.

People will look for it to be a fake.

A good example of confirmation bias.

After all, if it is true you are going to have to revise a lot of your thinking - and the more you have been taught the more you will have to revise and the more painful it will be. You'd be better off as a tabula rasa.

[Oystein]

If it was important to my further research I would just try to replicate experiment. The video just happens to be cut every time I look for a confirmation, so I can`t get a confirmation.

Like everybody writes the Finsrud Machine is faked, but I traveled to watch it several times and talk to him. It was important for my research to know the truth.

At the time this experiment is not important for my research, so I will settle for keeping my eye on your or others replication attempt.

I am not what you think of as skeptic though! I have observed it, understood what he try to show, I have remembered it, but not stored it as truth. Some other experiment have to prove it first, then I will remember this experiment clear as day :)

I can`t make new theories based on it at this stage.

[MrVibrating]

The curl of B is zero (Gauss's 2nd law for magnetism - a cornerstone Maxwellian equation).

Magnetic flux is a vector.

There are no "poles", only relative frames of reference betewen fluxes (end-on vs head-on).

Super-cooling a magnet simply locks B.

Besides ferromagnetism, there is diamagnetism (always repelled by either pole) and paramagnetism (always attracted by either pole).

Following Faraday's laws, the direction of the vector field is orthogonal to that of the current, and GR shows that the field is induced by relative motion between charges... hence a monopolar (ie. scalar) magnetic field implies a scalar current - and vicariously, a charge vector, assuming symmetry. IOW, inside-out land.

And if you're buying that, then i've got a piece of string here. It's not cheap, but what price a miracle? For you see, using nothing more than an old shoelace, a Swiss Army knife, and some breakthrough mathematics, i have, for the very first time, crafted a length of string with only a lower portion! The upper end, and middle bit, are nowhere to be seen! Amaze your friends, impress your boss! Own a piece of history!

The fabled "monopole" long-sought by theoretical physicists is a unicorn - a false solution to the Dirac equation, motivated purely by aesthetic symmetry in the standard Maxwellian notation. If instead they're reformulated using Clifford algebra and the magnetic field treated as a bi-vector while the current remains a vector, then the implied symmetry disappears.

B is a time-invariant 3-space vector. If a monopole is one 'end' of a B vector here, in this reality, then where the hell is the other end?

In short, a "scalar magnetic field" is a contradiction in terms.

[AB Hammer]

Kirk

Nice find, but I wonder how long it will last?

I have always use steel in the middle to create a mono-pole similar to what is done in this video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6iEnQw2Wt7w

[Grimer]

...
Following Faraday's laws, the direction of the vector field is orthogonal to that of the current,
...

Exactly orthogonal?

[MrVibrating]

Perpendicular, per Flemming's left hand rule - if the current is in the axial plane then the magnetic field is a closed circumferential loop around it.

[MrVibrating]

Kirk

Nice find, but I wonder how long it will last?

I have always use steel in the middle to create a mono-pole similar to what is done in this video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6iEnQw2Wt7w

Virtual monopoles, i've no problems with.

What winds me up is when they're proffered as evidence for, or just elucidation of, "real monopoles", without mention of the general implausibility of such a concept... which happens all of the time in scientific literature. To put it mildly, the search for OU systems is on a much firmer theoretical footing than the hunt for monopoles, yet the latter is given far more establishment credibility and funding.

If the international zoological society was regularly publishing unicorn research, someone would say something.. but when physicists do it everyone turns a blind eye..

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi all,

so what can you do with a mono-poll magnet that could not be done with a normal magnet?

[Grimer]

Perpendicular, per Flemming's left hand rule - if the current is in the axial plane then the magnetic field is a closed circumferential loop around it.

Exactly perpendicular?

Mmm. I see I replied too quickly. I see you imagine the loop is closed. How can you be sure it's not a tight helix.

[MrVibrating]

Yes i suspected that's what you were implying.

Evaluate the implications of that hypothesis:

- the field around a straight wire carrying a level DC current is homogenous, not 'notchy' along its length - so what factors would determine the width of the hypothetical flux filament and its wind density, and why isn't it normally detected?

- separating or cutting flux requires an input of energy (think prising the keeper plate off a horseshoe magnet) - what energy source is powering this spontaneous self-organisation of a magnetic field?

- to make such a field you'd require an insulated wire (as for coils), wrapped like a guitar string around an insulator, although the field would still want to merge into a homogenous bulk and you'd lose the fine structure of the desired result. Two adjacent windings around the same insulator, each carry opposing currents, would give the spirally field optimal definition... but then that would beg the question of what the hell was going on inside an ordinary copper wire to generate such an ornate field (on top of the previous question of why it isn't normally detected)?

- could it be detected, somehow? Shouldn't it cause noteworthy atmospheric effects on planets and stellar coronas? What about single-domain ferromagnetic particles at the other extreme - why no spontaneous helically-related structures instead of just regular dipole chains?

- would B remain curl-less? Surely there'd be a net torsional and length-wise torque on another conductor or dipole magnetic source (great for rail guns)..?

- Special Relativity shows that relative motion between charges causes length contraction - in their own frames, the electrons aren't bunching up or spreading out, their density remaining a fixed function of Coulomb's law, however from the frame of a stationary charge or one moving in the opposite direction, there's a relativistic difference in charge density. The resulting net EMF is what we call the magnetic field, and its effect - or "strength" - is maximal at 90° z to the horizontal plane (in other words viewing a wire oriented horizontally, like a straight line on a page); tilting that view left or right brings the ends of the wire closer to you or further away, this perspective shift altering the relative velocities and so the amount of length contraction and thus field strength or flux density of the "magnetic field". Remembering that this theory is experimentally validated to 10 sigma, how could our "heli-flux" spontaneous symmetry-break concept be resolved with it?

Incidentally it's this relativistic change in energy that i'm currently trying to apply mechanically... Using work applied in a moving frame to transfer energy to a static one (or just one moving in another frame), exploiting their compound displacements to pump the effective displacement of a moving workload. But doing it with masses seems to inevitably change each system's net momentum, so maybe EM workloads could help here - retaining the benefits of boosted relative displacements, without trading momentum between inertial frames.. But i digress..

Flux at rest in a material is mutually self-attractive, and self-reinforcing in its effects on the host material (the higher the flux density the more internal domain space is coerced into alignment) - like surface tension merging water droplets together, and for exactly the same reasons only moreso (water as you well know being polar). In short, a spontaneously open-ended flux loop is the polar opposite of what flux usually wants to do...