Logged in users > User Diaries
Orientation of sphere magnet inside sphere magnet
magnO:
--- Quote from: Mary B on May 12, 2019, 02:22:40 PM ---It was humor...
--- End quote ---
No, it was a fallacy, appeal to ridicule. Ridicule is two-sided, it is humorous for one side and not for the other. Always, per definition. Recall I mentioned in-group bias.
I am not looking to insult anyone, or spam, I am merely asking a simple follow up question, well defined, and I am open to answers that explain what the scientific consensus is. That is, as I said, off topic in some ways as the original question has already been answered, I am following my self-interest tough and since I still have questions I asked.
joestue:
--- Quote from: Mary B on May 12, 2019, 02:22:40 PM ---It was humor...
--- End quote ---
why does this forum keep attracting strange people.
earth is hollow and expanding? yup, got to make room for where people go after they die..
magnO:
--- Quote from: joestue on May 12, 2019, 02:58:05 PM ---why does this forum keep attracting strange people.
--- End quote ---
That is another fallacy, ad hominem. The overall question is generic and the answer would apply to concentric ball magnets, in general. As for increase in Earth radius, the age of the oceanic crust was mapped in 1950s and 1960s, radial expansion is as simple to see - the data is conclusive - as that Earth is a globe. This here is a good introduction. People tough tend to reject models despite evidence, because the human condition is biased.
Overall, question asked is simple and stands on its own. As for your opinions on other things, they are welcome, you carry your own character and may do as you want with it.
The follow-up to the question that was the reason I opened this thread: would concentric ball magnets oriented like in original question, that attract at poles, also repel at equator? Why I assume they might, the magnetic field lines in simple schematics I have drawn here, based on overall feedback from original question, they move in opposite direction at equator (see large red circle. )
magnO:
--- Quote from: joestue on May 11, 2019, 02:57:37 PM ---https://imgur.com/hcEG61t
magnet inside opposite direction.
--- End quote ---
If I interpret that right it is showing example 2 in the original question? Since it shows neutral points between poles, it is repelling. If I am wrong so far, feel free to say.
If I interpret right that contradicts all answers so far, which is good as I am interested in what the scientific consensus is, as in what is true. I am assuming the inside surface of poles on the outer magnet are still reverse, that would mean the magnets choose this configuration because the attractive force is at the sides, and it is stronger than the attractive force would have been at the poles? Or, am I misinterpreting it completely?
This here is a visual interpretation,
Also anyone else reading this, feel free to validate or falsify what I just said, my self-interest is just to know exactly how concentric ball magnets would behave, the reason this thread has had lots of posts is because there have been differing opinions as in an absence of consensus.
magnO:
This thread seems to have lost interest having been hidden away in a "personal story" section. It would be good to get an explanation of what https://imgur.com/hcEG61t shows.
As for reasons I asked the question, main reason I prefer to use abstraction is human bias. See it as conservation of energy. To me, in the debate around whether the Earth radius has been static or dynamic, I think the data supports a dynamic radius. I have no disagreement, whatsoever, about the overall data itself, when talking to a person who believes in fixed radius, both plate tectonics and expansion tectonics use the exact same data, the only disagreement is on a single parameter, radiusStatic == true or false, in how to model the data, and in my opinion radiusStatic = false conforms better to the data. Overall, from how I phrased the question, it is off-topic.
Why I chose to use abstraction, humans select belief based on number of factors, one being genetic bias. There is a process called "meme manipulation" (Leigh, 2010) that rejects ideas based on resident memes. If you see here for example, one idea that gained presence in contrast to the theory of radial increase, is the religious, Abrahamitic, idea that people go to the "underworld" when they die. That is of course nonsense, when you die you just die. But it shows how attention is biased to what it already trusts, what feels good, memes that were often assimilated during childhood without filtration (without any scepticism or rational inquiry whatsoever, in complete suspension of disbelief. )
--- Quote from: joestue on May 12, 2019, 02:58:05 PM ---got to make room for where people go after they die..
--- End quote ---
Perception precedes belief and belief also precedes perception.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version