<div dir="ltr"><div>Hi Tufail, <br></div><div><br></div><div> Glad you liked the videos! <br></div><div><br></div><div>To answer your questions, if the disk and magnet rotate in the opposite direction, the current direction reverses, so it would be negative. If the magnet and disk are reversed in position, the current direction remain the same if the magnetic field direction through the disk remains the same, if the magnet is flipped over, the current reverses. So in every case it obeys the left hand rule for electrons in the disk moving across a stationary magnetic field if you take the Maxwellian stance; current is generated via the Lorentz force. <br></div><div><br></div><div>Yes, I think I follow on your other point - I am just trying to think of a better example - perhaps the relativistic idea that the past and future co-exist with the present is something impossible to test in principle, since there is currently no known way for an observer to visit the past and prove that it co-exists. I was thinking the other day about the implausibility of the space-time continuum and the big bang theory - if Einstein were right and the future and past co-exist, then immediately after the big bang, as soon as the arrow of time started, all places and events until the end of time would need to be conjured into existence all at once! The entire time-space continuum would need to suddenly "exist" ! I personally find this very hard to believe. : ) <br></div><div><br></div><div>Doug<br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 11:13 AM Tufail Abbas <<a href="mailto:tufail.abbas@gmail.com">tufail.abbas@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="auto"><div dir="auto">Hello Doug,</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Thanks for those videos!!</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">You did an interesting experiment, though I feel, that perhaps all cases are not discussed. </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I wonder if it would be beneficial to discuss those cases.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I wonder what would happen if both magnet and disc are co-rotating but in opposite/ counter clockwise direction. Will it give a negative or positive voltage?.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I wonder what would happen if position of magnet and disc is interchanged and all cases are repeated.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div>However I would like to clarify when I said that "it cannot be measured<b>"</b>, I mean the <b>absolute impossibility </b>of measuring/ detecting. Not that it is not measurable by using one method but possible to measure by using another method. </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Speed of light <u>(as we observe at present moment/era)</u> is so fundamental to the nature of reality , that without it space-time will cease to <b>evolve and expand</b>, which becomes a motion-less Universe. </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Hence time (which is detected from motion) and space (which is measured only when time is available) are no more detectable, though they may exist as information/knowledge on <b>landscape of all possibilities </b>untill such time Universe chooses to evolve in one way or the other with a particular reality.<b> </b>And landscape of all possibilities is not a physical object.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Regards</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Tufail Abbas</div><div dir="auto"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote" dir="auto"><div dir="ltr">On Tue, 27 Nov 2018, 23:39 Doug Marett <<a href="mailto:dm88dm@gmail.com" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">dm88dm@gmail.com</a> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div>Hi Tufail,</div><div><br></div><div> Yes, perhaps that is another interpretation...not really relativistic or Lorentzian. But that does lead into the other point that you mention, which is "
if anything cannot be measured then it is no more a physical object or phenomenon" - which sound relativistic. I think a Lorentzian view would be that certain phenomenon can't be measured because there are equal and opposite effects occurring at the same time that cancel out. A good example of this is electromagnetic induction with the Faraday unipolar dynamo. I have a couple of videos I produced with an experimental demonstration of the paradox, and in part 2 reach the conclusion that there is experimental evidence to support the notion that electromagnetic induction can occur even when there is no relative motion between the parts. For reference, here are the links to the two YouTube videos: <br></div><div><br></div><div>Part 1: The Paradox <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gduYoT9sMaE" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gduYoT9sMaE</a></div><div>Part 2: The solution <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5wgmTGi5pU&t=6s" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5wgmTGi5pU&t=6s</a></div><div><br></div><div>The point of the exercise is show that what should not exist according to relativity might actually be detectable...</div><div><br></div><div>Doug<br></div></div></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 1:17 PM Tufail Abbas <<a href="mailto:tufail.abbas@gmail.com" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">tufail.abbas@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="auto"><div>Hello Doug,</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Yes, this question had bothered me. </div><div dir="auto">Now it does not bother me anymore. </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Speed of light is the factor by which space and time are related and separated from each other. In absence of such a factor, space and time <b>cannot be distinguished from each other </b>in this Universe , hence cannot be measured. And if anything cannot be measured then it is no more a physical object or phenomenon. <br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">To cut the story short: For me space , time and speed of light <b>are equally fundamental</b>. Either they all (physically) exist or all of three(3) vanishes and ceases to exist.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Regards</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Tufail Abbas </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br><div class="gmail_quote" dir="auto"><div dir="ltr">On Thu, 22 Nov 2018, 22:03 Doug Marett <<a href="mailto:dm88dm@gmail.com" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">dm88dm@gmail.com</a> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div>Hi All,</div><div> <br></div><div> I recently have found a couple of relativistic concepts that I have found logically disturbing and thought I would throw them out there. <br></div><div><br></div><div>The first is Einstein's redefinition of time as "that which a clock measures" which differs in a dramatic way from the more classical definition of time as being "the duration between events" or "the duration of an event". To give an example, if three observers watch a sunrise on earth, then two of them fly in opposite directions around the earth while the third stays put, and meet back at the same place where they then watch the sunset, all three will disagree on the elapsed time for sunrise to sunset using clocks they have carried with them. In other words, according to Einstein, there is no actual constant duration between the sunrise and sunset, even though all witnesses are present in the same velocity frame for the start and finish. Further, the idea that the number of ticks on the clock defines how far you have progressed into the future would also be wrong according to Einstein, since all the clocks would have different ticks even though the share the same present at the start and finish. Why are these contradictions not fatal to Einstein's theory?</div><div><br></div><div>The second has to do with the statement
<p class="m_-9120161549792925614m_6101317453651645695m_-2779285009540416834m_-4116762413932668264m_1312391664797809211m_2613847191677978500m_4745893467489956177m_-3822537592890429160gmail-MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">“indeed that the speed of light is actually
more fundamental than either time or space” <br></p><p class="m_-9120161549792925614m_6101317453651645695m_-2779285009540416834m_-4116762413932668264m_1312391664797809211m_2613847191677978500m_4745893467489956177m_-3822537592890429160gmail-MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">
</p><p class="m_-9120161549792925614m_6101317453651645695m_-2779285009540416834m_-4116762413932668264m_1312391664797809211m_2613847191677978500m_4745893467489956177m_-3822537592890429160gmail-MsoListParagraph" style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt 36pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""><span><span>-<span style="font:7pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><a href="http://www.exactlywhatistime.com/physics-of-time/relativistic-time/" style="color:blue;text-decoration:underline" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.exactlywhatistime.com/physics-of-time/relativistic-time/</a><span></span></p>
<p class="m_-9120161549792925614m_6101317453651645695m_-2779285009540416834m_-4116762413932668264m_1312391664797809211m_2613847191677978500m_4745893467489956177m_-3822537592890429160gmail-MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""><br><span></span></p>However, the speed of light depends on both
“time” and “space (distance)" = distance/time<span></span>
<p class="m_-9120161549792925614m_6101317453651645695m_-2779285009540416834m_-4116762413932668264m_1312391664797809211m_2613847191677978500m_4745893467489956177m_-3822537592890429160gmail-MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt 36pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Is this not a circular argument – that a
phenomenon that depends on time and space is more fundamental than time and
space? <br></p><p class="m_-9120161549792925614m_6101317453651645695m_-2779285009540416834m_-4116762413932668264m_1312391664797809211m_2613847191677978500m_4745893467489956177m_-3822537592890429160gmail-MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt 36pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">It is a bit like saying the speed of sound in air is more fundamental than air and time. <br></p><p class="m_-9120161549792925614m_6101317453651645695m_-2779285009540416834m_-4116762413932668264m_1312391664797809211m_2613847191677978500m_4745893467489956177m_-3822537592890429160gmail-MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt 36pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Anyone else bothered by this ??</p><p class="m_-9120161549792925614m_6101317453651645695m_-2779285009540416834m_-4116762413932668264m_1312391664797809211m_2613847191677978500m_4745893467489956177m_-3822537592890429160gmail-MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt 36pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Doug<br></p><p class="m_-9120161549792925614m_6101317453651645695m_-2779285009540416834m_-4116762413932668264m_1312391664797809211m_2613847191677978500m_4745893467489956177m_-3822537592890429160gmail-MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt 36pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""><span></span></p>
</div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 11:46 PM Ruud Loeffen <<a href="mailto:rmmloeffen@gmail.com" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">rmmloeffen@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div>Hello Hans.</div><div><br></div>My comment at Vixra on Mass- and Field Deformation:<br><span style="color:rgb(42,46,46);font-family:"Helvetica Neue",arial,sans-serif;font-size:15px">Dutch scientists play a big roll in theories about Gravitation and the (expanding) universe. Your paper is an interesting approach and may be put in line with these scientists. I agree with the comment of Rodney Savidge: It would be rewarding to include a glossary providing clear definitions of (in effect justifying the use of) the many esoteric terms (e.g., hop landings, modules, etc.).</span> <div><br></div><div>Best regards.</div><div>Ruud Loeffen. <br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 1:40 AM Hans van Leunen <<a href="mailto:jleunen1941@kpnmail.nl" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">jleunen1941@kpnmail.nl</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Please read "Mass and Field Deformation"; <a href="http://vixra.org/abs/1809.0564" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://vixra.org/abs/1809.0564</a><br>
All massive objects are recurrently regenerated and the volume of the universe keeps expanding.<br>
Greathings,<br>
Hans van Leunen<br>
<br>
>----Origineel Bericht----<br>
>Van : <a href="mailto:ilja.schmelzer@gmail.com" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">ilja.schmelzer@gmail.com</a><br>
>Datum : 31/10/2018 19:33<br>
>Aan : <a href="mailto:physics@tuks.nl" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">physics@tuks.nl</a><br>
>Onderwerp : Re: [Physics] Physics Digest, Vol 19, Issue 5<br>
><br>
>> I have a related question for you. Since the universe is expanding,<br>
>> that means that all matter is growing larger. Since the tools that we<br>
>> use are also getting larger, how would we notice?<br>
><br>
>No, what is held together by forces (including the gravitational<br>
>force) remains of the same size.<br>
><br>
>So, the size of everything on Earth, but also the Solar system, the<br>
>galaxies, and even the galaxy clusters remains unchanged in size.<br>
><br>
>> Is this why fossils<br>
>> from millions of years ago seem larger than today?<br>
><br>
>Certainly not.<br>
><br>
>_______________________________________________<br>
>Physics mailing list<br>
><a href="mailto:Physics@tuks.nl" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">Physics@tuks.nl</a><br>
><a href="http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics</a><br>
><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Physics mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Physics@tuks.nl" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">Physics@tuks.nl</a><br>
<a href="http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div dir="ltr" class="m_-9120161549792925614m_6101317453651645695m_-2779285009540416834m_-4116762413932668264m_1312391664797809211m_2613847191677978500m_4745893467489956177m_-3822537592890429160m_2876779213972368082gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><font face="comic sans ms, sans-serif" size="2"><b>Ruud Loeffen</b></font><div><font face="monospace, monospace">Paardestraat32</font></div><div><font face="monospace, monospace">6131HC Sittard</font></div><div><a href="http://www.human-DNA.org" style="font-size:12.8px" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.human-DNA.org</a><br></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Physics mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Physics@tuks.nl" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">Physics@tuks.nl</a><br>
<a href="http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics</a><br>
</blockquote></div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Physics mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Physics@tuks.nl" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">Physics@tuks.nl</a><br>
<a href="http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics</a><br>
</blockquote></div></div></div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Physics mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Physics@tuks.nl" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">Physics@tuks.nl</a><br>
<a href="http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics</a><br>
</blockquote></div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Physics mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Physics@tuks.nl" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">Physics@tuks.nl</a><br>
<a href="http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics</a><br>
</blockquote></div></div></div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Physics mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Physics@tuks.nl" target="_blank">Physics@tuks.nl</a><br>
<a href="http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics</a><br>
</blockquote></div>