Comment by Carel van der Togt
The magnetic-dynamo theory for the earth's magnetic field is widely accepted. This system is ingenious but incredible complex and therefore unlikely. But there is a simple solution: a magnetic field is a fundamental phenomenon and is described in physics by the Electromagnetic Theory (EM). The EM is formulated by a number of empirical and mathematical derived formulas. Although EM is very successful the physical correctness of EM depends on empirical verification. Is it possible that a characteristic of the magnetic field is incorrectly described by EM? As long as not all the assumed fundamental characteristics of the magnetic field are empirical verified there is a possibility that EM is not completely correct. One of the fundamentals of EM is that two parallel electric currents attract each other; this is empirically stated. The assumed mathematical vector characteristics of EM state that a parallel proton and electron beam, where the particles move in the same direction, must reject. This is never empirically verified.
Reply
You don't actually need an experiment to prove Electromagnetic Theory wrong. As far as the induction equations (and in particular the creation of magnetic fields) are concerned, it is already conceptually inconsistent. See the the entry
Maxwell Equations on my home page.
Carel van der Togt (2)
Of course no experiment is needed. Theoretical is already proven, by many, that QM resp. EM is false but these scientists can never admit they are wrong for over 100 years and that all their fantastic theories are false. They can never admit that. They argue I'm wrong, so wrong that they do not bother to comment. Theory is deniable; fundamental experimental results aren't.
Reply (2)
The problem with your experimental suggestion above (parallel proton and electron beam) is that the electric force between the two would completely mask the magnetic force (by a factor c/v), so such an experiment would be very difficult if not impossible to perform.
Anyway, as pointed out under
Maxwell Equations, a simple moving charge can not create a magnetic field (as its velocity would depend on the observer); what one needs is positive and negative charges moving relatively in each others' fields; this creates the magnetic field (and it also neutralizes the electric field, and the magnetic force thus becomes observable). And any rotating plasma body should create a magnetic field this way, as the electrons and protons have different masses and thus will respond differently to the centrifugal force, and there will thus be a very slight differential rotation of the positive and negative charges, i.e. a current and thus a magnetic field. If you compare the magnetic moments of stars and even the planets, this indicates indeed a proportionality to their centrifugal force. The dynamo theory may essentially be describing the same, but since it is based on the equations of magneto-hydrodynamics (which is a macroscopic theory), the detailed physical explanation in terms of the particle kinematics (as just explained) is not being addressed here.
Comment by Nikolai Bouianov
What a nice puzzle about buoyancy! How to find acceleration?
Here is my concern:
You are saying that there are two accelerated mass: mass of the object accelerated upward and mass of displaced water, accelerated downward. Well, this is not true. We have only one object, which is going up, but we don't have just one water volume going down. Each time it is a different volume of water! If new water volume accelerating with a, then what happened with previous volume of water? Why suddenly it was stopped from acceleration, does it hit something? If this volume was stopped from acceleration, then it should be additional force according to momentum change, not just only gravity. I don't know the answer, still thinking.
Reply
As I indicated already in my
theoretical argument, the buoyancy situation is equivalent to that of a balancing scale: if you have a cup of water on one side, and a cup of a different material (with the same volume) on the other side, then, depending on the specific weight of the two, one side will go down, and the other will go up. But the gravitational force (which is the only force acting here) has to accelerate both the masses, so the acceleration will be a=F/(m1+m2). So if m1=0, 'a' will not be infinite (as the traditional theory would suggest). It should be obvious that the maximum acceleration possible is the gravitational acceleration g. Of course, in case of buoyancy problems, the situation is complicated by the fact that one solid object moves within a fluid object, and the displaced fluid element is not physically well defined. Still, the scale analogy provides some valuable insight here for understanding that in buoyancy not only the object must be moved by the force but the medium (e.g. the water) as well.
Of course, the acceleration equation I used is a rater ideal one, as it neglects the friction force in the water, which soon turns the acceleration into a uniform motion within a very short time (fraction of a second to a couple of seconds, depending on the shape of the object). I am planning to update my page soon to include this effect)