1. Faraday's Law, the version that purports to encompass both motional and transformer EMF in one term of an equation, is false! Richard Feynman pointed this out in his "Lectures on Physics," although he called it the "flux rule." It works in most cases, but not all. It has no physical basis. It is just an engineering convenience. All the physics and electromagnetics textbooks and encyclopedias that I have heard of treat it as though it is a true physical law. They also contain a lot of nonsense related to Faraday's Law, such as erroneous derivations and misconceptions. Evidently it has been this way from the beginning. I believe that it is quite an indictment of the status quo and a scandal.

2.

3. It would be nice if you explained it better. I found this in wiki, in case it helps:

So the "flux rule" that the emf in a circuit is equal to the rate of change of the magnetic flux through the circuit applies whether the flux changes because the field changes or because the circuit moves (or both).... Yet in our explanation of the rule we have used two completely distinct laws for the two cases - for "circuit moves" and for "field changes".
We know of no other place in physics where such a simple and accurate general principle requires for its real understanding an analysis in terms of two different phenomena.

– Richard P. Feynman, The Feynman Lectures on Physics
There's more, including the section titled Inapplicability of Faraday's Law

4. You should go a little further and see that Feynman then said that the "flux rule" does not always work and then gives two examples. If a so-called law does not always work then it is not a law. I do not recognize the equation. Could you please identify it? ~~~~

5. Mike,

You're confusing the meaning of the word "law" as it is used in science.

A physical "Law" is a relationship that works most of the time and in many situations. For that reason, Laws are useful. However, it is not required for the law to work in all situations.

A scientific theory is a relationship or expression that has never been falsified by experimental or mathematical evidence, in all situations that are relevant. Theories are recognized as probable truths, using the term 'truth' loosely.

"Theory" is the highest standard given to an idea in science.
"Law" is something that is useful but not necessarily infallible.

Hope that helps,

TR

6. Induced EMF is only due to either motional EMF or transformer EMF. Faraday's Law purports to include both of these, but only for circuits. It actually, improperly, includes more, namely the case of flux changing solely due to motion when there is no motional EMF. One cannot properly approach motional EMF through flux change. Just because it happens to work in most cases, it does not mean that there is a physical basis for it, just a geometric and mathematical basis. Math is essential for physics, but it is not the same thing as physics. If one is not careful to apply or interpret the math according to the underlying physical concepts, one can easily be led astray. For instance, moment is measured in pound feet and work is measured in foot pounds. These are identical mathematically, but completely different physically. Motional EMF requires a conductor, does not require a closed path, involves a magnetic force on the charged particles, and requires motion. Transformer EMF does not require a conductor, does require a closed path, involves an electric force on charged particles (if present), and does not involve motion. These two principles are physical principles and, between them, cover all the cases. Faraday's Law is not based upon a physical principle; it just seems that way. It tries to squeeze the two very different and independent principles into a single term of an equation, which, I believe, is impossible. Faraday's Law does not add anything to our scientific knowledge.

In every instance where the flux changes due to motion, the EMF is actually motional. The associated flux change is just along for the ride. It is like guilt by association. The change in flux happens to accompany most cases of motional EMF, even though they are independent. In the case of the homopolar generator, the two are separated, in effect, because there is no flux change, just pure motional EMF, and Faraday's Law fails completely. This is not to disparage Faraday. When he formulated Faraday's Law it was an entirely reasonable thing to do. Later on, however, the subject became better understood with Maxwell's Laws and the expression for the Lorentz force. Faraday's Law at that point was obsolete except as an engineering convenience, yet modern physics does not seem to recognize the face; Feynman seems to have been ignored.

7. It appears I have no choice but to retract my first post.

-TR

8. I'm not really following in detail, but if Faraday's Law is useful for engineers, that is sufficient merit on its own.
There are a lot of laws that have little to no physical meaning. Essentially they are all just mathematical constructs to explain physical phenomena.

Originally Posted by Mike La Moreaux
For instance, moment is measured in pound feet and work is measured in foot pounds.
You are completely wrong here. Both are measured in Newton meter, not in Kilogram meter.

9. Originally Posted by Bender
Originally Posted by Mike La Moreaux
For instance, moment is measured in pound feet and work is measured in foot pounds.
You are completely wrong here. Both are measured in Newton meter, not in Kilogram meter.
It is painful to have to correct a correction. (But secretly delightful.)

Moment is measured in foot pounds, or newton meters, or any other dimensionally consistent units.

Work is measured is also measured in foot pounds, or newton meters. The latter is expressed as the SI unit, the joule.

[I await your correction of my correction of your correction, but wish to point out that I am already aware of the difference between one pound and one pound force.]

10. Surprising. The last thing I expected with a thread title like that was that it was going to be a valid point. Well done.

11. Originally Posted by Ophiolite
[I await your correction of my correction of your correction, but wish to point out that I am already aware of the difference between one pound and one pound force.]
If you are aware of the difference, why don't you use it right? If he had said that the unit of moment/energy was foot pound force, I would have limited myself to a smug urge to use a more consistent and less confusing system.

Originally Posted by KALSTER
Surprising. The last thing I expected with a thread title like that was that it was going to be a valid point. Well done.
I had a very similar feeling, but get easily worked up about units. It's a pet peeve of mine. All hail the SI!

12. Thank you, Soliton, KALSTER, and Bender.

By the way, the pound is the unit of force and the slug is the unit of mass in the English system.

13. All hail the SI
Hail!

14. Originally Posted by Bender
Originally Posted by Ophiolite
[I await your correction of my correction of your correction, but wish to point out that I am already aware of the difference between one pound and one pound force.]
If you are aware of the difference, why don't you use it right?
The concept of humour is at first difficult to grasp, but many of us warm to it over time.

15. Originally Posted by Bender
Originally Posted by Ophiolite
[I await your correction of my correction of your correction, but wish to point out that I am already aware of the difference between one pound and one pound force.]
If you are aware of the difference, why don't you use it right? If he had said that the unit of moment/energy was foot pound force, I would have limited myself to a smug urge to use a more consistent and less confusing system.
Pounds is commonly understood as a unit of weight. Unless otherwise modified, I would assume it means pounds force unless pounds mass (lbm) is specified.

By the way, I see the same potential confusion in the SI system, like when people give their "weight" in kilograms.

16. Originally Posted by Ophiolite
The concept of humour is at first difficult to grasp, but many of us warm to it over time.
It is indeed, Ophiolite, it is indeed 8)

By the way, I see the same potential confusion in the SI system, like when people give their "weight" in kilograms.
Not at all. Kilogram force is also not an SI unit, so within the SI system, confusion is impossible.

Most people refer to mass when talking about weight. While not entirely correct, it is the only common occurrence of the use of kilogram when technically talking about a force. In the context most people use "weight" in, units don't matter anyway.

(on a totally unrelated note, do you know how many square furlongs are in a gallon? )

17. Originally Posted by Bender

(on a totally unrelated note, do you know how many square furlongs are in a gallon? )
According to the handy google calculator:
1 US gallons = 4.64982315 × 10-10 cubic furlongs

18. Originally Posted by Harold14370
According to the handy google calculator:
1 US gallons = 4.64982315 × 10-10 cubic furlongs
Who said I was talking about the US gallon? Did you use the US dry gallon or the US liquid gallon?

19. Originally Posted by Bender

(on a totally unrelated note, do you know how many square furlongs are in a gallon? )
None.

Square furlongs would be a measure of area. A gallon is a measure of volume.

20. Originally Posted by DrRocket
Originally Posted by Bender

(on a totally unrelated note, do you know how many square furlongs are in a gallon? )
None.

Square furlongs would be a measure of area. A gallon is a measure of volume.
And right you are. I'll call in my excuse of not being a native speaker. Of course I meant cubic furlongs.

21. Here is a counter-example to Faraday's Law. In a toroidal transformer with the primary winding the inner one, the magnetic field external to the primary winding is severely reduced because geometrical symmetry results in its canceling itself out. Now take a toroidal core with a primary winding and loosely wind a secondary winding with one end going to an external circuit (such as a galvanometer) and the other going to a slip-ring loosely fitted around the primary winding. The brush contacting the slip-ring connects to the external circuit. Energize the primary winding with DC current, resulting in a constant magnetic flux in the core. Now gradually unwind the secondary winding. Its flux linkage will steadily decrease, but there will be no EMF in it because there is neither motional nor transformer EMF, thus violating Faraday's Law.

Mike

22. I have come to realize that this purported counter example is flawed. The circuit splits at the slip ring and then rejoins. This is not addressed by Faraday's Law.

Mike

23. Newton's laws are also still called laws, even though we know some of them don't apply in all cases. Maybe these text books should start giving the same precautions when they teach Faraday's law, and make sure students know that it's really more of a rule of thumb.

(I kind of like how that sounds: "Faraday's Rule of Thumb")

24. Originally Posted by kojax
Newton's laws are also still called laws, even though we know some of them don't apply in all cases. Maybe these text books should start giving the same precautions when they teach Faraday's law, and make sure students know that it's really more of a rule of thumb.

(I kind of like how that sounds: "Faraday's Rule of Thumb")
Neither Faraday's Law nor Newton's Laws of mechanics are in any sense "rules of thumb". They are fundamental principles of classical electrodynamics and classical mechanics are valid whenever classical physics is adequate.

To call them "rules of thumb" evidences a profound misunderstanding of physics.

There are NO laws of physics that we know to apply in ALL cases. In fact we know that the current basicl physical theories -- quantum field theories and general reltivity not only do not apply in all cases, but are in fact incompatible. Moreover the quantum field theories are only known to apply, and are thought to apply only, up to certain energy levels (which is why they are called "effective" theories and are not believed to be fundamental theories at all).

If you are looking for physical laws that apply in all cases, you will have wait until such theories are discovered, if ever. Don't hold your breath.

25. DrRocket,

Faraday's Law is not false in the same way that one might consider Newton's Laws to be false. Newton's Laws are significantly inaccurate beyond a certain range. Faraday's Law is false because it is not true in general. It is not an expression of a physical principle, but merely a mathematical equality, and that only for a particular class of cases (by far the majority). Furthermore, Faraday's Law implies, and is widely believed, to embody a principle that does not actually exist, namely that a flux change in a circuit due solely to motion induces an emf in the circuit solely due to the flux change.

Mike

26. Originally Posted by Mike La Moreaux
DrRocket,

Faraday's Law is not false in the same way that one might consider Newton's Laws to be false. Newton's Laws are significantly inaccurate beyond a certain range. Faraday's Law is false because it is not true in general. It is not an expression of a physical principle, but merely a mathematical equality, and that only for a particular class of cases (by far the majority). Furthermore, Faraday's Law implies, and is widely believed, to embody a principle that does not actually exist, namely that a flux change in a circuit due solely to motion induces an emf in the circuit solely due to the flux change.

Mike
Faraday's law is just one of the equations known as Maxwell's equations and they are quite valid. Your understanding is badly flawed.

The design of electrical generators is based on precisely that which you appear to reject and without which your computer would not operate as it depends on high quality generated electrical power.

27. DrRocket,

In my original post I specified the version of Faraday's Law that purported to encompass both motional emf and transformer emf, in other words the version with the total time derivative rather than the partial derivative of the approrpiate Maxwell's Law.

Mike

28. Originally Posted by Mike La Moreaux
DrRocket,

In my original post I specified the version of Faraday's Law that purported to encompass both motional emf and transformer emf, in other words the version with the total time derivative rather than the partial derivative of the approrpiate Maxwell's Law.

Mike
You made a bunch of vague assertions concerning what you interpret to be stated in unspecified textbooks. You did not clearly state anything.

If you have a real point to make then clearly specify the purported erroneous version of Faraday's law and references to where this erroneous law is quoted in mainstream literature.

A little bit of mathematics could make clear what is just vague hand-waving without it.

29. DrRocket,

I hope you realize that that one of Maxwell's Laws responsible for transformer emf has nothing to do with generators. The partial time derivative of the magnetic flux eliminates any effect of motion. Motional emf is responsible for the operation of generators. It is just the direct application of the definition of the magnetic field and has nothing to do with Maxwell's Laws.

Mike

30. Originally Posted by Mike La Moreaux
DrRocket,

I hope you realize that that one of Maxwell's Laws responsible for transformer emf has nothing to do with generators. The partial time derivative of the magnetic flux eliminates any effect of motion. Motional emf is responsible for the operation of generators. It is just the direct application of the definition of the magnetic field and has nothing to do with Maxwell's Laws.

Mike
I understand Maxwell's equations and the principles behind the design of synchronous machines rather well. Apparently you do not.

Not only do Maxwell's equations apply to generators, they are the defining equations for all of electrodynamics.

I note that you have apparently declined to make your assertions clear through the use of real mathematics by clearly stating just what version of Faraday's Law you claim to ve invalid. I am not surprised.

31. DrRocket,

Our last posts crossed in cyberspace. You will notice that the time stamps are identical. Thus I posted mine before I saw yours.

Maxwell's Law for transformer emf involves an electric field induced by the intrinsically changing magnetic field. This electric field is responsible for the emf.
Motional emf does not involve an electric field, but only magnetic forces on the electrons. I fail to see how that Maxwell's Law could be applied to a generator, because that law does not address motion, and motion is the only thing causing a flux change.

I apologize in advance if my replies are delayed because I have a busy schedule ahead.

Mike

32. Originally Posted by Mike La Moreaux
DrRocket,

Our last posts crossed in cyberspace. You will notice that the time stamps are identical. Thus I posted mine before I saw yours.

Maxwell's Law for transformer emf involves an electric field induced by the intrinsically changing magnetic field. This electric field is responsible for the emf.
Motional emf does not involve an electric field, but only magnetic forces on the electrons. I fail to see how that Maxwell's Law could be applied to a generator, because that law does not address motion, and motion is the only thing causing a flux change.

I apologize in advance if my replies are delayed because I have a busy schedule ahead.

Mike
I know that you "fail to see it" but nevertheless you are completely wrong. Maxwell's equations apply whether or not the the magnetic field is "instrinsically changing" or not. In fact, the phrase "intrinsically changing" is totally meaningless. Just as one reason why, consider that "intrinsically changing", under any reasonable interpretation, would be dependent on the particular reference frame of the observer. In fact the magnetic field itself is dependent on the reference frame of the observer, and hence there is no meaning to "intrinsic".

You need to undertake a serious study of classical electrodynamics. You have some major misconceptions.

33. DrRocket,

I see that there is nothing upon which we can agree to form the basis of a discussion. I believe that you are the one with the misconceptions. Therefore, there is no point in continuing the conversation with you.

Mike

34. Originally Posted by Mike La Moreaux
DrRocket,

I see that there is nothing upon which we can agree to form the basis of a discussion. I believe that you are the one with the misconceptions. Therefore, there is no point in continuing the conversation with you.

Mike
Sonny,

All you need to do is back up your assertions with real mathematics, starting with Maxwell's equations. You have had the challenge to do just that for some time and have assiduously avoided discussion on the basis of that bastion of established and proven physics.

In short you don't have a clue what you are talking about and are simpy waving your arms furiously.

There is more than adequate basis for discussion. It is called physics. Specifically it called electrodynamics and Maxwell's equations are the bais for that subject. But it is quite clear that your are not familiar with that subject.

Classical electrodynamics, has quite a long history of both theoretical and experimental verification and has proven more than adequate for discussions of this nature. Claims such as yours that it is inadequate for the task at hand are doomed from the start.

So given the opportunity to either put up or shut up you have chosen the latter. I quite understand the reason for that -- there is no substance to your assertions.

35. Originally Posted by DrRocket
Originally Posted by Mike La Moreaux
DrRocket,

I see that there is nothing upon which we can agree to form the basis of a discussion. I believe that you are the one with the misconceptions. Therefore, there is no point in continuing the conversation with you.

Mike
Sonny,

All you need to do is back up your assertions with real mathematics, starting with Maxwell's equations. You have had the challenge to do just that for some time and have assiduously avoided discussion on the basis of that bastion of established and proven physics.

In short you don't have a clue what you are talking about and are simpy waving your arms furiously.

There is more than adequate basis for discussion. It is called physics. Specifically it called electrodynamics and Maxwell's equations are the bais for that subject. But it is quite clear that your are not familiar with that subject.

Classical electrodynamics, has quite a long history of both theoretical and experimental verification and has proven more than adequate for discussions of this nature. Claims such as yours that it is inadequate for the task at hand are doomed from the start.

So given the opportunity to either put up or shut up you have chosen the latter. I quite understand the reason for that -- there is no substance to your assertions.
@DrRocket,

Please explain, then, how is it that one measures emf in an unipolar generator where according to the second Maxwell’s equation there should be no emf measured.

36. Originally Posted by Omnibus
@DrRocket,

Please explain, then, how is it that one measures emf in an unipolar generator where according to the second Maxwell’s equation there should be no emf measured.
Ther is noy and never has been any contradiction with Faraday's law. In fact the basic principle of the homopolar generator lies in Faraday's law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homopolar_generator

37. Originally Posted by DrRocket
Originally Posted by Omnibus
@DrRocket,

Please explain, then, how is it that one measures emf in an unipolar generator where according to the second Maxwell’s equation there should be no emf measured.
Ther is noy and never has been any contradiction with Faraday's law. In fact the basic principle of the homopolar generator lies in Faraday's law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homopolar_generator
@DrRocket,

And, how, then, again, is the condition , required by Maxwell's equations for non-zero emf to be measured, fulfilled in the homopolar generator? The liink you gave doesn't address that problem.

38. And, how, then, again, is the condition , required by Maxwell's equations for non-zero emf to be measured, fulfilled in the homopolar generator? The liink you gave doesn't address that problem.

??????

I just took a look at the Wikipedia reference. In words Faraday’s Law states,
“The emf induced in a circuit is directly proportional to the time rate of change of the magnetic flux through the circuit.”

The magnetic field is static so that law does not apply. So, look at another electrodynamics law. How about this one,

“When a charged particle moves through a magnetic field the particle experiences a force in the direction equal to the cross product of the velocity and the magnetic field.” (F = qVxB)

In the Wikipedia reference there is a disc rotating in a static magnetic field. There are lots of charged particles (electrons and protons) in the rotating disc. Their velocity is perpendicular to the magnetic field so they want to move. The protons can’t but the electrons can. That’s the current.

I don’t see your problem. Faraday’s Law does not apply. Another one does.

39. Originally Posted by mikelizzi
... Faraday’s Law does not apply. ...
Like I said, the problem is even worse -- Maxwell's equations, as we use them today, don't apply in the case of the unipolar generator. One may claim that the curl of is , with the convective second term on the rhs which may account for the emf in the unipolar generator. The expresion , however, is not part of the Maxwell equations.

Equations such as Maxwell's equations, claimed to describe the electromagnetic phenomena and therefore constituting the basis of any modern EM course, cannot have exceptions as the one shown above.

By the way, no instructor in EM will agree with a suggestion similar to yours that if in some situations involving electromagnetc phenomena Maxwell's equations don't work then we are free to substitute them with other equations.

40. Originally Posted by Omnibus
Originally Posted by mikelizzi
... Faraday’s Law does not apply. ...
Like I said, the problem is even worse -- Maxwell's equations, as we use them today, don't apply in the case of the unipolar generator. One may claim that the curl of is , with the convective second term on the rhs which may account for the emf in the unipolar generator. The expresion , however, is not part of the Maxwell equations.

Equations such as Maxwell's equations, claimed to describe the electromagnetic phenomena and therefore constituting the basis of any modern EM course, cannot have exceptions as the one shown above.

By the way, no instructor in EM will agree with a suggestion similar to yours that if in some situations involving electromagnetc phenomena Maxwell's equations don't work then we are free to substitute them with other equations.

You misunderstand me. I am not saying Maxwell's equations don't work. The OP is referring to one of Maxwell's equations that involves a changing magnetic field. There is no changing magnetic field in a unipolar generator. Nothing wrong with the law. It just doesn't apply to the physical arrangement being discussed.

And, by the way, the equation F = VxB is part of classical electrodynamics. And every instructor in EM will be familiar with it. It's called the Lorentz Force Law.

When analyzing a problem, use the laws/formulas that apply to that problem.

41. Originally Posted by Omnibus
Originally Posted by mikelizzi
... Faraday’s Law does not apply. ...
Like I said, the problem is even worse -- Maxwell's equations, as we use them today, don't apply in the case of the unipolar generator. One may claim that the curl of is , with the convective second term on the rhs which may account for the emf in the unipolar generator. The expresion , however, is not part of the Maxwell equations.

Equations such as Maxwell's equations, claimed to describe the electromagnetic phenomena and therefore constituting the basis of any modern EM course, cannot have exceptions as the one shown above.

By the way, no instructor in EM will agree with a suggestion similar to yours that if in some situations involving electromagnetc phenomena Maxwell's equations don't work then we are free to substitute them with other equations.
Of course Maxwell's equations apply. Thet govern all of classical electrodynamics, and in particular homopolar generators. Read and UNDERSTAND the link. The flaw is in your understanding and nowhere else.

42. Of course Maxwell's equations apply. Thet govern all of classical electrodynamics, and in particular homopolar generators. Read and UNDERSTAND the link. The flaw is in your understanding and nowhere else.
Quite the contrary. As I showed, of course, Maxwell's equations do not apply to the homopolar generator, the link notwithstanding, and your denying it only shows the flaw in your understanding. Wishful thinking isn't an argument.

43. It just doesn't apply to the physical arrangement being discussed.
That's exactly the poiint. Maxwell's equations do not apply to the physical arrangement being discussed and they should if they indeed describe properly the electromagnetic phenomena.

By the way, there cannot be a contradiction between what follows from the Lorentz force as opposed to what follows from Maxwell's equations, as you imply. If you can derive emf from the Lorentz foce (which you haven't done, as a matter of fact) same emf should follow from the Maxwell equations. But it doesn't.

44. Originally Posted by Omnibus
Of course Maxwell's equations apply. Thet govern all of classical electrodynamics, and in particular homopolar generators. Read and UNDERSTAND the link. The flaw is in your understanding and nowhere else.
Quite the contrary. As I showed, of course, Maxwell's equations do not apply to the homopolar generator, the link notwithstanding, and your denying it only shows the flaw in your understanding. Wishful thinking isn't an argument.
Sonny, quit bwasting our time. Go read a good book on electrodynamics, Jackson's book will do. You don't even understand that you don't understand.

45. Originally Posted by DrRocket
Originally Posted by Omnibus
Of course Maxwell's equations apply. Thet govern all of classical electrodynamics, and in particular homopolar generators. Read and UNDERSTAND the link. The flaw is in your understanding and nowhere else.
Quite the contrary. As I showed, of course, Maxwell's equations do not apply to the homopolar generator, the link notwithstanding, and your denying it only shows the flaw in your understanding. Wishful thinking isn't an argument.
Sonny, quit bwasting our time. Go read a good book on electrodynamics, Jackson's book will do. You don't even understand that you don't understand.
@DrRocket,

Patronizing is out of place as a substitute for arguments, as is, like I said, wishful thinking. Mentioning Jackson won't help either. You are stuck with the = 0 in Maxwell's equations which defies emf where there is such (in homopolar generators) and your only recourse is the ad hominem "sonny". Get used to the fact that Maxwell's equations are an inadequate mathematical description of the physical reality concerning electromagnetic phenomena and move on. Otherwise you're actually the one wasting our time.

46. Originally Posted by Omnibus
Originally Posted by DrRocket
Originally Posted by Omnibus
Of course Maxwell's equations apply. Thet govern all of classical electrodynamics, and in particular homopolar generators. Read and UNDERSTAND the link. The flaw is in your understanding and nowhere else.
Quite the contrary. As I showed, of course, Maxwell's equations do not apply to the homopolar generator, the link notwithstanding, and your denying it only shows the flaw in your understanding. Wishful thinking isn't an argument.
Sonny, quit bwasting our time. Go read a good book on electrodynamics, Jackson's book will do. You don't even understand that you don't understand.
@DrRocket,

Patronizing is out of place as a substitute for arguments, as is, like I said, wishful thinking. Mentioning Jackson won't help either. You are stuck with the = 0 in Maxwell's equations which defies emf where there is such (in homopolar generators) and your only recourse is the ad hominem "sonny". Get used to the fact that Maxwell's equations are an inadequate mathematical description of the physical reality concerning electromagnetic phenomena and move on. Otherwise you're actually the one wasting our time.
It is pretty clear that this discussion has left the realm of Physics.

Your nonsense belongs in Pseudoscience, and not in a serious forum.

While you are at it think about the Lorentz force law and why homopolar generators are constructed of conductive materials which have mobile charges. It is all described quite clearly by classical dynamics, whether you get it or not.

47. Originally Posted by DrRocket
Originally Posted by Omnibus
Originally Posted by DrRocket
Originally Posted by Omnibus
Of course Maxwell's equations apply. Thet govern all of classical electrodynamics, and in particular homopolar generators. Read and UNDERSTAND the link. The flaw is in your understanding and nowhere else.
Quite the contrary. As I showed, of course, Maxwell's equations do not apply to the homopolar generator, the link notwithstanding, and your denying it only shows the flaw in your understanding. Wishful thinking isn't an argument.
Sonny, quit bwasting our time. Go read a good book on electrodynamics, Jackson's book will do. You don't even understand that you don't understand.
@DrRocket,

Patronizing is out of place as a substitute for arguments, as is, like I said, wishful thinking. Mentioning Jackson won't help either. You are stuck with the = 0 in Maxwell's equations which defies emf where there is such (in homopolar generators) and your only recourse is the ad hominem "sonny". Get used to the fact that Maxwell's equations are an inadequate mathematical description of the physical reality concerning electromagnetic phenomena and move on. Otherwise you're actually the one wasting our time.
It is pretty clear that this discussion has left the realm of Physics.

Your nonsense belongs in Pseudoscience, and not in a serious forum.

While you are at it think about the Lorentz force law and why homopolar generators are constructed of conductive materials which have mobile charges. It is all described quite clearly by classical dynamics, whether you get it or not.
Pseudoscience is to talk about Lorentz force when Maxwell's equations are at stake. As I said, if Maxwell's equations provided correct description of the electromagnetic phenomena then they should yield emf also in the case of a unipolar generator where experiment demonstrates such. They don't, however, because in an unipolar generator.

Scientific method requires that a theory such as Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism be in harmony with the results from any experiment pertaining to electromagnetism. Even one exception, finding even one example of an experiment at odds with the theory renders that theory invalid. As seen, experimental measurement of emf in an unipolar generator goes contrary to the conclusion from Maxwell's equations for no emf in such generator. That invalidates said theory.

48. Originally Posted by Omnibus
Pseudoscience is to talk about Lorentz force when Maxwell's equations are at stake. As I said, if Maxwell's equations provided correct description of the electromagnetic phenomena then they should yield emf also in the case of a unipolar generator where experiment demonstrates such. They don't, however, because in an unipolar generator.

Scientific method requires that a theory such as Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism be in harmony with the results from any experiment pertaining to electromagnetism. Even one exception, finding even one example of an experiment at odds with the theory renders that theory invalid. As seen, experimental measurement of emf in an unipolar generator goes contrary to the conclusion from Maxwell's equations for no emf in such generator. That invalidates said theory.
I hate to make a two against one argument, but here I go anyway.

Omnibus, it looks to me that you think that Faraday’s Law is the only way to get an emf. It’s not.

And Maxwell’s Equations, by themselves are not a comprehensive definition of a Theory of Electromagnetism. Lorentz Force Law must be included with Maxwell’s Equations to form a comprehensive theory.

From the textbook,
“Physics for Scientists and Engineers with Modern Physics”, 5th edition, Volume 2, page 1001;
“When used with the Lorentz Force Law, F = qE + qV x B, Maxwell’s Equations describe all electromagnetic phenomena.”

I’ll bet you can find a similar statement in other college level textbooks too.
However, I did not find that statement in one of my other textbooks. That textbook presented the Lorentz Force Law as a definition of the Magnetic Field. But such a definition would always be part of a theory once Magnetism itself is mentioned.

49. Originally Posted by Omnibus
Originally Posted by DrRocket
Originally Posted by Omnibus
Originally Posted by DrRocket
Originally Posted by Omnibus
Of course Maxwell's equations apply. Thet govern all of classical electrodynamics, and in particular homopolar generators. Read and UNDERSTAND the link. The flaw is in your understanding and nowhere else.
Quite the contrary. As I showed, of course, Maxwell's equations do not apply to the homopolar generator, the link notwithstanding, and your denying it only shows the flaw in your understanding. Wishful thinking isn't an argument.
Sonny, quit bwasting our time. Go read a good book on electrodynamics, Jackson's book will do. You don't even understand that you don't understand.
@DrRocket,

Patronizing is out of place as a substitute for arguments, as is, like I said, wishful thinking. Mentioning Jackson won't help either. You are stuck with the = 0 in Maxwell's equations which defies emf where there is such (in homopolar generators) and your only recourse is the ad hominem "sonny". Get used to the fact that Maxwell's equations are an inadequate mathematical description of the physical reality concerning electromagnetic phenomena and move on. Otherwise you're actually the one wasting our time.
It is pretty clear that this discussion has left the realm of Physics.

Your nonsense belongs in Pseudoscience, and not in a serious forum.

While you are at it think about the Lorentz force law and why homopolar generators are constructed of conductive materials which have mobile charges. It is all described quite clearly by classical dynamics, whether you get it or not.
Pseudoscience is to talk about Lorentz force when Maxwell's equations are at stake. As I said, if Maxwell's equations provided correct description of the electromagnetic phenomena then they should yield emf also in the case of a unipolar generator where experiment demonstrates such. They don't, however, because in an unipolar generator.

Scientific method requires that a theory such as Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism be in harmony with the results from any experiment pertaining to electromagnetism. Even one exception, finding even one example of an experiment at odds with the theory renders that theory invalid. As seen, experimental measurement of emf in an unipolar generator goes contrary to the conclusion from Maxwell's equations for no emf in such generator. That invalidates said theory.
It renders it invalid for that example and as such not a general model. It's by no means wrong in all cases, just some, or in this case, 1. It's still viable in all other cases, and is still useful, just not a general theory. But, of course, this only applies if you are correct.

50. @mikelizzy,

The impression that there are two distinct electrodynamics, in contradiction to each other--one obeying Lorentz force and the other described by the Maxwell equations is obviously untenable no matter what a college text may imply. On the contrary, in order to convince someone truly abiding by the scientific method you have to derive the Lorentz force from the Maxwell's equations in the stationary system where the Lorentz force is observed in the case at hand. That would really be a scientific argument, instead of hand waving, as some like to do in such forums, that would refute my claim that Maxwell's equations are invalid.

51. @Arcane_Mathematician,

It renders it invalid for that example and as such not a general model. It's by no means wrong in all cases, just some, or in this case, 1. It's still viable in all other cases, and is still useful, just not a general theory. But, of course, this only applies if you are correct.
Unfortunately, I am correct, as you can see from the replies--ho one has yet denied that Maxwell's equations yield a wrong result regarding the unipolar generator.

As to whether or not a theory such as Maxwell's theory should be rejected when there's even one experimental exception to it, that is a matter of scientific principle. In hard sciences collapse of a theory is caused by finding just a single exception to it. Consider, for instance, the principle of conservation of energy. That's a principle based on experiment. So far, it is considered that there is not a single exception to it in the real World. However, if one can demonstrate even a single experimental exception to it, the universality of that principle and the principle itself for that matter will be obliterated altogether despite the numerous cases where it is applicable and useful.

52. Originally Posted by Omnibus
@mikelizzy,

The impression that there are two distinct electrodynamics, in contradiction to each other--one obeying Lorentz force and the other described by the Maxwell equations is obviously untenable no matter what a college text may imply. On the contrary, in order to convince someone truly abiding by the scientific method you have to derive the Lorentz force from the Maxwell's equations in the stationary system where the Lorentz force is observed in the case at hand. That would really be a scientific argument, instead of hand waving, as some like to do in such forums, that would refute my claim that Maxwell's equations are invalid.
No, No, No. You don't understand the theory of electrodynamis. You don't derive The Lorentz Force Law from Maxwell's Equations. The Lorentz Force Law defines the Magnetic Field. The only way you know you have a magnetic field is by applying the Lorentz Force Law. Maxwell's Equations are derived from the Lorentz Force Law and subsequent experimental evidence.

53. Originally Posted by mikelizzi
Originally Posted by Omnibus
@mikelizzy,

The impression that there are two distinct electrodynamics, in contradiction to each other--one obeying Lorentz force and the other described by the Maxwell equations is obviously untenable no matter what a college text may imply. On the contrary, in order to convince someone truly abiding by the scientific method you have to derive the Lorentz force from the Maxwell's equations in the stationary system where the Lorentz force is observed in the case at hand. That would really be a scientific argument, instead of hand waving, as some like to do in such forums, that would refute my claim that Maxwell's equations are invalid.
No, No, No. You don't understand the theory of electrodynamis. You don't derive The Lorentz Force Law from Maxwell's Equations. The Lorentz Force Law defines the Magnetic Field. The only way you know you have a magnetic field is by applying the Lorentz Force Law. Maxwell's Equations are derived from the Lorentz Force Law and subsequent experimental evidence.
@mikelizzy,

Don't argue with me on the subject of what derives what. Argue with Einstein. If you don't believe me check out his 1905 paper (cf. paragraph 6). Einstein's derivation is incorrect but at least it shows which comes first, Maxwell's equations or Lorentz force and what is derived from what. You're confused about this issue.

54. Originally Posted by Omnibus
Originally Posted by mikelizzi
Originally Posted by Omnibus
@mikelizzy,

The impression that there are two distinct electrodynamics, in contradiction to each other--one obeying Lorentz force and the other described by the Maxwell equations is obviously untenable no matter what a college text may imply. On the contrary, in order to convince someone truly abiding by the scientific method you have to derive the Lorentz force from the Maxwell's equations in the stationary system where the Lorentz force is observed in the case at hand. That would really be a scientific argument, instead of hand waving, as some like to do in such forums, that would refute my claim that Maxwell's equations are invalid.
No, No, No. You don't understand the theory of electrodynamis. You don't derive The Lorentz Force Law from Maxwell's Equations. The Lorentz Force Law defines the Magnetic Field. The only way you know you have a magnetic field is by applying the Lorentz Force Law. Maxwell's Equations are derived from the Lorentz Force Law and subsequent experimental evidence.
@mikelizzy,

Don't argue with me on the subject of what derives what. Argue with Einstein. If you don't believe me check out his 1905 paper (cf. paragraph 6). Einstein's derivation is incorrect but at least it shows which comes first, Maxwell's equations or Lorentz force and what is derived from what. You're confused about this issue.

You are the one who is confused. I don't have to look up Einstein's Paper, to know he never wrote anything that contradicts what I have written. I am quite familiar with his theory of Special Relativity. If you understood electrodynamics you would not think that his derivation of the Lorentz Transformation was incorrect. Are you getting mixed up between the Lorentz Force Law and the Lorentz Transformation? They are different.

The Lorentz Force Law defines the magnetic field. Every time you see the letter "B" in an electrodynamic equation it means "a phenomenom that obeys the Lorentz Force Law". So it is part of Maxwell's Equations, by definition. Everytime you construct an electromagnetic device, the definitive way to specify the structure of the mgnetic field around it is to shoot some charged particles through the space and record their behavior. Although nowdays there are simpler ways to do it.

55. Originally Posted by Mike La Moreaux
Induced EMF is only due to either motional EMF or transformer EMF. Faraday's Law purports to include both of these, but only for circuits. It actually, improperly, includes more, namely the case of flux changing solely due to motion when there is no motional EMF. One cannot properly approach motional EMF through flux change.
Originally Posted by sharpsword
I find this statement contradictory. Faraday's Law states that when the flux of a magnet or that produced by an electrical current changes, a voltage is induced in a closed circuit (wire) through which the flux is changing. It doesn't matter whether the current through the wire is changing or the wire is moved mechanically, the flux is still changing. This law has been tested over the centuries and found to be correct by countless experiments.

56. Originally Posted by mikelizzi
Originally Posted by Omnibus
Originally Posted by mikelizzi
Originally Posted by Omnibus
@mikelizzy,

The impression that there are two distinct electrodynamics, in contradiction to each other--one obeying Lorentz force and the other described by the Maxwell equations is obviously untenable no matter what a college text may imply. On the contrary, in order to convince someone truly abiding by the scientific method you have to derive the Lorentz force from the Maxwell's equations in the stationary system where the Lorentz force is observed in the case at hand. That would really be a scientific argument, instead of hand waving, as some like to do in such forums, that would refute my claim that Maxwell's equations are invalid.
No, No, No. You don't understand the theory of electrodynamis. You don't derive The Lorentz Force Law from Maxwell's Equations. The Lorentz Force Law defines the Magnetic Field. The only way you know you have a magnetic field is by applying the Lorentz Force Law. Maxwell's Equations are derived from the Lorentz Force Law and subsequent experimental evidence.
@mikelizzy,

Don't argue with me on the subject of what derives what. Argue with Einstein. If you don't believe me check out his 1905 paper (cf. paragraph 6). Einstein's derivation is incorrect but at least it shows which comes first, Maxwell's equations or Lorentz force and what is derived from what. You're confused about this issue.

You are the one who is confused. I don't have to look up Einstein's Paper, to know he never wrote anything that contradicts what I have written. I am quite familiar with his theory of Special Relativity. If you understood electrodynamics you would not think that his derivation of the Lorentz Transformation was incorrect. Are you getting mixed up between the Lorentz Force Law and the Lorentz Transformation? They are different.

The Lorentz Force Law defines the magnetic field. Every time you see the letter "B" in an electrodynamic equation it means "a phenomenom that obeys the Lorentz Force Law". So it is part of Maxwell's Equations, by definition. Everytime you construct an electromagnetic device, the definitive way to specify the structure of the mgnetic field around it is to shoot some charged particles through the space and record their behavior. Although nowdays there are simpler ways to do it.
You are both incorrect, though mikelizzi is closest.

The Lorentz force equation is logically independent of Maxwell's equations, and serves to determine the force on a charged particle, given knowledge of the E and B fields. The connection is that the time dependent positions of charges determines the E and B fields through Maxwell's equations and the dynamics of the charged particles is driven by the forces described by the Lorentz equation. So there is a coupling, but neither is derivable from the other.

57. Originally Posted by DrRocket
Originally Posted by mikelizzi
Originally Posted by Omnibus
Originally Posted by mikelizzi
Originally Posted by Omnibus
@mikelizzy,

The impression that there are two distinct electrodynamics, in contradiction to each other--one obeying Lorentz force and the other described by the Maxwell equations is obviously untenable no matter what a college text may imply. On the contrary, in order to convince someone truly abiding by the scientific method you have to derive the Lorentz force from the Maxwell's equations in the stationary system where the Lorentz force is observed in the case at hand. That would really be a scientific argument, instead of hand waving, as some like to do in such forums, that would refute my claim that Maxwell's equations are invalid.
No, No, No. You don't understand the theory of electrodynamis. You don't derive The Lorentz Force Law from Maxwell's Equations. The Lorentz Force Law defines the Magnetic Field. The only way you know you have a magnetic field is by applying the Lorentz Force Law. Maxwell's Equations are derived from the Lorentz Force Law and subsequent experimental evidence.
@mikelizzy,

Don't argue with me on the subject of what derives what. Argue with Einstein. If you don't believe me check out his 1905 paper (cf. paragraph 6). Einstein's derivation is incorrect but at least it shows which comes first, Maxwell's equations or Lorentz force and what is derived from what. You're confused about this issue.

You are the one who is confused. I don't have to look up Einstein's Paper, to know he never wrote anything that contradicts what I have written. I am quite familiar with his theory of Special Relativity. If you understood electrodynamics you would not think that his derivation of the Lorentz Transformation was incorrect. Are you getting mixed up between the Lorentz Force Law and the Lorentz Transformation? They are different.

The Lorentz Force Law defines the magnetic field. Every time you see the letter "B" in an electrodynamic equation it means "a phenomenom that obeys the Lorentz Force Law". So it is part of Maxwell's Equations, by definition. Everytime you construct an electromagnetic device, the definitive way to specify the structure of the mgnetic field around it is to shoot some charged particles through the space and record their behavior. Although nowdays there are simpler ways to do it.
You are both incorrect, though mikelizzi is closest.

The Lorentz force equation is logically independent of Maxwell's equations, and serves to determine the force on a charged particle, given knowledge of the E and B fields. The connection is that the time dependent positions of charges determines the E and B fields through Maxwell's equations and the dynamics of the charged particles is driven by the forces described by the Lorentz equation. So there is a coupling, but neither is derivable from the other.
Dr Rocket,
I don't really want to get into a debate with you. Just allow me to offer this quote.

From the textbook,
“Physics for Scientists and Engineers with Modern Physics”, 5th edition, Volume 2, page 906;
Authors: Raymond Serway and Robert Beichner
“We can define a magnetic field B at some point in space in terms of the magnetic force that the field exerts on a test object, for which we use a charged particle moving with velocity v.”

58. Originally Posted by mikelizzi
Originally Posted by DrRocket
Originally Posted by mikelizzi
Originally Posted by Omnibus
Originally Posted by mikelizzi
Originally Posted by Omnibus
@mikelizzy,

The impression that there are two distinct electrodynamics, in contradiction to each other--one obeying Lorentz force and the other described by the Maxwell equations is obviously untenable no matter what a college text may imply. On the contrary, in order to convince someone truly abiding by the scientific method you have to derive the Lorentz force from the Maxwell's equations in the stationary system where the Lorentz force is observed in the case at hand. That would really be a scientific argument, instead of hand waving, as some like to do in such forums, that would refute my claim that Maxwell's equations are invalid.
No, No, No. You don't understand the theory of electrodynamis. You don't derive The Lorentz Force Law from Maxwell's Equations. The Lorentz Force Law defines the Magnetic Field. The only way you know you have a magnetic field is by applying the Lorentz Force Law. Maxwell's Equations are derived from the Lorentz Force Law and subsequent experimental evidence.
@mikelizzy,

Don't argue with me on the subject of what derives what. Argue with Einstein. If you don't believe me check out his 1905 paper (cf. paragraph 6). Einstein's derivation is incorrect but at least it shows which comes first, Maxwell's equations or Lorentz force and what is derived from what. You're confused about this issue.

You are the one who is confused. I don't have to look up Einstein's Paper, to know he never wrote anything that contradicts what I have written. I am quite familiar with his theory of Special Relativity. If you understood electrodynamics you would not think that his derivation of the Lorentz Transformation was incorrect. Are you getting mixed up between the Lorentz Force Law and the Lorentz Transformation? They are different.

The Lorentz Force Law defines the magnetic field. Every time you see the letter "B" in an electrodynamic equation it means "a phenomenom that obeys the Lorentz Force Law". So it is part of Maxwell's Equations, by definition. Everytime you construct an electromagnetic device, the definitive way to specify the structure of the mgnetic field around it is to shoot some charged particles through the space and record their behavior. Although nowdays there are simpler ways to do it.
You are both incorrect, though mikelizzi is closest.

The Lorentz force equation is logically independent of Maxwell's equations, and serves to determine the force on a charged particle, given knowledge of the E and B fields. The connection is that the time dependent positions of charges determines the E and B fields through Maxwell's equations and the dynamics of the charged particles is driven by the forces described by the Lorentz equation. So there is a coupling, but neither is derivable from the other.
Dr Rocket,
I don't really want to get into a debate with you. Just allow me to offer this quote.

From the textbook,
“Physics for Scientists and Engineers with Modern Physics”, 5th edition, Volume 2, page 906;
Authors: Raymond Serway and Robert Beichner
“We can define a magnetic field B at some point in space in terms of the magnetic force that the field exerts on a test object, for which we use a charged particle moving with velocity v.”
That statement ignores a couple of facts. First it ignores the E-field component of the Lorentz force equation. Second it ignores the fact that the E and B fields are observer dependent, in accordance with special relativity. One observer's B field can another observer's E field.

It also is unconnected to Maxwell's equations and in no way would allow one to derive those equations. All that it does is suggest means for measuring the B field under controlled conditions. That is a different proposition altogether from DEFINING the magnetic field -- a distinction that the authors should but apparently do not understand.

I suggest that any of the electrodynamics text in my earlier post would provide you a better source on the subject. There are lousy books in many fields, and merely writing a book does not confer expertise. Jackson in particular is actually an expert in the subject.

59. Originally Posted by mikelizzi
Originally Posted by Omnibus
Originally Posted by mikelizzi
Originally Posted by Omnibus
@mikelizzy,

The impression that there are two distinct electrodynamics, in contradiction to each other--one obeying Lorentz force and the other described by the Maxwell equations is obviously untenable no matter what a college text may imply. On the contrary, in order to convince someone truly abiding by the scientific method you have to derive the Lorentz force from the Maxwell's equations in the stationary system where the Lorentz force is observed in the case at hand. That would really be a scientific argument, instead of hand waving, as some like to do in such forums, that would refute my claim that Maxwell's equations are invalid.
No, No, No. You don't understand the theory of electrodynamis. You don't derive The Lorentz Force Law from Maxwell's Equations. The Lorentz Force Law defines the Magnetic Field. The only way you know you have a magnetic field is by applying the Lorentz Force Law. Maxwell's Equations are derived from the Lorentz Force Law and subsequent experimental evidence.
@mikelizzy,

Don't argue with me on the subject of what derives what. Argue with Einstein. If you don't believe me check out his 1905 paper (cf. paragraph 6). Einstein's derivation is incorrect but at least it shows which comes first, Maxwell's equations or Lorentz force and what is derived from what. You're confused about this issue.

You are the one who is confused. I don't have to look up Einstein's Paper, to know he never wrote anything that contradicts what I have written. I am quite familiar with his theory of Special Relativity. If you understood electrodynamics you would not think that his derivation of the Lorentz Transformation was incorrect. Are you getting mixed up between the Lorentz Force Law and the Lorentz Transformation? They are different.

The Lorentz Force Law defines the magnetic field. Every time you see the letter "B" in an electrodynamic equation it means "a phenomenom that obeys the Lorentz Force Law". So it is part of Maxwell's Equations, by definition. Everytime you construct an electromagnetic device, the definitive way to specify the structure of the mgnetic field around it is to shoot some charged particles through the space and record their behavior. Although nowdays there are simpler ways to do it.
@mikelizzy,

Please read carefully what I wrote and then read very carefully Einstein's paper to avoid so openly demonstrating your incompetence. If you don't correct yourself by admitting that you did not understand that Einstein claims derivation of the Lorentz force in paragraph 6 of his unfortunate 1905 paper (not the Lorentz transformations, which he incorrectly claims to have derived in paragraph 3 of the same paper), I will ignore further exchange with you.

60. Originally Posted by DrRocket
Originally Posted by mikelizzi
Originally Posted by Omnibus
Originally Posted by mikelizzi
Originally Posted by Omnibus
@mikelizzy,

The impression that there are two distinct electrodynamics, in contradiction to each other--one obeying Lorentz force and the other described by the Maxwell equations is obviously untenable no matter what a college text may imply. On the contrary, in order to convince someone truly abiding by the scientific method you have to derive the Lorentz force from the Maxwell's equations in the stationary system where the Lorentz force is observed in the case at hand. That would really be a scientific argument, instead of hand waving, as some like to do in such forums, that would refute my claim that Maxwell's equations are invalid.
No, No, No. You don't understand the theory of electrodynamis. You don't derive The Lorentz Force Law from Maxwell's Equations. The Lorentz Force Law defines the Magnetic Field. The only way you know you have a magnetic field is by applying the Lorentz Force Law. Maxwell's Equations are derived from the Lorentz Force Law and subsequent experimental evidence.
@mikelizzy,

Don't argue with me on the subject of what derives what. Argue with Einstein. If you don't believe me check out his 1905 paper (cf. paragraph 6). Einstein's derivation is incorrect but at least it shows which comes first, Maxwell's equations or Lorentz force and what is derived from what. You're confused about this issue.

You are the one who is confused. I don't have to look up Einstein's Paper, to know he never wrote anything that contradicts what I have written. I am quite familiar with his theory of Special Relativity. If you understood electrodynamics you would not think that his derivation of the Lorentz Transformation was incorrect. Are you getting mixed up between the Lorentz Force Law and the Lorentz Transformation? They are different.

The Lorentz Force Law defines the magnetic field. Every time you see the letter "B" in an electrodynamic equation it means "a phenomenom that obeys the Lorentz Force Law". So it is part of Maxwell's Equations, by definition. Everytime you construct an electromagnetic device, the definitive way to specify the structure of the mgnetic field around it is to shoot some charged particles through the space and record their behavior. Although nowdays there are simpler ways to do it.
You are both incorrect, though mikelizzi is closest.

The Lorentz force equation is logically independent of Maxwell's equations, and serves to determine the force on a charged particle, given knowledge of the E and B fields. The connection is that the time dependent positions of charges determines the E and B fields through Maxwell's equations and the dynamics of the charged particles is driven by the forces described by the Lorentz equation. So there is a coupling, but neither is derivable from the other.
@DrRocket,

You are wrong. See my last posting to @mikelizzy.

61. Originally Posted by Omnibus
@DrRocket,

You are wrong.
nope

62. Originally Posted by DrRocket
Jackson in particular is actually an expert in the subject.
Not to mention that the book is written so that even a dullard can understand.

I've got it on my shelf at the mo incase I need it for reference. 8)

63. Originally Posted by Omnibus
@Arcane_Mathematician,

It renders it invalid for that example and as such not a general model. It's by no means wrong in all cases, just some, or in this case, 1. It's still viable in all other cases, and is still useful, just not a general theory. But, of course, this only applies if you are correct.
Unfortunately, I am correct, as you can see from the replies--ho one has yet denied that Maxwell's equations yield a wrong result regarding the unipolar generator.

As to whether or not a theory such as Maxwell's theory should be rejected when there's even one experimental exception to it, that is a matter of scientific principle. In hard sciences collapse of a theory is caused by finding just a single exception to it. Consider, for instance, the principle of conservation of energy. That's a principle based on experiment. So far, it is considered that there is not a single exception to it in the real World. However, if one can demonstrate even a single experimental exception to it, the universality of that principle and the principle itself for that matter will be obliterated altogether despite the numerous cases where it is applicable and useful.
Okay, why do we still learn newtonian mechanics and use it on an everyday basis? Why is it still used for approximations under circumstances of low relative velocities? i.e. I doubt automotive designers use relativity to calculate their force and drag data on cars over newtonian mechanics, or one of the other equivalent theories. It's still used, yet is wrong. Why?

General Relativity and QED as well, are not compatible, meaning in at least one case each of those theories is wrong. Why then are they used, if they are wrong in one instance?

64. Originally Posted by sox
Originally Posted by DrRocket
Jackson in particular is actually an expert in the subject.
Not to mention that the book is written so that even a dullard can understand.

I've got it on my shelf at the mo incase I need it for reference. 8)
The book in question by Jackson is a superficial opportunistic text which has no place in colleges and universities let alone in a serious scientific debate.

65. Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
Originally Posted by Omnibus
@Arcane_Mathematician,

It renders it invalid for that example and as such not a general model. It's by no means wrong in all cases, just some, or in this case, 1. It's still viable in all other cases, and is still useful, just not a general theory. But, of course, this only applies if you are correct.
Unfortunately, I am correct, as you can see from the replies--ho one has yet denied that Maxwell's equations yield a wrong result regarding the unipolar generator.

As to whether or not a theory such as Maxwell's theory should be rejected when there's even one experimental exception to it, that is a matter of scientific principle. In hard sciences collapse of a theory is caused by finding just a single exception to it. Consider, for instance, the principle of conservation of energy. That's a principle based on experiment. So far, it is considered that there is not a single exception to it in the real World. However, if one can demonstrate even a single experimental exception to it, the universality of that principle and the principle itself for that matter will be obliterated altogether despite the numerous cases where it is applicable and useful.
Okay, why do we still learn newtonian mechanics and use it on an everyday basis? Why is it still used for approximations under circumstances of low relative velocities? i.e. I doubt automotive designers use relativity to calculate their force and drag data on cars over newtonian mechanics, or one of the other equivalent theories. It's still used, yet is wrong. Why?

General Relativity and QED as well, are not compatible, meaning in at least one case each of those theories is wrong. Why then are they used, if they are wrong in one instance?
Of course, the above is not directed at me because I, in agreement with Einstein, do consider that the correct mechanics in the stationary system is the Newtonian mechanics. As for the Einstein's "theory" of relativity, it isn't even a theory but a useless creation based on internal contradictions which should be removed from science in its entirety.

66. Originally Posted by Omnibus
As for the Einstein's "theory" of relativity, it isn't even a theory but a useless creation based on internal contradictions which should be removed from science in its entirety.
Do expound.

67. Originally Posted by TheDr.Spo
Originally Posted by Omnibus
As for the Einstein's "theory" of relativity, it isn't even a theory but a useless creation based on internal contradictions which should be removed from science in its entirety.
Do expound.
This thread discusses Faraday's induction law, not Einstein's "theory" of relativity, so, I think, expounding on the latter is out of place here.

68. Surely this thread should be binned???

We've got some twat trying to say that relativity is wrong, and that one of the most repected textbooks in physics is crap.

Clearly the person doesn't understand anything about physics.

69. Originally Posted by sox
Surely this thread should be binned???

We've got some twat trying to say that relativity is wrong, and that one of the most repected textbooks in physics is crap.

Clearly the person doesn't understand anything about physics.

I have never claimed that relativity is wrong. My comment was about Einstein's "theory" of relativity. That difference you don't understand and that's what's clearly the reason for you to resort to an ad hominem attack.

As for the respected textbook comment, science knows of more than one example when respected texts have gone into oblivion because changes in understanding of the natural phenomena. That will be the inevitable fate of the text in question. Those who think that Jackson's text is a bible should hear the news--it isn't.

70. Originally Posted by Omnibus
Originally Posted by sox
Originally Posted by DrRocket
Jackson in particular is actually an expert in the subject.
Not to mention that the book is written so that even a dullard can understand.

I've got it on my shelf at the mo incase I need it for reference. 8)
The book in question by Jackson is a superficial opportunistic text which has no place in colleges and universities let alone in a serious scientific debate.
The book in question is in fact both the most highly regarded graduate text in the world on the subject and a standard reference for professional physicists. It has been so for decades -- all three editions.

Your apparent inability to read and understand it is an indictment of you and not the book.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

71. Originally Posted by DrRocket
Originally Posted by Omnibus
Originally Posted by sox
Originally Posted by DrRocket
Jackson in particular is actually an expert in the subject.
Not to mention that the book is written so that even a dullard can understand.

I've got it on my shelf at the mo incase I need it for reference. 8)
The book in question by Jackson is a superficial opportunistic text which has no place in colleges and universities let alone in a serious scientific debate.
The book in question is in fact both the most highly regarded graduate text in the world on the subject and a standard reference for professional physicists. It has been so for decades -- all three editions.

Your apparent inability to read and understand it is an indictment of you and not the book.

You have no idea what you are talking about.
You make unsubstantiated statements. While it is true that the book in question is a current standard text in EM used in some teaching institutions, it contains incorrect notions as I have shown a concrete example of (and have not resorted to mere statements and ad hominem as you do).

As an example how wrong it is to push Jackson's book as the Bible I have mentioned Einstein's 1905 paper which is regarded immeasurably higher than said book. And, yet, that 1905 paper is fundamentally wrong because it is based on internal contradictions. Like I said I will not elaborate on this here but I'm just mentioning it to make it clear that it is not Jackson's book that should be any criterion as to what is true or not. Even more important texts can be wrong. The dispute should be focused on the substance of the issue itself and not on what standard texts contain.

72. Originally Posted by Omnibus
You make unsubstantiated statements. While it is true that the book in question is a current standard text in EM used in some teaching institutions, it contains incorrect notions as I have shown a concrete example of (and have not resorted to mere statements and ad hominem as you do).

As an example how wrong it is to push Jackson's book as the Bible I have mentioned Einstein's 1905 paper which is regarded immeasurably higher than said book. And, yet, that 1905 paper is fundamentally wrong because it is based on internal contradictions. Like I said I will not elaborate on this here but I'm just mentioning it to make it clear that it is not Jackson's book that should be any criterion as to what is true or not. Even more important texts can be wrong. The dispute should be focused on the substance of the issue itself and not on what standard texts contain.
Nope.

The only issue here is your personal inability to understand very basic electrodynamics and apply it properly to the issue that you have selected -- the principle behind the homopolar generator.

Jackson's book is fully compatible with special relativity and Einstein's 1905 paper. In fact one of the fundamental early reasons for the discovery by Einstein of special relativity is that Maxwell's equations are Lorentz-invariant. It was thinking about how the E and B fields vary between observers in relative motion that in part lead Einstein to the special theory.

Classical electrodynamics in the form of Maxwell's equations and the Lorentz force equation is fully adequate, and the validity of the theory is abundantly demonstrated. What is inadequate is your personal understanding and ability to apply the tools.

Fer chrissake, the material in Jackson's book is also found in ALL other good books on electrodynamics. If you don't like Jackson try that other classic, A Course in Theoretical Physics by Landau and Lifshitz (the volume on continuous fields in particular.

73. Originally Posted by DrRocket
Originally Posted by Omnibus
You make unsubstantiated statements. While it is true that the book in question is a current standard text in EM used in some teaching institutions, it contains incorrect notions as I have shown a concrete example of (and have not resorted to mere statements and ad hominem as you do).

As an example how wrong it is to push Jackson's book as the Bible I have mentioned Einstein's 1905 paper which is regarded immeasurably higher than said book. And, yet, that 1905 paper is fundamentally wrong because it is based on internal contradictions. Like I said I will not elaborate on this here but I'm just mentioning it to make it clear that it is not Jackson's book that should be any criterion as to what is true or not. Even more important texts can be wrong. The dispute should be focused on the substance of the issue itself and not on what standard texts contain.
Nope.

The only issue here is your personal inability to understand very basic electrodynamics and apply it properly to the issue that you have selected -- the principle behind the homopolar generator.

Jackson's book is fully compatible with special relativity and Einstein's 1905 paper. In fact one of the fundamental early reasons for the discovery by Einstein of special relativity is that Maxwell's equations are Lorentz-invariant. It was thinking about how the E and B fields vary between observers in relative motion that in part lead Einstein to the special theory.

Classical electrodynamics in the form of Maxwell's equations and the Lorentz force equation is fully adequate, and the validity of the theory is abundantly demonstrated. What is inadequate is your personal understanding and ability to apply the tools.

Fer chrissake, the material in Jackson's book is also found in ALL other good books on electrodynamics. If you don't like Jackson try that other classic, A Course in Theoretical Physics by Landau and Lifshitz (the volume on continuous fields in particular.
@DrRocket,

Don't project your inability to understand elementary flaws in Maxwell's equations which fail to account for the work of the homopolar generator onto others. I explained that carefully and all that remains is for you to understand it.

As for the Einsten's "theory" of relativity, as I said I'm no going to discuss it here. I will only note that said theory has nothing to do with the Lorentz transformations despite the claim therein that it does. You have absolutely no clue as to what said "theory" is all about (proof for that is your pushing that it is Lorentz-invariant which can easily be seen that it is not in addition to everything else wrong with it) so please don't bring that "theory" any further in this discussion. It's one thing to believe every word Jackson says and quite another to understand and care for the truth.

74. Originally Posted by Omnibus
As for the Einsten's "theory" of relativity, as I said I'm no going to discuss it here. I will only note that said theory has nothing to do with the Lorentz transformations despite the claim therein that it does. You have absolutely no clue as to what said "theory" is all about (proof for that is your pushing that it is Lorentz-invariant which can easily be seen that it is not in addition to everything else wrong with it) so please don't bring that "theory" any further in this discussion. It's one thing to believe every word Jackson says and quite another to understand and care for the truth.
Out of interest, are you ever going to justify this line of thought in the thread which I created for it?

I don't believe for a moment that you haven't spotted it.

It makes one think that you're all talk and no walk.

75. Originally Posted by sox
Originally Posted by Omnibus
As for the Einsten's "theory" of relativity, as I said I'm no going to discuss it here. I will only note that said theory has nothing to do with the Lorentz transformations despite the claim therein that it does. You have absolutely no clue as to what said "theory" is all about (proof for that is your pushing that it is Lorentz-invariant which can easily be seen that it is not in addition to everything else wrong with it) so please don't bring that "theory" any further in this discussion. It's one thing to believe every word Jackson says and quite another to understand and care for the truth.
Out of interest, are you ever going to justify this line of thought in the thread which I created for it?

I don't believe for a moment that you haven't spotted it.

It makes one think that you're all talk and no walk.
In all honesty, I have not spotted it because I'm only following this particular thread. If you're too following it you'll know that your impression of me being all talk and no walk is incorrect--I have given concrete arguments as to why Maxwell's equations are inadequate in describing the physical reality because there's at least one example (the unipolar generator) where they don't predict the outcome from the experiment.

As for Einstein's "theory" of relativity neither do I have the time to devote to discussing that nonsense nor it deserves any discussion at all. I have written a number of texts which finalize the debate regarding that "theory" without any further discussion needed. If you're interested you may contact me privately. Internet badwidth should not be wasted for discussions of something so ridiculous as Einstein's "theory" of relativity thus legitimizing it as something that deserves debate.

76. Originally Posted by Omnibus

As for the Einsten's "theory" of relativity, as I said I'm no going to discuss it here. I will only note that said theory has nothing to do with the Lorentz transformations despite the claim therein that it does. You have absolutely no clue as to what said "theory" is all about (proof for that is your pushing that it is Lorentz-invariant which can easily be seen that it is not in addition to everything else wrong with it) so please don't bring that "theory" any further in this discussion. It's one thing to believe every word Jackson says and quite another to understand and care for the truth.
So, you know as little about special relativity as you do about classical electrodynamics. The (inhomogeneous) Lorentz transformation group completely defines and determines special relativity. In fact one way to develop the theory is to consider the group of transformations that preserve the Minkowski inner product and also preserve the direction of time. From that you can get ALL of special relativity -- in short the Lorentz transformations are pretty much the whole thing.

It is not a matter, in my case, of believing Jackson, but rather a matter of UNDERSTANDING classical electrodynamics, for which Jackson is one of the very best available references. You don't have to take anything as a belief when you can understand the theory and derive the necessary results.

I have quite a bit more than just a clue.

Do you really think that the entire population of professional physicists has been duped for over a century with regard to one of the basic theories that underpins the discipline?

77. Originally Posted by Omnibus
Originally Posted by TheDr.Spo
Originally Posted by Omnibus
As for the Einstein's "theory" of relativity, it isn't even a theory but a useless creation based on internal contradictions which should be removed from science in its entirety.
Do expound.
This thread discusses Faraday's induction law, not Einstein's "theory" of relativity, so, I think, expounding on the latter is out of place here.
I think that ill-thought out post of yours is considered out-of-place. You clearly need to explain in greater detail if you are going to offer a bold statement such as that. I do not think I need to point out why. Simply saying, "It's wrong because in can be," over and over won't convince anyone. In your defense, you have offered a more specific example, but it has only been mentioned as a name.

The topic is relevant to the discussion. At least, it appears to be so to me (someone correct me if I'm wrong). Go into detail already, if you are so confident. However, if you want to stick with what "this thread discusses", as you say, then I suggest watching what you say.

78. Originally Posted by TheDr.Spo

I think that ill-thought out post of yours is considered out-of-place. You clearly need to explain in greater detail if you are going to offer a bold statement such as that. I do not think I need to point out why. Simply saying, "It's wrong because in can be," over and over won't convince anyone. In your defense, you have offered a more specific example, but it has only been mentioned as a name.

The topic is relevant to the discussion. At least, it appears to be so to me (someone .
His "more specific example" is the homopolar generator, which is adequately explained by classical electrodynamics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homopolar_generator

It is actually quite simple. Consider a constant magnetic field oriented normal to a rotating conductive disc. The free electrons react to the Lorentz force and produce a radially asymmetric charge distribution which creates a corresponding electric field -- the EMF. No time varying B field is required and Faraday's law is not contradicted. What omnibus fails t recognize s that the E field must obey both Faraday's law and Gauss's law and that the Lorentz force in the homopolar generator results in a non-zero divergence of the E field. ALL of the Maxwell equations are valid, including Faraday's law. The Lorentz force equation is also valid. And Maxwell's equations plus the Lorentz force equation completely describe classical electrodynamics.

79. Originally Posted by DrRocket
Do you really think that the entire population of professional physicists has been duped for over a century with regard to one of the basic theories that underpins the discipline?
Dr. Rocket why are you always so angry? Do you need a hug? Not the entire population, but big part of it has been duped on and on (with Einstein, string theory etc). Why are you surprised? You just need some media hype to fool the entire planet. There are people working hard to clean the street, to build houses, to cook in a restaurant, why physicists find it so hard to say "I don't know". It's easy ganging up against Omnibus here, only because you are afraid of going against what the "Bible" said.

80. You and Omnibus must be buddies. You don't seem to have any regard for DrRocket's explanations of why Omnibus' ideas are flat out wrong and don't appear to have any real concept of how science works.

Science is more than willing to say "I don't know", but at the same time they are saying "I am trying to find out". Einstein's relativity has been exhaustively tested and have passed with flying colours, though it is STILL being tested. Nobody is accepting anything as holy without investigating how accurate it is.

You want to know why people get miffed by people like you and Omnibus? It is because you arrogantly come and talk about conspiracy notions and dismiss well research theories with a wave of the hand without knowing the first thing about how science works or the subject matter. You are an annoyance, but not a significant one as nobody with the slightest bit of knowledge will take your ramblings seriously.

81. Originally Posted by Myuncle
Dr. Rocket why are you always so angry?
Because he is an asshole. He just happens to be an intelligent, well educated asshole whose price for enlightening others who don't quite deserve to be enlightened is to savage them at every opportunity.

Originally Posted by Myuncle
Not the entire population, but big part of it has been duped on and on (with Einstein, string theory etc).
You realise the radical stupidity of placing Einstein and string theory in the same group? Yes? No?

Originally Posted by Myuncle
You just need some media hype to fool the entire planet..
What has media hype got to do with science? Certainly media hype sometimes invades and abuses scientific pronouncements, but are you seriously suggesting that scientists are duped by it?

Originally Posted by Myuncle
There are people working hard to clean the street, to build houses, to cook in a restaurant, why physicists find it so hard to say "I don't know".
Physicists routinely say 'I don't know'. For ****'s sake, that's why they are physicists. Do you have no idea how science works, or what motivates scientists? Apparently not. If you wish to make useful contributions to a science forum it might pay you to find out.

Originally Posted by Myuncle
It's easy ganging up against Omnibus here, only because you are afraid of going against what the "Bible" said.
Again, such fullscale ignorance of how science works. Science is about questioning the status quo. Guess what, the status quo is badly named, for it is a continually moving target.

Before you ask why am I angry - and I am - I get seriously offended by trite, trivial, unthinking remarks of the type you have made here. Ignorance is nothing to be proud of. Stop acting as if you are.

82. Originally Posted by Ophiolite
Originally Posted by Myuncle
Dr. Rocket why are you always so angry?
Because he is an asshole. He just happens to be an intelligent, well educated asshole whose price for enlightening others who don't quite deserve to be enlightened is to savage them at every opportunity.
Wrong.

It is a matter of integrity and regard for the lurkers who typically outnumber the active participants.

The mathematics and physics forums are billed as venues for the discussion of legitimate science, They are neither the Pseudoscience nor the New Hypotheses forums. There is no place in these forums for misrepresentation of legitimate science by ignorant fools or for idiotic statements to the effect that well-established and well-substantiated science is wrong.

That does not mean that one cannot discuss the potential strengths and weaknesses of legitimate on-going research, but it does require that one know the difference between established physical principles (within the known domain of validity) and tripe. The are people, quite a few, who are clearly unable to make this distinction due to ignorance, stupidity, or a combination of both. Those individuals deserve to be clearly labeled as the fools that they are for the benefit of the many innocent lurkers. Those lurkers may well be individuals of some value to society, in stark contrast to the fools.

There are only a few reasons for a hard science forum. One is to generate revenue for the owners from advertisers who measure value in terms of hits and post counts. That is well and for the owners but of zero interest to me.

A second reason is for the education of participants and lurkers. This is of interest to me. This objective requires that the discussions of the topics at hand be accurate. There is no place for statements to the effect that well-established theories backed by a mountain of data are badly wrong -- such statements are pseudoscience at is worst. One can certainly discuss the known limitations of physical theory, and that is done here regularly and productively.

It is of importance that discussions be either in the form of reasonable questions or assertions that are correct. Ridiculous assertions, particularly when repeated, need to be clearly labeled as the tripe that they are, corrected, and appropriate references to mainstream sources given. I have done just that. I have sufficient education and experience to be able to address many topics in these two forums with expertise. When you get your PhD and a couple of decades of experience you will be able to do that too.

I see no reason to suffer fools gladly, particularly when they are so numerous. This applies in particular to some of the more blatant fools, like omnibus, Waveman 28 and nokton, with Kojax coming on up fast. The downside is that the population of fools seems to increasing and the emphasis of the ownership is in quantity and profits rather than quality (private communication from a moderator). It is rapidly becoming tiresome as the quality of the forum deteriorates.

83. Originally Posted by DrRocket
Originally Posted by Omnibus

As for the Einsten's "theory" of relativity, as I said I'm no going to discuss it here. I will only note that said theory has nothing to do with the Lorentz transformations despite the claim therein that it does. You have absolutely no clue as to what said "theory" is all about (proof for that is your pushing that it is Lorentz-invariant which can easily be seen that it is not in addition to everything else wrong with it) so please don't bring that "theory" any further in this discussion. It's one thing to believe every word Jackson says and quite another to understand and care for the truth.
So, you know as little about special relativity as you do about classical electrodynamics. The (inhomogeneous) Lorentz transformation group completely defines and determines special relativity. In fact one way to develop the theory is to consider the group of transformations that preserve the Minkowski inner product and also preserve the direction of time. From that you can get ALL of special relativity -- in short the Lorentz transformations are pretty much the whole thing.

It is not a matter, in my case, of believing Jackson, but rather a matter of UNDERSTANDING classical electrodynamics, for which Jackson is one of the very best available references. You don't have to take anything as a belief when you can understand the theory and derive the necessary results.

I have quite a bit more than just a clue.

Do you really think that the entire population of professional physicists has been duped for over a century with regard to one of the basic theories that underpins the discipline?
Yes, I do. The way that has happened with any theory that has, for a certain time, been governing in science and then has been rejected. The present case is even worse. The creation in question cannot even qualify as a theory, as I already said. As a matter of fact, you continue to prove you have no clue as to what that creation really is by invoking Minkovski.

On the topic under discussion--it is you, not I who has proved lack of understanding of classical electrodynamics because you fail to understand that Maxwell's equations lead to conclusions contrary to at least one experiment and cannot derive the Loretz force.

84. Originally Posted by DrRocket
Originally Posted by TheDr.Spo

I think that ill-thought out post of yours is considered out-of-place. You clearly need to explain in greater detail if you are going to offer a bold statement such as that. I do not think I need to point out why. Simply saying, "It's wrong because in can be," over and over won't convince anyone. In your defense, you have offered a more specific example, but it has only been mentioned as a name.

The topic is relevant to the discussion. At least, it appears to be so to me (someone .
His "more specific example" is the homopolar generator, which is adequately explained by classical electrodynamics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homopolar_generator

It is actually quite simple. Consider a constant magnetic field oriented normal to a rotating conductive disc. The free electrons react to the Lorentz force and produce a radially asymmetric charge distribution which creates a corresponding electric field -- the EMF. No time varying B field is required and Faraday's law is not contradicted. What omnibus fails t recognize s that the E field must obey both Faraday's law and Gauss's law and that the Lorentz force in the homopolar generator results in a non-zero divergence of the E field. ALL of the Maxwell equations are valid, including Faraday's law. The Lorentz force equation is also valid. And Maxwell's equations plus the Lorentz force equation completely describe classical electrodynamics.
Lorentz force is not external to Maxwell's equations. If Maxwell's equations are correct Lorentz force should be derived from them. It can't be derived from them, however. Einstein's attempt notwithstanding.

85. Originally Posted by TheDr.Spo
Originally Posted by Omnibus
Originally Posted by TheDr.Spo
Originally Posted by Omnibus
As for the Einstein's "theory" of relativity, it isn't even a theory but a useless creation based on internal contradictions which should be removed from science in its entirety.
Do expound.
This thread discusses Faraday's induction law, not Einstein's "theory" of relativity, so, I think, expounding on the latter is out of place here.
I think that ill-thought out post of yours is considered out-of-place. You clearly need to explain in greater detail if you are going to offer a bold statement such as that. I do not think I need to point out why. Simply saying, "It's wrong because in can be," over and over won't convince anyone. In your defense, you have offered a more specific example, but it has only been mentioned as a name.

The topic is relevant to the discussion. At least, it appears to be so to me (someone correct me if I'm wrong). Go into detail already, if you are so confident. However, if you want to stick with what "this thread discusses", as you say, then I suggest watching what you say.
I fully understand that such would be the expectation had this been an honest debate. Honest debate it is not. Denying the obvious contradiction between the Maxwell equations and the outcome from measurement of emf in one crucial experiment proves it. It is dishonest to resort to the Lorentz force before first admitting that Maxwell's equations are collapsing in that one crucial instance.

How can you ask me to go on, discussing other issues, when this one isn't resolved? Let alone that the other issue is so ridiculous that it doesn't even deserve a debate.

Let me also add that claims for experimental confirmation with regard to that other issue are mere propaganda that has no truth in it.

86. Originally Posted by Omnibus
...and the outcome from measurement of emf in one crucial experiment proves it.

....

Let me also add that claims for experimental confirmation with regard to that other issue are mere propaganda that has no truth in it.

I smell hypocrisy in this.

87. Originally Posted by TheDr.Spo
Originally Posted by Omnibus
...and the outcome from measurement of emf in one crucial experiment proves it.

....

Let me also add that claims for experimental confirmation with regard to that other issue are mere propaganda that has no truth in it.

I smell hypocrisy in this.
At least.

I detect a large dose of incompetence spiced up with plain old stupidity.

88. Originally Posted by TheDr.Spo
Originally Posted by Omnibus
...and the outcome from measurement of emf in one crucial experiment proves it.

....

Let me also add that claims for experimental confirmation with regard to that other issue are mere propaganda that has no truth in it.

I smell hypocrisy in this.
While one may indeed question the outcome from an experiment such as the one with the unipolar generator (no one does, though, because emf there is indeed measured experimentally) the outcome from any experiment whatsoever cannot have anything to do with Einstein's "theory" of relativity because it is not even a theory. A creation such as that "theory", based on internal contradictions, is nonsense, not a theory and cannot have basis in any experiment. Where's the hypocrisy?

89. Originally Posted by DrRocket
Originally Posted by TheDr.Spo
Originally Posted by Omnibus
...and the outcome from measurement of emf in one crucial experiment proves it.

....

Let me also add that claims for experimental confirmation with regard to that other issue are mere propaganda that has no truth in it.

I smell hypocrisy in this.
At least.

I detect a large dose of incompetence spiced up with plain old stupidity.
This is just another ad hominem attack from you for lack of arguments.

Here's a test for your competence--Maxwell's equations collapse because they cannot derive the emf measured experimentally in the unipolar generator, right?

90. Originally Posted by Omnibus
[This is just another ad hominem attack from you for lack of arguments.

Here's a test for your competence--Maxwell's equations collapse because they cannot derive the emf measured experimentally in the unipolar generator, right?
Calling an idiot an idiot is merely an identification, not an attack.

I have explained, in terms of classical electrodynamics how a homoplar generator works. I also provided additional links. Your inability to understand is not my problem.

Maxwell's equations are just fine.

91. Originally Posted by DrRocket
Originally Posted by Omnibus
[This is just another ad hominem attack from you for lack of arguments.

Here's a test for your competence--Maxwell's equations collapse because they cannot derive the emf measured experimentally in the unipolar generator, right?
Calling an idiot an idiot is merely an identification, not an attack.

I have explained, in terms of classical electrodynamics how a homoplar generator works. I also provided additional links. Your inability to understand is not my problem.

Maxwell's equations are just fine.
No, you haven't shown that the emf observed experimentally in a homopolar generator can be derived from the Maxwell equations. This is not calling you an idiot, which would be ad hominem attack, never mind whether or not you are such, but is a demonstrable fact pertaining to the debate. Resoting to random sources to escape from that fact isn't helping either. Like I said, you have to live with that fact and not try to finagle or abuse the opponent.

92. Originally Posted by Omnibus
Originally Posted by DrRocket
Originally Posted by Omnibus
[This is just another ad hominem attack from you for lack of arguments.

Here's a test for your competence--Maxwell's equations collapse because they cannot derive the emf measured experimentally in the unipolar generator, right?
Calling an idiot an idiot is merely an identification, not an attack.

I have explained, in terms of classical electrodynamics how a homoplar generator works. I also provided additional links. Your inability to understand is not my problem.

Maxwell's equations are just fine.
No, you haven't shown that the emf observed experimentally in a homopolar generator can be derived from the Maxwell equations. This is not calling you an idiot, which would be ad hominem attack, never mind whether or not you are such, but is a demonstrable fact pertaining to the debate. Resoting to random sources to escape from that fact isn't helping either. Like I said, you have to live with that fact and not try to finagle or abuse the opponent.
Read the damn explanation. It requires understanding the Lorentz equation as well as Maxwell's equations (in other words it requires undersanding classical electrodynamics). Any idiot should be able to see that.

93. Originally Posted by DrRocket
Any idiot should be able to see that.
I can't see it. Does this mean I'm not an idiot? 8)

94. Originally Posted by Ophiolite
Originally Posted by DrRocket
Any idiot should be able to see that.
I can't see it. Does this mean I'm not an idiot? 8)
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

95. this thread definitively needs to be trashed. Denying understood topics as wrong and contradictory even in the face of evidence has no place here. The "failling" of maxwell's equations here, in your opinion, has to do with the way you are looking at the situation, which is inherently fallacious and counterproductive to the advancement of your own education. wiki's pages on the Homopolar Generator, Faraday's Paradox, and Maxwell's equations give sufficient information on why you are wrong, and as I'm sure the bear can point out, are sufficiently accurate for our purposes here. I was able to understand an abundance of what was in the pages, and I thoroughly agree with Rocket and Wiki over you, omnibus.

96. In my personal opinion, I think Omnibus is either trying to make a name for himself or intentionally inciting anger and laughing to himself.

Unless, Omnibus, you can produce your so-called experimental data that leads to your hitherto conclusion for all of us to review and compare. That would certainly put an end to this stalemate.

97. Originally Posted by TheDr.Spo
In my personal opinion, I think Omnibus is either trying to make a name for himself or intentionally inciting anger and laughing to himself.

Unless, Omnibus, you can produce your so-called experimental data that leads to your hitherto conclusion for all of us to review and compare. That would certainly put an end to this stalemate.
Produce experimental data for what?

98. Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
this thread definitively needs to be trashed. Denying understood topics as wrong and contradictory even in the face of evidence has no place here. The "failling" of maxwell's equations here, in your opinion, has to do with the way you are looking at the situation, which is inherently fallacious and counterproductive to the advancement of your own education. wiki's pages on the Homopolar Generator, Faraday's Paradox, and Maxwell's equations give sufficient information on why you are wrong, and as I'm sure the bear can point out, are sufficiently accurate for our purposes here. I was able to understand an abundance of what was in the pages, and I thoroughly agree with Rocket and Wiki over you, omnibus.
So, then, explain how Maxwell's equations derive the emf in the homopolar generator.

99. Originally Posted by Omnibus
...Maxwell's equations lead to conclusions contrary to at least one experiment and cannot derive the Loretz force.
There are countless posts where you claim experimental measurements do not match. This is only part of one of them (I did not want to bother going through the pages to look for a better example). I am asking you to prove that the results you claim actually exist. You know about them. I assume you have access. So, prove it.

I am not going to fuel the fire by adding to the redundant back-and-forth of this thread. Instead, I hope to coax something a bit more educational out of this. I am not accusing, simply asking. It should be in your best interest to oblige me and the rest of us following this thread.

100. Originally Posted by TheDr.Spo
Originally Posted by Omnibus
...Maxwell's equations lead to conclusions contrary to at least one experiment and cannot derive the Loretz force.
There are countless posts where you claim experimental measurements do not match. This is only part of one of them (I did not want to bother going through the pages to look for a better example). I am asking you to prove that the results you claim actually exist. You know about them. I assume you have access. So, prove it.

I am not going to fuel the fire by adding to the redundant back-and-forth of this thread. Instead, I hope to coax something a bit more educational out of this. I am not accusing, simply asking. It should be in your best interest to oblige me and the rest of us following this thread.
I again don't get your point. I can't prove anything concerning experiments in this exchange for obvious reasons. Here I can only tell you in words what is already known about the experiment in question (experimental observation of emf in the unipolar generator). Unfortunately, in a forum exchange like this you will have to take my word for it. If you don't trust me you may ask the other participants and see if they will deny what I claim with regard to that experiment. Another option is for you to carry out the experiment yourself and report the outcome here. I assure you that if you do it correctly you will observe emf. Hope that clears the issue.

101. Originally Posted by TheDr.Spo
In my personal opinion, I think Omnibus is either trying to make a name for himself or intentionally inciting anger and laughing to himself.

Unless, Omnibus, you can produce your so-called experimental data that leads to your hitherto conclusion for all of us to review and compare. That would certainly put an end to this stalemate.
He is trying and succeeding in making a name. Delusional Fool.

There can be no experimental data. His device is the well-known homopolar generator which works as described. The operation is explained by classical electrodynamics -- see my posts (with links above). Numnuts doesn't understand the explanation, and on that basis claims that classical electrodynamics is wrong.

It is not an experimental issue. Everyone agrees that the homopolar generator produces a small voltage.

In short, the logic (of Omnibus himself) is that since Omnibus is stupid, a foundational theory of physics must be wrong.

If only that which Omnibus correctly understands can be true, then the body of scientific knowledge is small indeed.

Page 1 of 3 123 Last
 Bookmarks
##### Bookmarks
 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement