/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15202024
>Archaic hertzian waveform that doesn't exist without being induced as a waveform implies electrons!
>electrification means electrons!
>yes, because there's somehow particles traveling through a solid copper line.

Only to a dumb materialist. Now you've got me curious. What would your explanation be had I conceded over the issue of a vacuums existence and how would you reconcile particles magically traveling through nothingness?

>>14977556
>More flux, more energy.
And in this steam and water is the flux you speak of? No. Also:
>define energy
You won't, correctly anyway.

we're the opposite end of a black hole

>>14542867
>That was pure clickbaity obfuscation.
To a degree, it was more so a filmed version of an average Joe finally putting the pieces together and denying the currently understood mechanics of how "electricity the hertzian waveform" functions. Without the conditions for it to function "already being there", the electric current doesn't occur. Anyone could have come to this conclusion had they understood how a generator/motor works and why the lines are already there on the side of the road. There really is nothing at all "traveling" in the conventional sense through a solid copper/aluminum line. The magnets really aren't connected to the wires and *somehow* that energy is still being transmitted from point A to B. Somehow these magnets sill have an "ab-extra" magnitude that isn't actually physical.
The wires, the dielectrics are just basically just a conductor of those fields that are synchronized to perturb at a rate that induces "electricity". Generators even have to be synchronized hundreds of miles apart for this waveform to maintain coherency so that it doesn't destroy wires down the line with resistance due to changes in the field.

>>11941186
>Magnitude
>Mag..netism

>In all your ramblings you take two phenomenaa and compare them while completely neglecting magnitude or quantity.
I neglected quantity for the purpose of the magnet example.

>your attraction to earth from paramagnetism 0.000000001m/s^2
>attraction
>paramagnetism
again you seem to think that's all magnetism entails.
>Your attraction to earth from gravity 10m/s^2.
Which is again a description, not an explanation. What I'm trying to say is that both gravity and magnetism are the same thing in a different form. One incoherent, the other coherent. Both have a different effect but effects are just that. I am concerned with the cause.

>You are making equal two things that are so distant in relevance and magnitude I must assume you are joking.
>yes you're joking so allow me to finally explain the difference between the two without simply re-describing them as different with no proof or reasoning as to how or why.

>>11941275
>lasers and an external magnetic field,
>altering electromagnetic phenomena in general
"Yes"

>>11885864
Ikr, all these fucking GR/SR and QM threads I tell ya.
>>11885874
>Nikola Tesla single handedly
"no"
>>11885903
It's the one butt hurt pigeonfag poster who gets mad about constant tesla/EU threads but none of the other pop-sci mumbo jumbo ones. Or degree holders defending their paper penises
>>11885850
It is the year 2020 and still to this day most people including ones in academia, engineering, physicists, whatever still have no clue how magnets work. I'm not even memeing.
>>11885748
"Is electricity composed of two poles, magnetism (decay) and electricity (counterspace)?"
"poles" is inaccurate, but basically "yes".

>If he is insane why is he able to experiment with wireless power so effectively?
because he followed Tesla's directions accurately, lol.
>>11885782
"oscillation cause this". "Of what" will be argued endlessly, watch the replies.

>>11751139
>LOOK AT IT. theyre deranged scribbles of a sick mind

>>11231357

>>10819672
>anon, believers in normal physics don't claim that electricity doesn't exist.
Correct, they only particularize the actions of such into something "discrete". They also fail to explain what electricity is made of and what causes it.

>electromagnetic, gravitational, weak nuclear, and strong nuclear. or, more accurately, we have a unified description of electroweak forces and the strong nuclear (color) force, and we are working on getting gravity worked out too.
Case in point

>EUtards on the other hand claim gravity doesn't real and nukes don't real, it's all magically happening through electricity, electricity is the only thing that exists,
But gravity is an acceleration, dielectric acceleration to be specific...And electricity is the dielectric field and magnetism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dielectrophoresis

>typically with some invocation of the aether,
Which is fine since it was never disproved

>and denying that atoms exist, denying that subatomic particles exist,
Which is also fine because there's no empirical evidence of a "particle". Fields are not particles.

>and often (since if you get them to think about it, they admit that simply can't work to explain e.g. the sun) they go and talk about panpsychism and how the sun is conscious and that's why it works. so it basically is not only pseudoscience but also invoke magical newage crap too.

But the only thing we really know about the sun is that it acts as an electrical transformer. I understand though, it's not very helpful to say that it is "x" without explaining why. Try asking those same idiots to define "consciousness" and they'll probably shut up.

>>10819737
>>10819673
>and here's why....

>>10417451
>EMR (light, X-rays, radio-waves etc) is motion in the form of a mass-less particle wave
Waves of what?

>Sound is just the movement of air particles
>altering the density is movement

>Potential Energy is just potential movement
Potential is potential. Cannot be reified because it is not manifest. Technically calling it "potential" is wrong too since it may not actually have it.

>Kinetic Energy is literally movement
Sure

>Electric Energy (voltage) is the same as Potential Energy

No. It's a pressure mediation induced by magnetism/magnets and a prime mover.

>Magnetism is also a constant delivery of Potential Energy initially put in.

Opposite. Magnetism is the loss of potential. The loss of inertia.

>Gravity also

No different than magnetic attraction, just incoherent due to different permeability/permittivity of materials.

>>10413698
Magnetism is the dielectric field.

>>10412454
"discrete quantity"
Now it would be nice if they defined energy.
"the law of conservation of energy states that energy can be converted in form, but not created or destroyed".
And somehow that translates into it being a "quantity". Fucking quacks, I swear.

>>10412458
>-we-think-dark-matter-exists

stopped reading right there and I'm extremely disappointed in your 3 second google search.

>>10394021
>Electromagnetic is not the same as magnetic.
No shit, one is a conjugate and the other is a part of that conjugate.
>but the magnet is not directly affecting the light
>the Faraday effect is not real and never happened

Well I don't know what to tell you other than you're in a psychosis.

>Just ignore the fact that Tesla invented NOTHING based on the claims this guy is taking as law and provided no experiments that backed them up or refuted what we currently understand about physics.

First of all that's incredibly incorrect and Tesla most certainly transmitted wireless electricity and at least had more of an understanding of electrostatics than most people. Most of his technology was based on it. Furthermore he says "Tesla said" so that morons like you actually attribute what he's saying from the person who actually said it. He quotes far more people than Tesla, in fact he idolizes Steinmetz more than anything. Goes to show that you really didn't watch jack shit of what he said, nor looked up the actual people he talks about.

>>10329495
>>10324982
How so? Elaborate.

>>10325264
>It's not appeal to authority
>I am telling you where to find the relevant information
K