Look at Tuesday's posts about midday.

I looked through all of Tuesday's posts and I found no acknowledgement of a mistake on your part further in the thread, in regards to the question at hand.  I'm not chasing the wind.  Since you made the extraordinary claim of acknowledging your mistake further in the thread, then the burden of proof is on you.

Gravock

I looked through all of Tuesday's posts and I found no acknowledgement of a mistake on your part further in the thread, in regards to the question at hand.  I'm not chasing the wind.  Since you made the extraordinary claim of acknowledging your mistake further in the thread, then the burden of proof is on you.

Gravock

There is nothing extraordinary about my statement.  It is just a simple statement of fact that you or anyone else can easily verify is true. 

There is nothing extraordinary about my statement.  It is just a simple statement of fact that you or anyone else can easily verify is true.

There is a distinction between a perfect conductor and a superconductor.  The Meissner effect in superconductors is distinct from Lenz's law in a perfect conductor.  Reply # 764 is in regards to a superconductor where you provided the wrong answer to the question, which the question itself was also in reference to a superconductor.  However, reply # 797, which you tried to use as an escape goat, is in regards to a perfect inductor and isn't relevant to the wrong answer you provided in reply # 764.  All you did was to muddy the water so you could escape if it was necessary.  In other words, you were playing both the "yes" card and the "no" card simultaneously to the same question where it would appear you wasn't wrong, regardless of the correct answer.

Gravock

There is a distinction between a perfect conductor and a superconductor.  The Meissner effect in superconductors is distinct from Lenz's law in a perfect conductor.  Reply # 764 is in regards to a superconductor where you provided the wrong answer to the question, which the question itself was also in reference to a superconductor.  However, reply # 797, which you tried to use as an escape goat, is in regards to a perfect inductor and isn't relevant to the wrong answer you provided in reply # 764.  All you did was to muddy the water so you could escape if it was necessary.  In other words, you were playing both the "yes" card and the "no" card simultaneously to the same question where it would appear you wasn't wrong, regardless of the correct answer.

Gravock

If you would like to discuss a post, it is easy enough to quote it.  Mind reading is a different skill.

If you would like to discuss a post, it is easy enough to quote it.  Mind reading is a different skill.

You will find the quotes below.....

Below is a quote from Verpies asking you a question in reference to a superconducting air coil.....

Instead of proving the obvious to me, you should concentrate on answering this interesting question:
Q: "A magnet is pulled out of a shorted superconducting aircoil.  Does the magnitude of the final current induced in that coil depend on how quickly the magnet is pulled out ?".

and you replied yes.......

The answer is yes: changing dB/dt changes the induced current.

The below quote is your escape goat for the wrong answer you gave above, which references a perfect inductor instead of a superconductor, as per the original question........

Actually the one thing that I overlooked is that the coil looking like a perfect inductor will identically integrate the rate of change in flux with respect to time, which should lead to a constant induction for a given magnet starting from a fixed distance.  Retracting the magnet in the opposite direction to its initial position relative to the ring reverses out whatever current was induced by bringing the magnet closer to the ring.

Lenz's law in a perfect conductor is distinct from the Meissner effect in superconductors, and you can not mix the two as you have done.  All you did was to muddy the water between a perfect conductor and a superconductor, so you could escape if it was necessary.  In other words, you were playing both the "yes" card and the "no" card simultaneously to the same question where it would appear you wasn't wrong, regardless of the correct answer.

Gravock

Yes we have seen this thread diverge into familiar territory the past few pages but what about the QEG?  To the recent posters, Gravityblock, Acca, and others, what do you think?  Real or fake?

That sounds to me like you are playing the "fake" card and the "real" card at the same time.