Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

New theories about free energy systems => Theory of overunity and free energy => Topic started by: Eighthman on April 03, 2016, 04:01:18 PM

Title: Why Doesn't A Magnet 'Feel' Like A Gyroscope?
Post by: Eighthman on April 03, 2016, 04:01:18 PM
If you pick up a spinning gyroscope or any spinning mass, you will feel or see the effects of inertia and centrifugal force. The gyro will resist your efforts to twist away from the plane of its rotation.


OK, so why don't all permanent magnets do this? Do electrons have mass? Are they spinning? Are those spins aligned ( as the REASON WHY it has a magnetic field)? 


https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110405161715AAuefVm          I can't find any clear answer to this question. Indeed, it gets more weird as you look at it since some physics books claim that magnetism IS a form of centrifugal force.


I wonder if the answer to this question could open up some very important discoveries.
Title: Re: Why Doesn't A Magnet 'Feel' Like A Gyroscope?
Post by: kolbacict on April 03, 2016, 04:57:25 PM
Quote
OK, so why don't all permanent magnets do this?

but perhaps some of them work as a gyro? :)
Title: Re: Why Doesn't A Magnet 'Feel' Like A Gyroscope?
Post by: lumen on April 03, 2016, 05:46:52 PM
If the electrons generating the magnetic field were orbiting in the same direction as believed, one would think there would be some sign of a gyroscopic effect. Because there is no gyroscopic action one might wonder what is actually going on right?

One might also wonder why another magnetic field in the opposite direction does not stop the electrons orbit and the best it can do is cause it to spin out of alignment but never stop or dislodge the electron from it's orbit.

The atom's energy appears endless.
Title: Re: Why Doesn't A Magnet 'Feel' Like A Gyroscope?
Post by: Eighthman on April 03, 2016, 05:48:35 PM
You can explain attraction and repulsion really easy - as vortices of spinning movement that push or pull towards each other.


However, this still leaves us with the basic question 'why don't these aligned spins cause the magnet to behave like a gyroscope'?
Title: Re: Why Doesn't A Magnet 'Feel' Like A Gyroscope?
Post by: Pirate88179 on April 03, 2016, 06:35:49 PM
You can explain attraction and repulsion really easy - as vortices of spinning movement that push or pull towards each other.


However, this still leaves us with the basic question 'why don't these aligned spins cause the magnet to behave like a gyroscope'?

I was not aware that a magnetic field is made up of moving electrons.  If this were true, then all you would need to do to generate electricity would be to place a magnet near a coil of wire.  We know that you must provide the movement between the coil and the magnet to get a current so, would this not mean then that the field is not made of moving electrons?

I believe that physicists do not really know what a magnetic field is made of...they know everything about how it responds in various situations but, I think the jury is still out on what makes up that field.  I, of course, could be wrong.

Bill
Title: Re: Why Doesn't A Magnet 'Feel' Like A Gyroscope?
Post by: sm0ky2 on April 03, 2016, 08:08:18 PM
Quote
The atom's energy appears endless.

This is only because of our finite perspective.
eventually, it will die, or something environmental will cause it to change forms, either decay or procay
into something else.

Also, the electrons themselves come and go throughout the lifetime of the nucleus.

When matter forms, there are 6 parts that are generated from the aether.
4 electric, 2 magnetic.
there is a 99% chance that it will form into two stable groups of 3,
two electric particles, head to tail, and a magnetic particle bridging their other ends into a triangle.
each triangle being equal and opposite to each other, and they will both be annihilated into a burst of energy.

there is a 1% chance that one or the other will fail to form a stable bond.
When this occurs, the remainder may be set free to roam as matter, or anti-matter.
Since the conditions that allow for anti-matter to form from a group of quarks,
only generally occurs during the formation of matter,
if the matter fails to form, the anti-matter will also not form,
leading to a greater number of matter forming in our universe, than anti-matter.

the remaining particles eventually find other particles to collide with,
and form into leptons and other fermions and such.

each of these "stable" formations, can undergo a state of decay or elevation into a more complex bond.
Due to interaction with particles and other atoms.
The conditions necessary to prevent this are unachievable by human standards,
thus every nuclei and particle has a form of "half-life" that can be calculated.
not exactly the same as radioactive half-life, but the same form of statistical representation
of how long half of a sample will exist.

most stable atoms will be around much longer than us, the earth, our sun, and everything we will ever know about.
we could say that it seems endless, unless 'ended' by some outside force.

the energy contained in the nuclei is due to the interactions of both the electric and magnetic forces.
the first electric particle sends a signal at almost the speed of light, into the other electric particle.
think of these like two electrets in series.

the magnetic particle sees no "time", in the sense of what we think of as time.
what "is", within the magnetic quark, "is" throughout the quark.
So, when the signal from the electric quark reaches the magnetic, it is already presented as the tail end of the first electric quark. You can think of this as occurring instantaneously.
even though the physical distance is nearly 2/3 of the atomic radius.
This interaction triangle, presents an oscillation, or fluctuation to radiate from the nucleus.
At a wavelength equal to the 2x the atomic radius. (or the diameter of the nucleus)
[all atoms radiate.  They are only considered "radioactive", when they emit particles.]

At the same time all this is going on, the nucleus is spinning around, in every direction,
like NASA's manned gyroscope.
Distorting the space around the nucleus, as well as time (which resolves the Einsteinian problem stated above)

The electron, being an electric-type fragment 0.0001 of an electric anti-quark
has the opposite electric charge to the electric particles in the nucleus.
and is attracted to the nucleic electro-magnetic force
these types of particles move at nearly the speed of light,
because they are electrically charged, and have very small masses.
And because there is a dielectric field gradient permeating throughout all the space around us.
which gives them a velocity and vector, depending on which way they are facing, and the magnitude of their charge,
as well as, their mass. they do have some mass, which is why they don't move at exactly the speed of light.

It is moving so fast however, that it cannot ever reach the nucleus.
the outward forces of the orbital momentum are balanced with the attractive electromagnetic forces.

similar to what occurs with gravity in free space.
like our planet orbiting the sun.

This orbit, occurs at almost the speed of light.
We have a standing wave, the diameter of the nucleus.
and an electron orbiting at a radius
the rest is as easy as Pi.

around one loop, creates the Magnetic Moment.
The number of these moments, that fits into one second of time,
gives you the magnetic frequency of the atom.

normally, the nucleus is spinning around, as well as the electrons' orbit
is always changing, like the moon, except that its not always facing the nucleus,
the electrons 'face' spins around on its' own function.
so, normally, atoms are not "magnetized" on their own.

when you have several atoms, like in a chunk of metal
and we magnetize it.....
the nuclei are still spinning, not much changes there.
but the electrons synchronize with each other.
they repell one another most of the time, so when the orbit of one changes,
it changes the orbit of the one next to it.
they share the same space, at different times.
the strong field used to magnetize the metal, forces the electrons into the same orbital plane.
like if you have 1,000,000,000 gyroscopes on the same tabletop.
each with a tiny weight attached to them.
And then 1,000,000,000 more spinning oppositely, attached upsidedown to the same tabletop.

now, the weights are not synchronized, so the vector forces are cancelled out along the axis of the
dielectric plane.
leaving only vertical forces, up and down, equally cancelling each other out.

The polarization of the electrons' orbits, are spinning one direction at the north end of the magnet,
the are 90-degrees to this (in a 360-plane) near the dielectric plane in the center of the magnet,
and they spin the opposite direction at the south end of the magnet.

There is, therefore, no net gyroscopic force, resultant from the aligned electron orbits.

And, if there were to be set into motion, such forces.... (this can be done under discrete situations)
their magnitude would be 1/1856th or so of the total mass of the magnet itself.
and result in no net force, because of the moment of inertia of the larger mass.





Title: Re: Why Doesn't A Magnet 'Feel' Like A Gyroscope?
Post by: lumen on April 03, 2016, 08:57:32 PM


The polarization of the electrons' orbits, are spinning one direction at the north end of the magnet,
the are 90-degrees to this (in a 360-plane) near the dielectric plane in the center of the magnet,
and they spin the opposite direction at the south end of the magnet.


I would think that in order to maintain the magnetic vector through the magnet that all electron orbits (or a high percentage) would be in the same direction and should in fact cause a gyro effect. But because the effect does not exist, there must be some other factor like the electron's spin direction.(different from the electrons orbit)

If the electron's spin was a factor, then it may be possible to have opposite orbit directions and still generate a field in the same direction. This would then eliminate any gyro effect from electron orbits because opposing orbit direction would be random.

I have been trying to connect a theory I have about the gyroscopic effect of the electron spin while it's in orbit and it's connection to gravity and the self sustaining of the atoms energy.



Title: Re: Why Doesn't A Magnet 'Feel' Like A Gyroscope?
Post by: Eighthman on April 04, 2016, 02:32:00 AM
Here's a standard explanation:


http://chemwiki.ucdavis.edu/Core/Physical_Chemistry/Quantum_Mechanics/09._The_Hydrogen_Atom/Atomic_Theory/Electrons_in_Atoms/Electron_Spin


And the problem remains.  You get a magnetic field from a net (single) spinning electron.............but why not gyroscopic motion of the magnet? If you have two opposite spins, they cancel out and no field.   Weird.  I think Dewey Larson wrote a book in which he tried to explain all physics with forms of motion. To make matters worse, if I understand it correctly, quantum physicists try to deny that spin is real!
Title: Re: Why Doesn't A Magnet 'Feel' Like A Gyroscope?
Post by: Eighthman on April 04, 2016, 03:05:01 AM
OK, sm0ky2, I'll bite.


Take one gyroscope and get it spinning.  Get another and spin it in the other direction.  Neither one wants to twist.  Stick one at one end of a stick and the other at the other end of the stick.  I think you now get a vertical stick that doesn't want to turn horizontal. I think they don't cancel out and get rid of the gyroscopic behavior.  Back to the drawing board?
Title: Re: Why Doesn't A Magnet 'Feel' Like A Gyroscope?
Post by: lumen on April 04, 2016, 03:21:08 AM
I thought besides the spin there is also the orbit. If there are 2 electrons in a shell they will spin in opposite direction and cancel the field, but in the last shell if there is only one electron, it's spin will generate a field.

So the orbit would generate a much larger gyroscopic effect over an electron spinning on it's own axis and since the orbit can be either direction, it gets canclled.

If a magnet could be made to have all electrons orbit in the same direction it should have some gryoscopic effect also.
I would also think it would not be required to be a magnet if that were the case.

Though the spinning electrons by thenselves should generate some gyroscopic effect, inertial mass is calculated using the radius of the mass and even the oribital radius of an atom would be super small let alone the radius of the electron.

Interesting to think there might be a way to generate some material with a build in gyroscopic effect.
Title: Re: Why Doesn't A Magnet 'Feel' Like A Gyroscope?
Post by: Eighthman on April 04, 2016, 04:20:17 AM
I think it is surprising that we can discuss this question openly - without (apparently) any clear answer from mainstream science - and it concerns a simple question about physics. What the heck else is out there, hidden behind math and academic authority?


I wonder if we could figure out these forces as forms of motion, who knows where it would lead? It is believed that that single remaining electron spin per atom creates the crushing force of a big expensive neodymium magnet ......... but the gyro movement?  Nope, not there.
Title: Re: Why Doesn't A Magnet 'Feel' Like A Gyroscope?
Post by: MileHigh on April 04, 2016, 07:50:48 AM
You guys are all talking about this stuff but nobody is attempting to calculate any possible gyroscopic effect.  How do you know if a magnet is supposed or not supposed to feel like a gyroscope if you have no idea how large the effect is supposed to be?  For all you know it is there but the magnitude of the gyroscopic effect is insignificant.  Without attempting to crunch some numbers the discussion is meaningless.
Title: Re: Why Doesn't A Magnet 'Feel' Like A Gyroscope?
Post by: MileHigh on April 04, 2016, 07:53:13 AM
Here's a standard explanation:


http://chemwiki.ucdavis.edu/Core/Physical_Chemistry/Quantum_Mechanics/09._The_Hydrogen_Atom/Atomic_Theory/Electrons_in_Atoms/Electron_Spin (http://chemwiki.ucdavis.edu/Core/Physical_Chemistry/Quantum_Mechanics/09._The_Hydrogen_Atom/Atomic_Theory/Electrons_in_Atoms/Electron_Spin)


And the problem remains.  You get a magnetic field from a net (single) spinning electron.............but why not gyroscopic motion of the magnet? If you have two opposite spins, they cancel out and no field.   Weird.  I think Dewey Larson wrote a book in which he tried to explain all physics with forms of motion. To make matters worse, if I understand it correctly, quantum physicists try to deny that spin is real!

From a quick scan of that link that is not an explanation.  The "electron spin" that they are talking about is not the same as the possible gyroscopic effect from an electron spinning in orbit around a nucleus.
Title: Re: Why Doesn't A Magnet 'Feel' Like A Gyroscope?
Post by: sm0ky2 on April 04, 2016, 08:50:09 AM
oy veh!


the 'spin' is 90-degrees to the orbit, which is in the same vector as the magnetic polarization.
an electron's spin has very little effect on the magnetic moment.
only on the trajectory of the orbit, and subsequently, the vector of the NEXT magnetic moment....
When the orbits are aligned, this is already determined.

the cumulative 'spins' of the outer-shell electrons, in a magnetized mass,
are coherent with the stable (or slowly decaying) orbital trajectory.
meaning, the spin of an electron, at any given moment, is such that its' trajectory follows the orbit shared by its neighbors.
It is pre-determined, from the point of magnetization, until it stops being a magnet.
Within an accuracy of ~ the quantum factor.
The spins are not aligned with each other, but rather they are UNalligned, in such a way that the
orbits can synchronize without collisions.

It is the orbit, that creates the magnetic moment.
similar to induction through a single loop of wire.

the gyroscopic effect of a single electrons' orbit is so tiny,.
it does not even effect the mass of the atom itself.
much less the cumulative mass of trillions of atoms in a magnet.

take your gyroscope, and attach it to (not a stick) a giant redwood tree.
and see if that tiny gyro will prohibit the massive tree from blowing in the wind.

to simulate this, you need not two gyros on a stick,
but rather several million tiny gyros, on top and bottom of a giant stone tabletop.
then lift this tabletop with a crane, and swing it around to do your tests.

If you want to see this on a smaller scale,
take two gyros, side by side, on a spinning surface. like a turntable.
attach a counterweight to one spot around each gyro, and start them spinning so that the weights are 180-degrees out of phase.
(one weight passing through the center, while the other is swinging around the outside)
rotate them in the same direction.

Now take two more weighted gyros, and place them 90-degrees to the first two,
but at a different radial distance from the center of rotation.
either closer to or further away from the center, than the first pair.

Compare this to a single weighted gyro placed in the center of rotation.

now, repeat these steps with additional weighted gyros placed below the turntable.

Now, take the center axis of rotation, and change it across different planes,
and examine how this changes the net force experienced from the system of gryos.
For instance, if there were an axle placed horizontally through the turntable,
that allowed the entire thing to rotate in the vertical plane.

What happened to the force you saw with the single gyro?
and why?

The thing you have to keep in mind, is that your gyroscope is balanced.
not a single unit orbiting, but an entire solid mass in rotation.
the counterweight makes the force analogy more similar to the electron in orbit.







Title: Re: Why Doesn't A Magnet 'Feel' Like A Gyroscope?
Post by: verpies on April 04, 2016, 09:51:33 AM
Weird.  I think Dewey Larson wrote a book in which he tried to explain all physics with forms of motion.
Yes, and his explanation is the only that makes sense to me.  The user "bperet" on that forum (http://forum.rs2theory.org/), explains it the best.

To make matters worse, if I understand it correctly, quantum physicists try to deny that spin is real!
The indeed do.

Take one gyroscope and get it spinning.  Get another and spin it in the other direction.  Neither one wants to twist.  Stick one at one end of a stick and the other at the other end of the stick.  I think you now get a vertical stick that doesn't want to turn horizontal. I think they don't cancel out and get rid of the gyroscopic behavior.
Correct.
Title: Re: Why Doesn't A Magnet 'Feel' Like A Gyroscope?
Post by: verpies on April 04, 2016, 09:56:01 AM
I thought besides the spin there is also the orbit.
Nobody serious believes in these electron orbitals anymore.
Title: Re: Why Doesn't A Magnet 'Feel' Like A Gyroscope?
Post by: sm0ky2 on April 04, 2016, 10:12:25 AM

I have been trying to connect a theory I have about the gyroscopic effect of the electron spin while it's in orbit and it's connection to gravity and the self sustaining of the atoms energy.

the spin is related to gravity, through the 'handshake' it makes with the nucleus, as it approaches and moves further away.
there are two points around a single loop, when the spin of the electron and its' orbital velocity,
result in a speed greater than the speed of light.
relativity is violated. This results in a gravitational wave that distorts spacetime.

To understand this, think of a football spiraling, if it were thrown like a baseball "screwball".
Thus the actual orbit, is a spiraling tunnel/tube that encircles the atom.
at a point when the spin lines up on the inner or outer of the tunnel, velocities are greater than "c".
This distorts spacetime to a degree in which, the velocity remains "c".
This distortion propagates spherically, as a VHF wave. (600Ghz-10's of THz)
Though the propagation is in an outward direction, the distortion itself is towards the source,
thus the gravitational force vector is towards the disturbance.
the more atoms, the more "disturbances"

First - the gravitational impulse originates as an electromagnetic effect.
90-degrees to the magnetic, and tangential to the orbital vector of the electric force.
in the same vector as the electrons own' magnetic moment.
(yes the electron has a magnetic moment within the tube-shaped orbit, like a toroid)
it is 10^39 times smaller in magnitude, than the electric force, and nearly that much smaller
than the atomic magnetic moment itself.

Second - the gravitational distortion quantifies, the same as the magnetic and electric fields.
when you have two of them, you double your spherical radius, while the intensity of the field remains a factor of a square of the distance. (modern manmade magnets can actually exceed this value)

what separates the gravitational wave from the electromagnetic one,
is the distortion caused by hypervelocity.
there is a warping of space 90-degrees to both the electric and the magnetic forces.

What this means for a magnet, is that gravity emanates differently from magnets,
than it does from non-magnetized masses.
because of the planar orbits at or near the pole ends.
we're talking about + or - 10^-39 per atom
but experiments have shown that the center of gravity of a magnet,
is partially relative to the center of magnetism, not entirely on the 'true' center of mass.

I have no way to test this, but it would mean there is slightly more "gravity" at the ends of a magnet.
in a plane perpendicular to the face of the poles.
Which, Planar-Gravity is only known to exist in a few rare conditions.
perhaps It could exist in a finite region at the ends of an ordinary magnet, and we did not know it?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you point a magnet upright, say North side up, South side down.
near the top of the magnet, a large portion of the electrons are orbiting in a direction,
along the same plane, it would be the horizontal plane, in this example.
this direction determines whether the magnetic force is "north" or "south".
just like a coil.
"right hand rule"
at the bottom of the magnet, they are opposite in direction of rotation.
but also, a large portion of them, along the horizontal plane.

In the center, is a very thin line, where the orbital plane is vertical.
both clockwise and counterclockwise rotation occurs in this region.
and they arrange their magnetic vectors outwards, around a central axis of 0 dimensional size,
that runs pole to pole
these almost completely cancel each other out magnetically in this region.
this is sometimes referred to as the dielectric plane of the magnet.

inbetween these regions, the plane of the vast majority of the electrons, assume an alignment
in a transitioning range of vertical to perpendicular, that forms the magnetic gradient.

For this reason, when you place two magnets together the attraction is vectored towards the ends.
and when you place a magnet to a piece of metal, the attraction is vectored towards the center.

the size of a proton is an order of magnitude greater than the size of an electron.
there can't really be a gyroscopic force outside of itself.
its too tiny.

besides, the electron has a 1/2 spin, so the gyroscope is probably not the right analogy.


Title: Re: Why Doesn't A Magnet 'Feel' Like A Gyroscope?
Post by: sm0ky2 on April 04, 2016, 10:38:07 AM
I can't draw this in 3d, so I make a stupid paint thing to show in two dimensions
a representation of the vector of the magnetic moments.

its not perfect and I got sort of impatient drawing little lines, but it does a good job at a visualization.
Title: Re: Why Doesn't A Magnet 'Feel' Like A Gyroscope?
Post by: Berto3 on April 04, 2016, 01:41:13 PM
The only gyroscopic effect I discovered with magnets where two the same magnets moving like
the pistons of a 2 cylinder boxer motor. In fact, this has nothing to do with magnetism but with mass.
So, the mass of two free flying magnets in opposite direction in a tube produces a gyroscopic effect.
This effect is even stronger when the reciprocating movement is in resonance with that mass.
http://overunity.com/16094/magnetic-mechanical-resonance-ideas/msg470475/#msg470475
Title: Re: Why Doesn't A Magnet 'Feel' Like A Gyroscope?
Post by: lumen on April 04, 2016, 04:15:04 PM
You guys are all talking about this stuff but nobody is attempting to calculate any possible gyroscopic effect.  How do you know if a magnet is supposed or not supposed to feel like a gyroscope if you have no idea how large the effect is supposed to be?  For all you know it is there but the magnitude of the gyroscopic effect is insignificant.  Without attempting to crunch some numbers the discussion is meaningless.

But the gyroscopic effect would need to be larger than the magnetic field or the magnetic field would control the electrons mass.
I think the problem might be that there is no precession, without precession the gyroscopic effect cannot exist.
If you spin two gyro wheels in opposite direction on the same axis shaft, there is no gyroscopic effect because their forces cancel each other.

Maybe someone can explain why the electrons are not pulled into the nucleus of the atom.
If their speed is limited by "C" then the closer electrons could not increase their speed to counter the increased pull of the nucleus and would collapse into the nucelus.
Title: Re: Why Doesn't A Magnet 'Feel' Like A Gyroscope?
Post by: Eighthman on April 04, 2016, 08:13:41 PM
I do realize that modern physics throws away the true concept of 'spin' at some point, as with strange sounding things like "1/2 spin".  I guess it becomes a purely arbitrary concept, just a name or a label with no actual rotational energy.


That's OK but that's really saying, "that's just how it is" with no further reduction of the problem.  OTOH,  it looks bizarre to go back and forth with a sort of real vs imaginary spin as a foundation of reality.


I am tempted at moments such as this to wonder if reality is based on consciousness and it breaks down in its finer points, like small details in a video game, if you begin to think of that as real.


Maybe this involves a problem of scale.....
Title: Re: Why Doesn't A Magnet 'Feel' Like A Gyroscope?
Post by: lumen on April 04, 2016, 09:34:12 PM
A big part of the problem is when you read something referring to electron spin, are they actually meaning orbit?
Like saying an electron spinning around the nucleus or the spinning electrons. It's not usually as well defined as it should be as electron orbit or electron spin.

My new experiment attempts to leverage the stability of a gyro against a magnetic field to provide endless energy like the electrons in an atom.
I believe that it may be possible for the two properties to react in a way to always restore any lost energy by gyroscopic precession.
Precession can always provide more energy than what a rotating mass requires to produce the precession, and a magnetic field can provide the force required for precession.
Between those properties a device would seem to be self sustaining.


https://youtu.be/Im2mNnWZ5Oc
Title: Re: Why Doesn't A Magnet 'Feel' Like A Gyroscope?
Post by: Meta on April 05, 2016, 07:31:17 PM
The basic creative unit of the whole Universe is toroidal...its a curve, or spin of space. The Persian myth of the Flying Carpet is all about this curve. The first curve of space, I found, is the very first evidence of a alleged God in our universe. If you can find evidence of God before this first curving, let me know.

Ref: http://smphillips.8m.com (http://smphillips.8m.com)

It is called Supreme Being by the Sumer (5000 BCE)

It is called Anu by the East Indian Veda's.

The first 2 of these is called God and Satan, by religion.

Thru multiplication by division there is nothing else in the Universe. It is jamb packed with Anu and nothing but Anu.

All Anu and clusters of Anu (meaning all alleged particles including electrons) act like gyroscopes because they are gyroscopic....they all spin and precess just like a gyroscope.

If you touch one or a cluster of them, like an electron, they will rise up out of their matrix positions, rotate 90 degrees to the force and travel, ie spiral around and down the wire, if they are in a wire....and exit the wire as electricity....just like a gyroscope does.
Title: Re: Why Doesn't A Magnet 'Feel' Like A Gyroscope?
Post by: Meta on April 05, 2016, 07:39:16 PM
A big part of the problem is when you read something referring to electron spin, are they actually meaning orbit?
Like saying an electron spinning around the nucleus or the spinning electrons. It's not usually as well defined as it should be as electron orbit or electron spin.

My new experiment attempts to leverage the stability of a gyro against a magnetic field to provide endless energy like the electrons in an atom.
I believe that it may be possible for the two properties to react in a way to always restore any lost energy by gyroscopic precession.
Precession can always provide more energy than what a rotating mass requires to produce the precession, and a magnetic field can provide the force required for precession.
Between those properties a device would seem to be self sustaining.


https://youtu.be/Im2mNnWZ5Oc (https://youtu.be/Im2mNnWZ5Oc)

There is confusion between orbit and spin....I never saw any orbiting electrons when I saw a electron micrograph of a matrix of atoms...all the atoms looked like fuzzy spheres with a light spot on one side and I assumed there is one on the other side of the sphere...a light hole and a black hole....and a energy spin on the inside, and the outside....called spin 1/2 in physics.

This I call spin...there are no orbits....thats a lie.

Spin 1/2 is said to be the mathematical inverse of spin 2, the very real concept of science which says that "an electron must spin two times for it to be detected again", which simply means that after the energy spins on the inside and then outside of such imaginary things as "electrons" the energy will have travelled 720 degrees around rather than 360 degrees, which led me to believe that our world is double what we know....ie, 1=2, 2=4, or 360=720. Half our Universe is invisible.

When you see that magnets dont act like a gyroscope, you are seeing clusters of Anu and they all perfectly offset or balance each other....it all cancels out to 0....spirals of positive electrons are moving perfectly against the spirals of counter spinning negative electrons...equals 0.

39,500 books read
40 yrs study
Title: Re: Why Doesn't A Magnet 'Feel' Like A Gyroscope?
Post by: lumen on April 05, 2016, 08:13:54 PM
After some testing on the gyro device shown in my picture, I have found a simple modification that could provide a conversion of magnetic force directly into kinetic energy.
Maybe this is not the thread to be going on about this as I was showing this device only because it appeared connected to the topics path of gyroscopic spin and energy relationship.
Title: Re: Why Doesn't A Magnet 'Feel' Like A Gyroscope?
Post by: sm0ky2 on April 05, 2016, 11:12:35 PM
To understand the forces, placed on the atom by the electron's orbit,
I suggested using an unbalanced gyroscope.

Some of you may have played with a gryo that has become damaged.
if the rotor is scratched deeply, or dented, perhaps from dropping it.
You notice a 'wobble' that was not there when the gyro was perfectly balanced.

you can intentionally unbalance it, by adding or removing weight at a point around the circle.
The forces experienced here are similar to an odd number of electrons in the outer shell.
Now, if you add/remove an identical weight 180-degrees opposite to the first imbalance
you experience the forces of a pair of electrons in the outer shell.
as you add/remove weight in pairs, equally spaced, around the circumference of the wheel
you can simulate the effects of different atoms, with more and more full outer shells.
eventually, you reach a point when the imbalanced forces are equal, and the gyro will spin stable again.

This is about as close to a real-world simulation you can come using a gyroscope.

Keep in mind, as Milehigh hinted to,
the mass of the electron is so small in comparison to the mass of the atom as a whole,
that the forces are insignificant.

What happens to precession, when the gryo is placed on a heavy turntable?
If the turntable's moment of inertia is greater than the precession forces,
precession does NOT occur.
Yes,. in theory, the turntable "feels" the gyroscopic effects,
But it does not move, because the forces are too small.
If you now add rotational force, in the direction that precession 'would occur',
you will find that the "moment of inertia" is lowered by the precession force.

When considering the magnitude of the atom's mass, compared to that of the electron,
we find that outershell electrons (the ones that would add to the gyroscopic force of the magnet)
only represent a few thousandths of the total mass of the atom, be it iron, or cobalt, or samarium.
or whatever

If we knew just exactly where these forces were, within the magnetic mass,
there may be some test that could show a change in the moment of inertia along that plane.
However, these forces are in more vectors than we can reasonably handle, as humans, to analyze the problem.
360^360 or something like that...

To further compound this,. the electrons' spin causes the entire orbital path to vibrate inwards and outwards
from the nucleus.
like if you have a vibrating table top, and place the gyro on it.

now, the path of the gyro is oscillating through space, as it turns about its axis.

furthermore, even though the orbital paths in a magnet are restricted, and synchronized (aligned)
the spin of the electron still changes the outcome of the orbital path, within this restriction.
So, now you need to take your vibrating tabletop, and place it on top of a centered fulcrum.
perhaps a round fulcrum, to allow the tabletop to tilt in every direction.
so the horizontal plane, which represents the plane of orbit,
shifts within a range, off the horizontal axis.

So, we have a tilting, vibrating tabletop, with the gyro on it, and this gyro has, let's say
2 unbalanced points, equally spaced around the circumference. (iron)
remember the tabletop is much larger than the gyro
now we are getting closer to a physical analogy of a magnet.
if we place several of these tilting, vibrating gyros onto a single surface,
the effects of each individual gyro, will add and cancel with the effects of the other gyros
at different states of rotation, vibration, and tilting.
Now let's make this surface wrap around into a 3-d shape.
We are getting close, but we still need to account for the field gradient, and the dielectric plane.

Let us choose a "polarity", and a center of field.
If this 3-d shape were, say, a rectangle (like a bar magnet)
let us draw a line across the centerpoint.
because of the way we wrapped the flat surface, the gyros in this plane are facing the appropriate way.
if we isolate this plane into a single ring of gyros, this will represent our dielectric plane.
on one side of this plane, we spin the gyros in one direction.
on the other side of the plane, we spin them oppositely.

Next,. starting with the gyros on each side of the 'dielectric plane', gradually and progressively angle their
tabletops towards the poles. such that, near the dielectric plane, they are angled ever so slightly towards the pole.
and as they approach the pole ends, they are angled towards the pole.
Now we are starting to resemble some of the gyroscopic effects going on inside a magnet.

There one more thing we have to do.
which is restrict the degree of "tilting" the tabletops are allowed to do, partially at the pole ends.
and completely, along the dielectric plane.

[this is a very simplified analogy.
We actually need trillions of these 3-d shapes, each one a bit smaller, and placed inside one another like those Chinese dolls.]

after spinning, vibrating, and tilting for some amount of time, the imbalanced gyros will synchronize with one another.

If electronic gyroscopes are used in the construction, synchronization and consistency of RPM is resolved.
pi are square, and so our relatively large gyros can never rotate as fast as an electron.
 

The reason I chose a flat-sided 3-d shape, is because round magnets open the door for another type of energetic exchange (similar to gravity), which can significantly change an electrons energy, its' orbit, and even its' ability to STAY in orbit...  spherical magnets, or magnets with rounded side(s) exchange electrons regularly, ejecting their own out of orbit, and absorbing another from the environment. as well as photon emissions.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If we consider, the simplest of the base metals, Hydrogen.
We can "magnetize" a single atom, by containing it within a strong electro-magnetic field.
The magnetic moment can be measured as frequency-dependent changes in the field,
perpendicular to the orbital path of the electron.
By a reversing of this process, the field can be changed to control the planes of symmetry
this orbital path takes.
gyroscopic forces, if they existed in this state, would be dominated by the containment field.
However, the containing field itself, is analogous to the molecular bond that forms in H2.

When we examine a second atom, in the form of the hydrogen molecule, we find that one is "upside down".
Why? well, in short, the handshake between electrons sharing the same physical space, at alternating moments in time, can only take place in opposite rotational directions.
if they were both spinning in the same direction, the momentum of forces would the electrons to interfere with one anothers' orbit, making the bond unstable.
Another way to explain this is by the use of the magnetic moment.
repulsion and attraction of monoatomic magnetic moments result in the two atoms approaching
upside down from one another, just like when you put two magnets side by side.

The result is 2x the diameter of the magnet moment, and ~1/2 the field strength.
 weaker, because of the intensity of the field at the bond.
 It gives the electrons a lower energy, when bonded. (when observed from an outside perspective)

for this reason, monoatomic hydrogen is strongly magnetic, and hydrogen gas (H2 molecule) is weakly magnetic.
in a gas, however, the molecules are moving around freely, and their magnetic moments are not aligned with the other molecules in the gas volume.

further, H2 is considered diamagnetic. because it consists of two opposing dipoles.
when you apply a field against these two dipoles, in one vector:
it causes induction to occur, like electricity running through a loop of wire.
this induction is opposite to the vector of the applied field,
this is diamagnetism in its' simplest form.

Helium has two electrons, 180-degrees out of phase, and the transition period of the flux of each magnetic moment, causes partial cancellation. Thus the field strength of helium's electric and magnetic moments
is not two, like commonly assumed, but a value about 30-40% less than this.
varying within a range of electron energies that differs between the two electrons.
because of the way their paired orbit is locked, Helium also induces an opposing field, and is thus
also diamagnetic.

let's look at the next complex situation, Lithium.
here we have the double-electron, like helium, but an additional shell containing only 1.
dilithium forms a diamagnetic field, like the two examples above,
however naturally occurring 6Li, consists of 6 atoms, forming a bond.
This configuration, is paramagnetic.
when a field is applied, the induced field is in the same vector of the applied field.
observing the orbital directions of the outer shell electrons, there are 3CW, 3CCW
each neighboring pair induces a field opposite to that of the pair next to them,
resulting in 4 like fields, and 2 opposing fields.
= + 2 like fields.
the group of atoms becomes polarized along the magnetic vector, and a diamagnetic plane emerges
the two centralized atoms align their orbital plane with the magnetic vector.
counter-rotating, in a plane 90-degrees to the two at either pole.

This is the simplest form of a "magnet".
Now,. this configuration is not stable in 6Li, and as soon as the applied magnetic field is removed,
the group of atoms returns to a more stable (non-magnetic) state.
When two groups of atoms are together in a mass,
the dipole becomes more complex, but the mechanics remain the same.
[magnetically] centralized atoms orbit perpendicular to those at the polar extremities.

more complex metals, such as iron, also align in this manner.
But in stable configurations, that can self-sustain, after the applied field is removed.
Thus they are considered ferromagnetic.







Title: Re: Why Doesn't A Magnet 'Feel' Like A Gyroscope?
Post by: Eighthman on April 06, 2016, 12:54:47 AM
Thanks for all the replies but I don't see any of them as getting at the essence of the problem.  In particular, once there's any net alignment of the spins, there should be an obvious gyro response, math or no math. 


http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Essays-Mechanics%20/%20Electrodynamics/Download/5458


I don't endorse this guy's theories but I think pg. 3 might get close to what the answer must be.  A magnet radiates a field but a gyroscope doesn't.
You can put a bunch of gyros close together and they don't push or pull each other.  If magnetism is somehow the same thing as centrifugal force (some people seem to believe they are mathematically identical or something like that),  then that force must be 'folded' back on itself so that it can't radiate outward as a field. It only acts on its own mass...............



Title: Re: Why Doesn't A Magnet 'Feel' Like A Gyroscope?
Post by: lumen on April 06, 2016, 04:37:43 AM
I am sticking with the idea that electrons both spin and orbit and there is no gyroscopic effect because when both the spin and the orbit is reversed, the magnetic moment is in the same direction but the gyroscopic effect is cancled by another electron doing the opposite.

Two of the same gyro wheels spinning in opposite directions will fully cancel any gyroscopic forces. So random selection of electrons spinning and orbiting in the same plane but random opposite directions can generate a combined magnetic field direction and still have no gyroscopic force.

It would be interesting if someone could get a rough calculation of what the force might be if "X%" of the atoms in a known size magnet had their outer electron creating a gyroscopic force, what force could one expect.





Title: Re: Why Doesn't A Magnet 'Feel' Like A Gyroscope?
Post by: Meta on April 07, 2016, 03:29:11 AM
Consider this animation gif of what is called "spin waves".

Let's believe each of these precessing spheres are what your article refers to as the luminiferous medium.....there was an old word called Luminiferous Aether meaning matrixes and planes of these spinning vortexes and how they all work together in harmonic rythym. We can see all the vortexes of space all precessing (each sphere axis goes around in a circle). We can see all of the vortexes remaining in a relatively fixed position but if you look at it for a long time, you can see a imaginary wave, flowing over the matrix of precessing vortexes.....its not a real wave but it looks like it travels and communicates information from one vortex to another.......consider each tiny vortex as a gyroscope...consider each row has to be upside down to its neighboring rows, alternating polarities and the same holds for its neighboring planes of vortexes....for if they all were oriented the same, they would fly apart because of the like charge being repulsive

and thats the basis of creation.......two Anu moving clockwise next to each other, they grate together like two Indy tires when they touch, and you get repulsion....when two Anu are moving opposite, like meshing gears, one clockwise and the other counter clockwise, they can get closer and its called attraction......

See attachment
Title: Re: Why Doesn't A Magnet 'Feel' Like A Gyroscope?
Post by: verpies on April 07, 2016, 10:39:23 AM
We can see all the vortexes of space all precessing (each sphere axis goes around in a circle).
@All

Notice that Meta writes about vortices of space ...not vortices in space.
IMO that distinction is essential to understanding how universe works.

We can see all of the vortexes remaining in a relatively fixed position but if you look at it for a long time,
Here he only writes about spatial positions. 
But every motion has two reciprocal aspects: space and time.  This is the reason we commonly measure speed as eg.: meters per second (m/s).
Fixating on the spatial aspect of motion without considering its temporal aspect is a huge omission.
Title: Re: Why Doesn't A Magnet 'Feel' Like A Gyroscope?
Post by: Meta on April 07, 2016, 07:44:27 PM
@All

Notice that Meta writes about vortices of space ...not vortices in space.
IMO that distinction is essential to understanding how universe works.
Here he only writes about spatial positions. 
But every motion has two reciprocal aspects: space and time.  This is the reason we commonly measure speed as eg.: meters per second (m/s).
Fixating on the spatial aspect of motion without considering its temporal aspect is a huge omission.

The vortises are what space is doing...vortexing. They are not in space, doing it, they are space, doing it.

Aside....please dont point at omissions that I havent even finished describing yet...even in the esoteric bible, it takes 66 books to repeat the same story of creation, 66 times, because there is so much information to convey....so wait till the discussion is over before you open your yap.

Aditionally, to even consider time, for all you measurers......time is so fast in Universe, that its totally irrelevant to even consider it.....we may as well just say...there is no time at all....and when you reach this so called velocity, frequency or alleged speed of time, the universe stops.....what to do then hum?

Also this vague, ambiguous measure of time comes from our own scientists and they say this about time.....

Here is what all of rigorous Science uses as a definition of time: "We shall assume without examination the unidirectional, one-valued, one-dimensional character of the time continuum." Reciprocal Systems (http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/ce/timenat.htm)

_______________________________________________________

At the mere velocity of light, the "time" quantum would yield a "distance" quantum for a photon. If, for instance, the time quantum is 10^-54 seconds, then the distance between steps, or distance quantum, would be about 3 x 10^-45 meters at the speed of light. Woops! Your measuring instruments are already lagging far, far behind that which can't even be measured. If you blinked your eye, the Aether has renewed itself a billion times.

The beginning of the known universe is the end of the last beginning and the beginning of the next end, which only lasts for, not nano, pico, femto, atto, zepto or yoctoseconds in each state, but is so fast as to be beyond human measure. For all intents and purposes, universe has no time unit. Time units are a human invention.

 
Title: Re: Why Doesn't A Magnet 'Feel' Like A Gyroscope?
Post by: Pirate88179 on April 07, 2016, 08:34:25 PM
The vortises are what space is doing...vortexing. They are not in space, doing it, they are space, doing it.

Aside....please dont point at omissions that I havent even finished describing yet...even in the esoteric bible, it takes 66 books to repeat the same story of creation, 66 times, because there is so much information to convey....so wait till the discussion is over before you open your yap.

Aditionally, to even consider time, for all you measurers......time is so fast in Universe, that its totally irrelevant to even consider it.....we may as well just say...there is no time at all....and when you reach this so called velocity, frequency or alleged speed of time, the universe stops.....what to do then hum?

Also this vague, ambiguous measure of time comes from our own scientists and they say this about time.....

Here is what all of rigorous Science uses as a definition of time: "We shall assume without examination the unidirectional, one-valued, one-dimensional character of the time continuum." Reciprocal Systems (http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/ce/timenat.htm)

_______________________________________________________

At the mere velocity of light, the "time" quantum would yield a "distance" quantum for a photon. If, for instance, the time quantum is 10^-54 seconds, then the distance between steps, or distance quantum, would be about 3 x 10^-45 meters at the speed of light. Woops! Your measuring instruments are already lagging far, far behind that which can't even be measured. If you blinked your eye, the Aether has renewed itself a billion times.

The beginning of the known universe is the end of the last beginning and the beginning of the next end, which only lasts for, not nano, pico, femto, atto, zepto or yoctoseconds in each state, but is so fast as to be beyond human measure. For all intents and purposes, universe has no time unit. Time units are a human invention.

Please do not vortext and drive.
 
Thanks.
 
Bill
Title: Re: Why Doesn't A Magnet 'Feel' Like A Gyroscope?
Post by: Eighthman on April 07, 2016, 08:57:45 PM
I recall that observers said that the Mark's (TPU) device had a gyro-like feel to it.  Thus, understanding how these motions work could be very important.


lumen,  I have to question why a spin motion together with a orbital motion cancel each other out yet somehow leave the magnetism by itself.  I also think this orbital/spin relation may be part of the Pauli Exclusion principle.
Title: Re: Why Doesn't A Magnet 'Feel' Like A Gyroscope?
Post by: lumen on April 07, 2016, 09:14:09 PM
I recall that observers said that the Mark's (TPU) device had a gyro-like feel to it.  Thus, understanding how these motions work could be very important.


lumen,  I have to question why a spin motion together with a orbital motion cancel each other out yet somehow leave the magnetism by itself.  I also think this orbital/spin relation may be part of the Pauli Exclusion principle.

I am sure they don't cancel each other out, but that's not what I meant.
It's the pair (spin + orbit CW) against another pair (spin + orbit CCW) that produce the same magnetic field but cancels any gyroscopic effect because the mass of each is in the opposite direction.

Another thought is that if electrons could cause a gyroscopic effect at all then simply using a large coil and pushing electrons through it should cause a gyroscopic effect the same as a magnet made by a superconducting coil would have the gyroscopic effect.


The superconductor coil could be easily calculated for the gyroscopic effect if it existed but I can find nothing anywhere if anyone ever observed the effect in a superconducting magnet.
Title: Re: Why Doesn't A Magnet 'Feel' Like A Gyroscope?
Post by: Eighthman on April 08, 2016, 09:51:46 PM
You can't feel any gyro effect in a wire conducting electricity because of drift velocity - very, very, very slow. Microscopic, indeed.
Title: Re: Why Doesn't A Magnet 'Feel' Like A Gyroscope?
Post by: lumen on April 09, 2016, 03:23:23 AM
You can't feel any gyro effect in a wire conducting electricity because of drift velocity - very, very, very slow. Microscopic, indeed.

A typical superconductor, when operating, may have a current density of 10^6A/cm^2.
In a two-fluid approximation (there are superconducting electrons and normal electrons), at low temperatures all of the electrons are in the superconducting state so n~10^22/cm^3.
The charge is the electric charge (really 2e since they are paired into Cooper pairs), so take e=1.6x10^-19 C
Then we find that v(superconductor)=600cm/s as a rough order of magnitude answer.

It looks like if you put enough current through a superconducting coil, you could move the electrons along at about 600cm/s
That should be enough to detect some gyroscopic effect but once you calculate the mass of all those electrons I'd bet it's very small.

Even then the magnetic field generated would be huge in comparison.



Title: Re: Why Doesn't A Magnet 'Feel' Like A Gyroscope?
Post by: verpies on April 11, 2016, 01:44:01 AM
Here is what all of rigorous Science uses as a definition of time: "We shall assume without examination the unidirectional, one-valued, one-dimensional character of the time continuum." Reciprocal Systems (http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/ce/timenat.htm)
Did you even read the entire article you quoted.  Did you understand it?
That article opposes the idea conveyed by the passage that you quoted.
I agree with the article, but I disagree with the quote.

Writing statements like "time is too fast to be considered" is just silly.
First of all your units of space are in error and too small.  Read the article again and the website it came from.

Secondly, the mere idea of the speed of time is contradictory because time is needed to measure speed....as well as space.
It is the ratio of space to time that forms the speed of light.

You really should read your sources, not just quote from them disjoint passages.
Title: Re: Why Doesn't A Magnet 'Feel' Like A Gyroscope?
Post by: kmarinas86 on April 11, 2016, 02:02:22 PM
If you pick up a spinning gyroscope or any spinning mass, you will feel or see the effects of inertia and centrifugal force. The gyro will resist your efforts to twist away from the plane of its rotation.


OK, so why don't all permanent magnets do this? Do electrons have mass? Are they spinning? Are those spins aligned ( as the REASON WHY it has a magnetic field)? 


https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110405161715AAuefVm          I can't find any clear answer to this question. Indeed, it gets more weird as you look at it since some physics books claim that magnetism IS a form of centrifugal force.


I wonder if the answer to this question could open up some very important discoveries.

Electrons do move extremely fast, but their orbits are also extremely tight. Look up the current vector fields in the electron shell model used by Brilliant Light Power (formerly BlackLight Power). While according to theory they can orbit upwards of about 1/137th the speed of light (in the case of the ground state electron in a hydrogen atom), their orbits are on the order of 10^-10 meters radius, or 10^8 times less than your typical centimeter scale. Combine this with the fact that less than 1/1800th of the mass of a magnet is electrons, and less than 1/10th of that is unpaired electrons, you see that the angular momentum due to the unpaired electrons is actually very, very tiny. There is still plenty of energy to tap though, owing to the extremely high frequency of these rotations.
Title: Re: Why Doesn't A Magnet 'Feel' Like A Gyroscope?
Post by: guest1289 on April 11, 2016, 09:26:58 PM
Secondly, the mere idea of the speed of time is contradictory because time is needed to measure speed....as well as space.
It is the ratio of space to time that forms the speed of light.

But what about the 'Time-Dilation' effect that  satellites  experience :
http://www.askamathematician.com/2012/03/q-satellites-experience-less-time-because-theyre-moving-fast-but-more-time-because-theyre-so-high-is-there-an-orbit-where-the-effects-cancel-out-is-that-useful/

 - What about if you walk past a desk, has time-for-you,  slowed down,  in comparison to time-for-the-desk, or in fact,  has time slowed down for both (  by an amount too small to be calculated ),  since you could claim the desk moved past you .

  And what about the outer-rim of a gyroscope-wheel,  or the electromotive-force( not the electrons ) running through a conductor( electricity is mostly electromotive-force ),   or,  the electrons themselves, which do something called  electron-drift in electrical-current .

    So,  in solid-state-devices,  and even in moving-parts-devices,  there must me some  'Time-Dilation' occuring .
     
Title: Re: Why Doesn't A Magnet 'Feel' Like A Gyroscope?
Post by: Eighthman on March 09, 2017, 07:24:47 PM
http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_34.html


Protons spin also, so if they align with a magnetic field, then that should be noticeable, too. All the more so, if their mass is so much greater.


The above reference seems to attempt a sort of answer in that we may be looking at a quantum mechanical effect that isn't completely 'real' or coalesced into the real world of classical physics.  You have something called "spin" but it has no specific direction of rotation - until it leaves the quantum realm. The problem with this explanation is that..... how can we have a real world effect of a magnetic field generated by the quantum world but then NOT have any gyroscopic action connected with it? So, the magnet part is here but the rest got left behind.....?
Title: Re: Why Doesn't A Magnet 'Feel' Like A Gyroscope?
Post by: Zephir on March 09, 2017, 11:32:16 PM
Quote
Why Doesn't A Magnet 'Feel' Like A Gyroscope?
The brief answer is: it actually feels and it's named Einstein–de Haas effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%E2%80%93de_Haas_effect). Wikipedia says "the Einstein–de Haas effect demonstrates that spin angular momentum is indeed of the same nature as the angular momentum of rotating bodies as conceived in classical mechanics."

It's quite weak effect, though (1 (http://www.physics.umd.edu/grt/taj/411c/EinsteindeHaas.pdf), 2 (http://eskola.hfd.hr/icm/download/IYPT2005/IYPT2005/Einstein.pdf)).
Title: Re: Why Doesn't A Magnet 'Feel' Like A Gyroscope?
Post by: Bertoa on March 10, 2017, 12:41:30 PM
@ Eightman
When talking about a gyroscope we see a spinning (rotating) disk. I was experimenting with a linear movement of magnets and discovered a weak gyro effect. This is done with 2 magnets in a linear contra movement with a certain speed. The masses of the magnets form in resonance a gyroscopic entity. See video at 1.40 min.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQpNqSUz8Ws

Title: Re: Why Doesn't A Magnet 'Feel' Like A Gyroscope?
Post by: e2matrix on March 13, 2017, 06:22:04 PM
It seems the answers here are over complicating this and the only one answer that seemed to catch the real issue (as much as I hate to admit it) was MileHigh's answer.   It seems obvious the dense mass of a gyroscope (most often metal) will be much so greater than the mass of some electrons that you will feel the effect whereas some electrons will not probably have enough mass to produce much measurable effect much less something you can "feel".   As it is no one has even seen an electron with the most powerful microscopes and one can assume their mass is a such a tiny amount compared to visible physical objects that it seems obvious they won't give anyone the 'feel' of a physical gyroscope.  As for Steven Mark's TPU claim - without any replications how can anyone put any weight on that subjective 'claim'.   Mass of an electron is very roughly .00000000000000000000000000009 grams.   Mass of a million electrons roughly .00000000000000000000009 grams.   Mass of a small hand held gyroscope roughly 300 grams.   
Title: Re: Why Doesn't A Magnet 'Feel' Like A Gyroscope?
Post by: Zephir on March 14, 2017, 12:12:55 PM
The mass of electrons within atom isn't that low - the electron is just one thousand-times lighter than the proton and the number of protons and electrons must be balanced. Therefore the inertial effects of electrons should be just one thousand-times lower than the rest of magnet mass. OK, let say than only the unpaired electrons at the surface of atom participate on the spin, so that their inertia would be 1/50.000 of inertia of the whole magnet, but no lower. It should be measurable and in many cases it actually is.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5S54yz7r-3w
Title: Re: Why Doesn't A Magnet 'Feel' Like A Gyroscope?
Post by: e2matrix on March 14, 2017, 06:19:20 PM
This thread is about comparing the supposed 'free' electrons around a magnet and not ones in an atom - to that of a solid object - a gyroscope.   Their weight is very very small - 9 x 10 to the -28th grams.   Compare that weight or the weight of a million or even a billion electrons to the weight of a gyroscope and the difference is huge.   Yes the weight can be measured with very sensitive measuring methods but I'm saying this is why you don't 'feel' a gyroscopic effect when holding a magnet.   Take a very thin piece of plastic cut into a flat round disk.   Spin it fast.  Do you feel the gryoscopic effect of that?   Probably not so how do you think a bunch of electrons will allow you to feel a gyroscopic effect.   It takes a fair amount of weight to actually 'feel' the effect and that's all I'm saying is this is why you don't feel the effect from a magnet as the OP asked.


I also question whether there are even electrons involved or if there is even such a thing as an electron.   I'm mostly with Ken Wheeler on this (and Tesla).   A quote from Ken Wheelers (Theoria Apohasis) book on Magnetism:
 "Tesla outright denied our current definition of the electron as a ‘discharge particle'.
     All electrons are a motional terminus of a quantity of dielectric pressure gradients of force (as reified by the incorrect
understanding of the definition of a ‘field’), these pressure gradients, or “lines” are contracting and stretching like rubber bands, giving
motion to the terminus ‘electron’. The thermionic ‘electron’ contracts, pulling the ‘electron’, the cathode ray stretching, pulled by the
‘electron’. In the former case the lines of force are dissipated, in the latter case the line of force are projected, in both cases these so-
called ‘electrons’ assume radial motions, with non participating pressure gradients, or forces filling the ‘voids’, directing the
‘electrons’. Hence, it is the so-called ‘electrons’ (dielectric radial discharges) that travel in straight lines, that is, radially. ‘Electrons’
have nothing to do with the flow of electricity; the so-called ‘electrons’ are the rate at which electricity is destroyed. ‘Electrons’ are in
fact the resistance. From extensive experimental work into atomic electrical science by J. J. Thompson, and Nikola Tesla, it is
established that the so-called electron is only a shadow; its apparent-only physical mass is merely an electrical momentum (ejected by the dielectric interia in disturbance. There is no rest mass to an electron nor could there be logically, a rest-electron ‘bead’;   such notions are absurd and evidence proven non-existent. The very premise is logically impossible and contradicts the rational physics of atomic charges and discharges.
Title: Re: Why Doesn't A Magnet 'Feel' Like A Gyroscope?
Post by: e2matrix on March 14, 2017, 07:21:27 PM
Also the fact that "magnetic force equals centripetal force and is expressed in the equation Bqv=mv^2/r" and that the only explanation for centripetal force would seem to be gravity implies that magnetic force and gravity are of the same 'ilk'.   I state that just as a support for the idea that magnets do not involve electrons - unless you think gravity involves electrons  :)
Title: Re: Why Doesn't A Magnet 'Feel' Like A Gyroscope?
Post by: Eighthman on April 05, 2018, 07:41:17 PM
It suddenly struck me that the opposite poles of a magnet represent spin in different directions.  Thus, if you put two spinning rotors on one axis - and they are rotating in different directions, the gyroscopic movement or feel is canceled out.


Is the answer really that simple?
Title: Re: Why Doesn't A Magnet 'Feel' Like A Gyroscope?
Post by: Cherryman on April 05, 2018, 07:49:05 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGun5athdfg
Title: Re: Why Doesn't A Magnet 'Feel' Like A Gyroscope?
Post by: sm0ky2 on April 06, 2018, 04:30:23 AM
Also the fact that "magnetic force equals centripetal force and is expressed in the equation Bqv=mv^2/r" and that the only explanation for centripetal force would seem to be gravity implies that magnetic force and gravity are of the same 'ilk'.   I state that just as a support for the idea that magnets do not involve electrons - unless you think gravity involves electrons  :)


That is an incorrect assumption
When we ionize a magnetic material it loses its’ magnetism
The ‘magnetic memory’ is stored nucleically, and it becomes a magnet again
when it deionizes.
The motion of the electron defines the magnetic moment

Title: Re: Why Doesn't A Magnet 'Feel' Like A Gyroscope?
Post by: Eighthman on April 06, 2018, 04:23:05 PM
I can now understand why gravity and magnetism would be of the same "ilk" - as magnetism is caused by centrifugal force, spinning a bit of space around by electrons.  Compress that space/vacuum or curve it ( a la Relativity) and you've got gravity, right?
Title: Re: Why Doesn't A Magnet 'Feel' Like A Gyroscope?
Post by: AlienGrey on April 07, 2018, 02:11:39 PM
I can now understand why gravity and magnetism would be of the same "ilk" - as magnetism is caused by centrifugal force, spinning a bit of space around by electrons.  Compress that space/vacuum or curve it ( a la Relativity) and you've got gravity, right?
All material is photon-electromagnetic structure so in effect it has it's own type of DNA if you like and i bet i'm not far wrong and any mass is like a huge entral pull like an electron rotating it's nucleus every thing is alive but not like us as such.
Title: Re: Why Doesn't A Magnet 'Feel' Like A Gyroscope?
Post by: sm0ky2 on April 09, 2018, 10:02:40 PM
To understand where “gravity” comes from
We must look at the internal nucleic interactions
as well as the internal interactions of sub-particles
It is these forces that expand and contract space-time


The expanding and contracting oscillations result in gravitation
this is where unidirectionality comes into play
During the expansion part of the cycle, the space around
the mass is expanding, there is no “pushing away” force
of gravity in this form
 (there can be, but not in normal gravitation in this part of the universe)
durzing the contraction part of the cycle, the space around the mass is
contracting, everything is drawn towards it.


These are locally simultaneous events


Meaning that all particles gravitate at the same time
Although their frequencies of the gravitational moment are different
from our perspective.


Relativity controls time in a very discrete way
and the local universal conditions control the response of matter
to the universe itself.


There is nothing of sufficient mass in close proximity to us that would
change these universal conditions.


The gravitational moment is a “polarized” event, but cancels itself around
360-degrees, and is always 90-degrees to the electric moment and/or
the magnetic moment (when and where applicable)
as their driving mechanisms are all derived from the same source.


In the simple case of a sub-particle (mass) it gravitates at a frequency slightly
lower than sub-space Lambda.
Complex masses can gravitate with higher or lower frequencies, (from our perspective)
but the events are simultaneous, within the constraints of special relativity from the perspective
of either mass being observed.
And as such, results in a constant acceleration force.



Title: Re: Why Doesn't A Magnet 'Feel' Like A Gyroscope?
Post by: sm0ky2 on April 09, 2018, 10:23:53 PM
tiny masses without electrons, still have gravity.
and these allow us to study gravity without having to
mathematically deal with electromagnetism.






To answer the main question here:


Think about the mass of the electron
Vs the mass of a proton (for iron add 1.3 neutron mass)


c is constant, you can calculate the forces using a ground-state orbital
diameter
How much force is seen by the nucleus?
Now we must consider that no 2 of the 26 electrons can exist in the same
place at any given time
So, in which direction is this force to be manifest?


While many of these are indeed orbiting in the same direction,
they are all out of phase with each other.


with the exception of magnetized metallic hydrogen.........

Title: Re: Why Doesn't A Magnet 'Feel' Like A Gyroscope?
Post by: loner on July 25, 2018, 11:56:55 PM
If you pick up a spinning gyroscope or any spinning mass, you will feel or see the effects of inertia and centrifugal force. The gyro will resist your efforts to twist away from the plane of its rotation.


OK, so why don't all permanent magnets do this? Do electrons have mass? Are they spinning? Are those spins aligned ( as the REASON WHY it has a magnetic field)? 


https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110405161715AAuefVm          I can't find any clear answer to this question. Indeed, it gets more weird as you look at it since some physics books claim that magnetism IS a form of centrifugal force.


I wonder if the answer to this question could open up some very important discoveries.
My oppinion is that magnetic field and gravitation is the same animal.