Doh...
Theories are - just theories? And math is just - math? Ok.
You should distinguish between a NEW theories (BigBang, singularity, string, Black stuff, branes..) and a (currently) WORKING "laws", based on what used to be theories...

Newtonian laws are - a theory?
Ohm law is a theory? Kirchhoff, Lenz, Faraday,...

Tell me, what kind of method you use for backing up your claims? Since Math is just math, etc.


Wilby, you're a thinking person, that's what I understood through our conversations in the past..

"yes, a verifiable proof that your claim is correct is needed."

Read whatever you can get your hands on. And, please, start at the beginning, with the basics.
 

spinner, why do all your 'laws' have paradoxes associated with them?

ohm's law (charge decay) paradox.
kirchhoff's rule and the two capacitor paradox.
lenz (dungey's paradox, sweet's paradox)
faraday's paradox.

etc. etc. ad infinitum, ad nauseam...

Pythagoras's? You have some problems with him?
Lol, it's "just" a theory? From which planet are you, really? a2+b2=c2? Tough... Let us all hear your explanation, how would you calculate the Pythagorean stuff...

no i have no problem with him. i am asking you WHY after thousands of years and hundreds of proofs is pythagoras' theorem not called a 'law'? i thought my point was obvious...

You claim you know where The "laws" are based? GOOD for you! I tried to told you (and the gang) several times in the past (repeating the obvious), but you were all too much  self-confident about your own level of "understanding".. And the result is known. If I remember correctly, you defended everyone (no matter how his/her thinking was off, if that person exhibited at least a noticeable rate of hate towards current "science"). Plus you haven't produced anything of a (real) value during this time. Or maybe you have?
Just tell us.

yes, the 'laws' are based on assumptions... theories... and shoddy math. and no, you don't remember correctly. furthermore, what i have or have not produced is irrelevant. this is just another one of your logical fallacies as a response.

Idiot!
Sorry. Apologise. You're not dumb, as it seems on a first sight, you're just completely lost...

more logical fallacy from you as usual. why are you avoiding the simple questions i posed to you?

Ohm's law "paradox"? 
"Two capacitors" paradox? 

Jeeeez.

I know.. Both are paradoxes - at least for you.
 
Faraday's "paradox"? Now here's an area for discussion. Maybe? Or, not, really.

"etc. etc. ad infinitum, ad nauseam..."
I'm sure you'll contribute at least one original, NEW paradox...

your response is denied: logical fallacy. try a cogent argument next time... if you know what one is.

let's get back to my main point, which you so neatly attempted to obfuscate with your logical fallacies (strawman, red herring, ad hominem)...
you have nothing that supports your claim that burden of proof is on broli...

"i am asking you WHY after thousands of years and hundreds of proofs is pythagoras' theorem not called a 'law'? i thought my point was obvious... "

Well, in some parts of this lo(n/v)ely planet called Earth, it is actually called "a Law"...
 

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



so you are saying that 'law' and 'theorem' are synonymous. your semantic argument is as lame as the rest of your arguments... you might as well return to your logical fallacies. if you chose again to refuse to respond with a cogent argument, i will not reply.

Oh boy.

............................................________
 ....................................,.-‘”...................``~.,
 .............................,.-”...................................“-.,
 .........................,/...............................................”:,
 .....................,?......................................................\,
 .................../...........................................................,}
 ................./......................................................,:`^`..}
 .............../...................................................,:”........./
 ..............?.....__.........................................:`.........../
  ............./__.(.....“~-,_..............................,:`........../
 .........../(_....”~,_........“~,_....................,:`........_/
 ..........{.._$;_......”=,_.......“-,_.......,.-~-,},.~”;/....}
 ...........((.....*~_.......”=-._......“;,,./`..../”............../
 ...,,,___.\`~,......“~.,....................`.....}............../
 ............(....`=-,,.......`........................(......;_,,-”
 ............/.`~,......`-...............................\....../\
 .............\`~.*-,.....................................|,./.....\,__
 ,,_..........}.>-._\...................................|..............`=~-,
  .....`=~-,_\_......`\,.................................\
 ...................`=~-,,.\,...............................\
 ................................`:,,...........................`\..............__
 .....................................`=-,...................,%`>--==``
 ........................................_\..........._,-%.......`\
 ...................................,<`.._|_,-&``................`\

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



so you are saying that 'law' and 'theorem' are synonymous. your semantic argument is as lame as the rest of your arguments... you might as well return to your logical fallacies. if you chose again to refuse to respond with a cogent argument, i will not reply.

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

The latest thread on homopolar motors made me think about some old concepts again, one of them being the "homotenna" idea.

I had this new idea and thought it was worth sharing at the very least.

The concept is simple, you have a coil wrapped around a ferrite core. This would be your rotor. Then both ends of this coil are connected to rings sliding against brushes leading to your exterior circuit. One lead of this circuit is electromagnetically shielded.
The circuit is then energized with HF AC, the high frequency being crucial and somewhere between 10kHz-1Mhz so the shield can do its job shielding the electromagnetic field.

The theory behind it is also simple. We already know that the external circuit in a homopolar motor causes the torque on the disk/magnet assembly. However if the below concept were to be energized with DC current both external wires would cause an equal but opposite torque on the rotor assembly leading to no motion. But if we were to replace the PM with an EM and fed it with HF AC current through the stationary leads AND we can shield one lead completely so its EM field becomes invisble to the rotor then a net torque could arise. Since both the current in the coil and the current going through the external circuit lead are the same and synchronized, this should lead to a torque acting only in one direction on the rotor. And since there's no coil part going from rim to center, there should be no induced back emf.

The key here is the shielding of the field of one lead and making it disappear to the rotating magnet. This is much more efficient than the antenna idea as currents can be higher and frequency lower.