Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! But why, in this example, does the continuous liquid form exactly fifteen fairly uniform peaks? I'd have expected the liquid to move as a single, homogeneous mass.
I think I'd want to see the same experiment with the ferroliquid done in a microgravity environment before I made any real observations, since in the picture above we actually have several forces acting upon the liquid, namely gravity, magnetic, surface tension, etc. I'd want to minimize other forces to see what the magnetic force does to it. -AntonK
Hi Laika, Allow me to hazard a guess. In microgravity, I expect the fluid would form a single rod from one pole to the other. Now imagine this single central rod in Earth's gravity. It can't support its own weight, so it collapses into a puddle with only a small cone remaining - the largest structure that can support its own weight in these particular magnetic and gravity fields. But what happens to the rest of the puddle? It wants to form peaks everywhere... the force is strongest near the center, so that's where they form. BUt they can't form on the side of the central peak (they just slide down), so... Do you see where this is going? In the end, it's a case of the fluid naturally falling to the state of lowest energy... but that state happens to look complex. Very interesting! The lack of a central peak means that the given configuration has lower energy than the central peak configuration. I think the configuration would vary dramatically as the field strength changed, but I don't know for sure.
NO.. WHAT superluminal said about paths of motion of particles.. only works when describing electric fields... and electrons.. not magnetic lines of flux... NOW ARE YOU GUYS TELLING ME YOU DONT BELIEVE IN MAGNETIC FLUX EITHER?? YOU CANT BE SERIOUS. -MT
MT, How many lines does a magenitc field consist of given a strength of X gauss (or Teslas)? What is the spacing of the lines? Will ferrous objects small enough to fit between the lines feel no magnetic force?
Here's my contribution to SciForums. All my previous stuff is very shallow but since that was a journey to get to where I am now, and as part of that journey was with the forum, here is my theoretical contribution. A superconductor ring carrying a current moving around the ring in one direction only (ie. clockwise, anticlockwise etc). Current has a electromagnetic field. Magnetic field is perpendicular to direction of motion of current. If current is moving around a ring with radius R, then magnetic field is also moving around the ring. Current is moving around a cirumference of (2piR) Magnetic field on outside of ring is moving around ring. Therefore, magnetic field is moving around ring of (R+r') radius, where (r') > 0. There is a point where (r') = (R). This implies that at some point, the magnetic field is travelling around of ring of (R + R) radius, or at a total circumference of 2pi(2R) = 4piR. Assuming that the current is moving around the ring at some velocity greater than 50% speed of light ie Vcurrent > 50% c, than part of the magnetic field is moving at Vmagnetic(part) > c. This comes from the assumption that the magnetic field does not detach from the electrical component if velocity > c (appears to be true). By the way, this applies to anything with a field and goint in a curved shape, including gravity. I believe that you are aware of this from some of your earlier correspondence.
hummm.... fascinating... tell me what you think of this... my theoretical proposal for the design of the electron... a universal design... which is based on lines of force... and lines of magnetic flux.. being the same electrical lines of force... but emitted from electrons and having one higher dimensional level... all of which goes in to unifyng the electrical and magnetic forces as mearly levels of the same lines of force... and gravity.. is percievable as a different quality of the same lines of force. these lines of force being formed as spatial tension in the 4TH DIMENSIONAL RISE in a 16 dimensional rise pattern i can discuss. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! you will notice that this matches well what is known about the magnetic field of a sole electron in a shell.. such as hydrogen.... if it was orbiting on one axis.. instead of a cloud... then we can see how such would serve to form the foundation of a magnetic field in iron for example... to include molecular orbiting electrons... -MT
crazeeeeeem: I know that you will be amused to discover that, beginning with Faraday surprisingly close to two centuries ago, there has been serious doubt about whether a magnetic field, or magnetic flux, or even the magnetic lines of flux, move with the motion of their source, or whether they are completely independent. Well over a half a century ago a definitive science experiment was conducted and published, and there have been others since. Cramp and Norgrove 1936, is explained in many sites' literature if you Google "Cramp and Norgrove".
Thanks for that. No, I am an ameuteur and a fool. I spoke to someone that should know and he mentioned that the measurements of velocity along a conductor is quite simple (as he said, just measure when the signal arrives on a sufficiently long conductor), and that is my assumption. However, this does lead on to some interesting possibilities. Cheers
crazeeeeeem: Nobody is a fool for not happening to know some particular bit of information. There is too much data in even one specific field for anyone to hope to know even half of it. That is what friendly communication was invented for.
Thank you all for your input. I'm very interested in reading Mosheh Thezion's reply to Superluminal's questions:
OK... welll now.. if flux does not exist... then why and by what means are charged particles caused to change their path when passing threw a magnetic field... i.e.. crossing the non-existant lines???? can any of you explain this deflection?? i can based on my proposed electron design. i await you explination. -MT
