Proof by assertion is a logical fallacy. Whether you stand by your model or not is irrelevant.
Also you seem to think the rate of change of a magnetic field determins it's propogation speed. It doesn't, which is where your whole problem lies.
-Andrew
That and the misconception he has that an em wave is somehow travelling around in a circle outside the wire, parallel to the direction of current flow.
And I repeat myself. Information is faster than light.
Please reread. I said that the information contained in the rate of change of magnetic field is faster than light.
This can be shown in both a three dimensional world sense and in the sense of a two dimensional world (much as the special theory is seen).
It requires a bit of thinking.
What do you mean? A pulse that can be measured by its magnetic field is travelling around the superconductor.
Yes, inside the conductor there is an electical pulse traveling around the loop at ~.6c. But outside is a different matter. You have magnetic flux expanding out of the wire and contracting back into the wire as the pulse passes. The polarization of the field causes the emitted em wave to peak in the inward and outward radial direction and to tend to zero in the forward and reverse current flow direction. In essence what you have is a moving emition point travelling at .6c around the loop, continuously emitting wavefronts that propagate away from the point of emition at c.
To the guy that thinks the steorn device is going to work.
Have you ever seen this science toy. A magnetic levitating top that levitates over a magnetic base? After awhile the magnets interaction with each other and the spin of the top causes the air between them to heat up. After a shot period of time it has heated the air around itself to a point that it tips and drops out of the air.
A magnet's gauss strength is relative to it's heat. A magnet can lose all it's strength if heated to a certain point. The top drop out of the air because the air was heated by the spin of the top(friction from air) and eventually reaches a point where it cannot sustain itself and drops.
The same apply's to the steorn device. The magnet will spin but eventually will stop once enough friction is created.
Actually, Kevin, I believe it's closer to 0.7c. The common figure used is "approximately 2/3c." But that's minor point indeed, and should not detract from what you've correctly said. (The poor guy really doesn't have a clue as to what HE'S talking about - it's all incorrect.)
I'd love to get a bunch of people together and go and "interview" the MD and others involved in that. It would make a wonderful piece for a newspaper or book.Edit: I just wanted to add that have you noticed? The Steorn device has dropped COMPLETELY off the radar. Neither the company nor anyone else has mentioned it again since that failed demonstration. It's dead.
I'd love to get a bunch of people together and go and "interview" the MD and others involved in that. It would make a wonderful piece for a newspaper or book.
I said that the information contained in the rate of change of magnetic field is faster than light.
What does that have to do with information being faster than light?Let me ask you something:
First, I have a rotating laser on earth, and a reciever on the moon. The laser is rotating in such a way that it points at the reciever once per cycle.
Do you think the light from this rotating laser will reach the reciever on the moon in: more time, less time, or equal time as a stationary laser which was pointed at the moon??
Extra info: The timer will start when the rotating laser is pointing at the reciever. The timer for the stationary laser will start the moment it's turned on.
-Andrew
What does that have to do with information being faster than light?
The information you sent never went faster than the speed of light. It would be impossible considering the medium your using to transfer your information is a laser.
Not at all. And repeating your error does not somehow make incorrect information become correct. Neither does it require a bit of thinking, it requires a bit of non-thinking while ignoring physical principles.
You've done nothing in this thread except make one major blunder after another - each of which has been immediately shown to be nonsense. Just how long to you intend to keep trying to push this foolishness? No one but you will ever believe or accept your mistakes as fact.
Let me ask you something:
First, I have a rotating laser on earth, and a reciever on the moon. The laser is rotating in such a way that it points at the reciever once per cycle.
Do you think the light from this rotating laser will reach the reciever on the moon in: more time, less time, or equal time as a stationary laser which was pointed at the moon??
Extra info: The timer will start when the rotating laser is pointing at the reciever. The timer for the stationary laser will start the moment it's turned on.
-Andrew
Yes, inside the conductor there is an electical pulse traveling around the loop at ~.6c. But outside is a different matter. You have magnetic flux expanding out of the wire and contracting back into the wire as the pulse passes. The polarization of the field causes the emitted em wave to peak in the inward and outward radial direction and to tend to zero in the forward and reverse current flow direction. In essence what you have is a moving emition point travelling at .6c around the loop, continuously emitting wavefronts that propagate away from the point of emition at c.
I believe that's his whole point, Klippy, that changing the rate of the EM radiation discharge has no effect on the time it takes for the information to reach the source. The transit time of the laser beams are identical, of course.
The OP believes, for some strange reason known to him alone, that it does. He just keeps repeating that same bit of nonsense over and over without realizing how foolish that idea is! It's enough to make most of us wince in pain and it's impossible to understand how he could even think such a thing.
Strange, if we go back over this thread, the accusation that I am speaking rubbish suddenly looks like an accusation of yourself.What??? That makes no sense at all.:bugeye: All I've done is point out your glaring errors - some so bad a blind man could see them.
PS: pretending to be other users does not fool anyone.QUOTE]
Careful, careful - your parnoia is glowing like a huge bonfire. I use NO other names here. And I don't have a clue as to how to go about hijacking someone else's name, either. If you're silly enough to doubt it, all you have to do is ask the Mods because I'm sure they regulary check the IPAs of posters to see who is has more than one account. And I believe the proper term for that used here is "sock puppet."
On second thought, you probably wouldn't believe them either since you think the whole world is conspiring against you. (That has to be a terrible and sad way to live a life.)
Strange, if we go back over this thread, the accusation that I am speaking rubbish suddenly looks like an accusation of yourself.What??? That makes no sense at all.:bugeye: All I've done is point out your glaring errors - some so bad a blind man could see them.
PS: pretending to be other users does not fool anyone.QUOTE]
Careful, careful - your parnoia is glowing like a huge bonfire. I use NO other names here. And I don't have a clue as to how to go about hijacking someone else's name, either. If you're silly enough to doubt it, all you have to do is ask the Mods because I'm sure they regulary check the IPAs of posters to see who is has more than one account. And I believe the proper term for that used here is "sock puppet."
On second thought, you probably wouldn't believe them either since you think the whole world is conspiring against you. (That has to be a terrible and sad way to live a life.)
Just pointing out that what you say has as much worth as user toilet paper