I think in the scenario you're suggesting (constant field), there would be a very small inwards force on the metal ball, that occurs in relation to charge separation within the ball and a denser field nearer to the solenoid. The ball will probably spin on an axis perpendicular to that of the solanoid and the system will gradually loose energy due to resistive losses within the ball. Ball size would probably matter. Could your thought experiment actually be a charged ball going round a solanoid?
shit, i knew someone had already thought of this idea... but i was thinking more about a magnetic ball hovering in the air of the station and if you throw a small metal ball close enough too it it goes into orbit...
Since all you have ever been taught about space is irrelevant/lies' ALL into its entirety, I will not argue the points I understand dealing in this magnetic theory , GOD IS OMNIPOTENT, but very real and soon I will introduce him to you in one of my new videos am about to up-load as far as physics goes im sorry thunderfoot not even your SMARTest physics teachers" in your colleges" understand true physics' or has anyone in America since around 1865 you couldn't pass an eighth grade test from 1863.
@WhistlinWind Christians are such CRY BABIES! You know damn well if you Christians could you would bring back burning folks at the stake & we Atheist would be first to be grilled at Sunday Church Luncheons. All we Atheist would do is what we do now point out how irrational you folks are who believe in things like virgin births & the resurrection of the dead. You probably think trying to stop or lessen Global Warming is just a Liberal plot to stop the return of your Demi-god, huh?
I think that ball size would matter, seeing as magnetic fields are (typically) much smaller and have much steeper gradient in force strength at different distances, correct me if I'm wrong but I'm thinking different sized balls would have different forces acting on them because parts of them lie in stronger areas of the field and some lie in weaker areas.
Though I suppose that the stronger pulling on the inner edge of the ball and weaker pulling on the outer edge might balance each other out.
@TheMagnoxian What you're referring to is the tidal effect. It's what keeps the near side of the moon facing earth, and the far side facing away from earth. All that the gradient does is effect the orientation of the body, but not its orbit. So, no, the size or mass of the ball would not affect its orbit.
It wouldn't be hard to write a computer simulation with an oscillating field. I predict that collisions would eventually throw the smaller balls out of the system.
@MyCowDied actually it has not been proven that the universe depends on an observer . You do not understand the fundamental laws of quantum physics. The double slit experiment is certainly not a law. Stop giving physics a bad reputation and understand subjects rather than misrepresent them. Thanks
@tcpprotocol Theories are irrelevant. The point I was making was what happened in the double slit experiment was that two different outcomes occurred where the only independent variable was the existence of an observer. Surely an outcome such as that has to prove that the fabric of the universe alters when an observer is present. Only the cause of that outcome is theoretical.
@rkyeun Look at the theory of quantum entanglement. Our perception of reality is merely a perception so it would be ignorant to assume that everything exists in the same way without observers. For all you know the universe began two seconds ago and "the gaps were filled in" so to speak. For all you know, last time you went to sleep you were Gordon Brown you but your conscious thoughts rely on a physical memory.
@rkyeun Actually it has been proven that the universe does depend on an observer. Look at the double split experiment, it's one of the most fundamental laws of quantum physics. What about schrodinger's cat? I don't believe in a God but it's arrogant to assume that such a belief is completely irrational.
@MyCowDied It hasn't been proven... this is exactly why there are several competing interpretations of quantum uncertainty (Copehagen Interpretation, Causal Interpretation, Many-Worlds Interpretation, etc) and most of them rest on Bell's Theorem which hasn't been proven and Bell himself said you could get around it in a superdeterministic universe where free will is an illusion. Also, non-local hidden variable hypothesis and retrocausation haven't been ruled out.
@elitistb616 Another rational argument is that we perceive time as a "one way street" of cause and effect. Should all life cease to exist then a large number of physicists would argue that, as a dimension, the arrow of time would also cease to exist and there would be nothing to experience the universe. Thus, in a sense, the universe would end. This could suggest that the purpose of our universe was so that life could exist. An argument in favour of God. You need to be less stubborn.
The universe does not depend on observers. The stars didn't wink out of existence the first thirteen billion years that nobody was around to look at them, and they won't do it the next either. Objects don't vanish simply because you've stopped looking at them.
The "arrow" of time is a result of the temporal component of the spacetime metric being negative, while the spatial components are all positive. This means you can move and rotate easily in space, not so much in time.
@elitistb616 Surely, if you were to find a castle in the middle of a forest you would argue that it is entirely rational to come to the conclusion that the castle must have been designed and, by the laws of probability, would most likely not occur naturally. The same logic could be applied to the universe. Surely due it's complexity and scale it arguably must have been designed. Therefore it is rational to believe in some form of creator.
No, you cannot use "the same logic" for the universe.
The premise of your claim that the castle is designed is that you have evidence that humans build castles. The premise of the claim that beaches are natural is that we have evidence of how water naturally erodes rock.
You CANNOT infer a painter from a painting. Implication does not reverse that easily. It is only because painters are ALREADY proven to exist and to make paintings that you can attribute paintings to them.
@elitistb616 Yes but the cause for is experiencing the universe through our own eyes isn't quantifiable. That is to say that, my experiences are stored physically but in a non-physical sense the fact that I perceive the universe as a linear, causal chain from the perspective of what may be called a "vessel" by a religious person isn't quantifiable. Also, the idea of a concept being rational is purely subjective.
You don't need to do an experiment. The magnetic fields are almost identical to gravity in that the inverse square law will imply that you have elliptical orbits for all bodies going around. Multiple bodies won't behave any differently unless they also emit a magnetic field in which case you'll get chaotic dynamics. Fluctuating field strength will just make them fall in faster or slower and so change their trajectory. There, problem solved. Good night.
I think you can do this experiment here on earth quite simply (with a good enough approximation):
Use a very hard surface e.g. glass and level it very precisely. Then use a very precise perpendicular solenoid going through the glass surface. Presto.
You wanna know whats cute...? After having an argument with a physics teacher over the use of actual vacuums V. the vacuums of space, I went through past notes of logic that I made and Theorized this exact phenomenon. Let it be known that I am a Junior in High School.
I'm not a physicist, so I may be wrong, but this doesn't seem like a very complicated problem. Aren't the laws of magnetism and whatnot very well understood at this macroscopic level? I just think that these experiments could be done well enough in simulation, using just computers. Why do the experiment for real? Experiments are best to do for things that we can't yet simulate well enough, which is mostly everything.
Great the way this is a video about electromagnetism and orbital mechanics and the first comment I read is an argument about religion. Fuck off people.
I think ball-size would make a difference due to extra mass/inertia. However that could be compensated by giving the bigger balls more excess electric charge. I too can't see why these magnetic orbits should not be possible as long as they are placed on the solenoid's equator. I'd love to see the ISS try this!
The last 2 bits of that with the magnets or 'just metal' (I assume you mean permanent magnets or paramagnetic materials) would depend very strongly on the magnetic susceptibility and the speed of the change of the internal state of the magnet/metal. Assuming that this occurs quickly then it's just a 1st or 2nd year classical mechanics question (maybe 2nd/3rd if its set up with inter-ball interactions that require a numerical solution).
WAIT a minute! Do ghosts have gravity? OMG! I think I getting on to something here! If we can harness the power of ghosts, we can win the fight against gravity! I smell a Nobel Prize!
Indeed you can not play with gravity. You just proved it! It was made to be as is. You do not joke around with god creations. It will bring you towards hell!
so... using trampolines for fun will send you towards hell... right.
Also, pictures and speculation are not proof of anything... but you apparently beleive all the 'jokery' that went into researching how to build your computer and all the internet sent people to hell. Not that this has stopped you from making use of their heathen discoveries for your own benefit.
It is truly amazing to view in retrospect the awesome sum of knowledge the human race has uncovered, and to still have the chance to relish in the mysteries that still exist.
You can probably approximate the result on earth using a hard, level surface for the ball to roll on. You'd have additional friction losses but it'd be good enough to see if it's even worth sending into space. I'm skeptical it will work since magnetic force is along the field lines, not perpendicular to them (there is no attraction to the center of a bar magnet, for example). However, replace the metal ball with an electrically charged plastic ball and you got something!
0:18 The orbit would be affected by the strength of the magnetic field and the tangential speed of the metal ball. Actually, the friction between the air inside the ISS and the balls would cause the orbit to fall after a while
0:38 in principle, every orbit you place the balls in is gonna be an elliptical one. Changing the intensity of the field would just change the eccentricity of the orbit just like burning a rocket motor in orbit changes the eccentricity of that rocket's orbit
@WhistlinWind ... Atheists are hateful and weak?? ha ha. Actually most references will show that Atheists are just people who are not Theist. They essentially grew out of imaginary friends if you will... It has nothing to do with hateful and weak. nice Nazi reference, you peace wishing weirdo. I don't have to try to be better than you.... you just make being superior the default position.
Why spend a million bucks to perform the experiment in a microgravity environment when you could do it on earth for a ten thousandth the price? Air table and pucks.
@Libertarianist Better yet a superconductor table with quantum superconductor pucks which would facilitate doing it in a vacuum. It's still an interesting experiment. I hope someone performs it. I have my own micro gravity experiment involving an apparatus to test the fabrication of buckytubes under a variety of accelerations (up to 1G) and atmospheric pressures (perhaps even using different gasses)
@ExtantFrodo2 I'm not a physicist but I thought of that and concluded that a superconducting levitation table in a vacuum might not be a feasible option. The solenoid would induce currents in the super conducting surface and may cause undesirable interference. Perhaps the pucks would begin to bounce or rock until colliding with the surface of the superconductor. That also would be much more expensive.
@apopheniacMCMLXXXIX Now now, It's a well known fact that men never really mature past the fourth grade we just get a better vocabulary. There is no real reversion here lol
@thunderf00t Surely the metal balls used would be of different mass. The smaller balls would have to travel at faster speeds to maintain the same orbital distance and would crash into each other before long.
An interesting tidbit about memories. They aren't stored in the mind like computer data bits. There is no physical space where it is stored, however the physical space which activates upon recalling memories can be damaged or shredded and the memories will disappear. Timeless existence achieved.
@WhistlinWind I think you're smoking some weed that's just a bit too much for you. Downgrade to the Yankee Ditchweed until you get used to smoking pot. If you are now using Yankee Ditchweed, perhaps it is time you tried a new drug.
@they refuse to accept any philosophical argument that deals with a completely incomprehensible theory that could still apply. Something completely incomprehensible will be widely accepted with evidence in particle physics but the same can be said about philosophical arguments. E.g. the design argument has plenty of evidence supporting the existence of a God
@sines134 circumstance. Do you get what I'm saying (it's quite difficult to put into writing)? My personal approach is that which I've just explained but I don't pretend to be an expert on the matter, I'm just putting forward my viewpoint. Sorry for spreading my replies out, YouTube only allows for short comments. I don't agree with some religious views which adapt facts to fit archaic theories but equally, the human mind can only comprehend so much and the downfall of many atheists is that the
@sines134 in the brain then our experiences are just recording and the idea that we live through our own experiences. You see the world through your own eyes but the only thing to keep you aware of this is your memories. This could suggest that everybody experiences their life through the vessel which is our body and that all consciousness comes from the same source. To me that is a rational and philosophical approach to life, that everybody is the same person only exposed to different circumst
@sines134 By saying "something that can't be quantified" I'm referring to an abstract concept. For example, the idea of a conscience separate from the physical world that we experience. It is rational to believe in the idea of a soul because abstract thinking allows us to consider various hypothetical situations which can never be proved or disproved. For example the idea that the universe was created at this very instant and "all the blanks were filled in" so to speak. If memories are stored i
@MyCowDied "It is rational to believe in the idea of a soul because abstract thinking allows us to consider various hypothetical situations which can never be proved or disproved."
Actually it is not rational, because there is no logical chain supporting your statement. Simply because humans are capable of creating hypothetical unprovable situations in no way logically ties in to the idea of a soul. The only thing abstracting thinking proves is that humans are capable of it.
@whistlinwind Sorry for eavesdropping (if you can call it that) but I think the whole atheist-theist internet war stems from the general ignorance of some Christians (e.g. the Pope) that upsets atheists, and the general arrogance of some atheists who refuse to accept any plausible explanation regarding anything that can't be quantified (e.g. Richard Dawkins). Combined with the attitude people adopt due to the anonymity the internet provides, it tends to turn nasty.
@MyCowDied "the general arrogance of some atheists who refuse to accept any plausible explanation regarding anything that can't be quantified (e.g. Richard Dawkins)."
Why would such an explanation without evidence or plausibility be considered plausible?
@Elitistb616 Just because something isn't quantifiable doesn't mean it doesn't have evidence to back it up. As I explained to sines134, the concept of consciousness and experiencing the world from your perspective has evidence to support it. You see things through your own eyes but that experience is unique to you and so isn't quantifiable.
@MyCowDied "Just because something isn't quantifiable doesn't mean it doesn't have evidence to back it up."
You are answering a question I did not ask. However, your consciousness and experiencing the world can actually be quantified. We can measure the electrical signals and study the brain chemistry. There has even been some success at decoding thought patterns and stored memories.
@Elitistb616 I don't want an argument though, and I apologise if my point of view offended you but that is my personal experience on the matter. I'm only fifteen but having been part of a catholic education system my entire life I have been exposed to various different opinions and experienced compulsory philosophy and ethics courses that are relatively unbiased. I don't agree with attaching physical characters to philosophical teachings (such as Jesus) but there is some validity in theism.
@MyCowDied How is it arrogant to not accept some kinds of answers, and instead say "I don't know"? And that's ignoring the idea that your claim is wrong. I, and plenty of other atheists, including Dawkins, am perfectly happy accepting qualitative answers. Quantitative are just prefered.
Unless by 'can't be quantified' you mean 'has no evidence'. In which case... I hope I don't need to explain why not believing in something without evidence is a sign of a rational mind.
@rusle Not to mention that 1. it would have to be done in a vacuum, or else drag would cause rapid orbital decay, and 2. because there are so few combinations of speed and direction that would result in stable orbits, it would take forever to find the right calibration for one ball, so it would be easier to just shoot a spray of iron filings into the system and watch the tiny minority that neither fall into the magnet nor escape from it.
I think you'd either have to be incredibly precise with ball speed or have some kind of microcontroller monitoring where a ball is and modulating field strength accordingly, and don't even think about multiple balls.
Would be cool to be proven wrong in this case though. Ballplanets in the solenoid system? Yes please.
The paths will change to ellipses but they will be different ellipses for each ball (same shape, different orientation); the changes in angle at each point in time and the changes to the distance from the solenoid will all be constant between the balls since size doesn't matter. The only collisions that could occur would be because the distances between the CoMs would be equal to the sum of the two radii of the balls, the CoMs should never try to occupy the same space
Uhhh... touchy. Great idea but unless if the flux lines are at different polarities, the spheres would likely just collapse back towards the magnetic sources. I'd have to consult a book I have concerning magnetic theory (Taken as part of my degree in RF engineering) but if I recall right, suspension would only occur with the introduction of opposite polarities at distance creating equal force that would act upon an object. In short terms, the variances in field strength may collapse the orbits.
Hmmm, I'm an Electrical Engineer, I should be able to work that out and I'm sorely tempted to, it's a nice little brain teaser. If I get some time later in the week, I'll throw a few hours at it.
@emkajii Can you give me the equation? I know the equation for the force of gravity, but I don't know how to calculate the force between a solenoid and a ferromagnetic object.
@azmanabdula "can you delete subscribers?". Yep. Just 'block' him. That will remove him from your subs. After a day or two you can remove the block, if you wish, or just leave him blocked. I say 'fuck him'. He won't let anyone debate him or even question his assertions without blocking them so I don't think he should have any say.
@AgrivatedKillah Absolutely. That is the extent of the respect 'shitofgod' displays for freedom of speech or anyone's opinion other than his own. Until he sees fit to respect my opinions, I see no compelling reason to respect his. "Do unto others...".
@emkajii It's not that simple. The field strength from a moving charge falls off, more or less, like the inverse square of the distance, but that's not directly relevant here. It's pretty complicated - the magnetic field induces a dipole in the metal and the dipole in the metal feels a force from the gradients of the magnetic field. And that's just the first level approximation you make after you make some approximations about what you think the field is doing.
@johnrcoben in actuality, yes, but with this device you can change the frequency so that the orbit is forced to be circular. all other frequencies would cause the orbit to be ovular.
@johnrcoben err I meant magnetic currency. TFoot's hypothesis is that changing the magnetic currency a certain way would change the shape and action of the orbit. That's what would need to be tested and observed. I'm not a scientist myself; I was merely trying to re-state what TFoot was saying (and I did so badly the first time around).
Why can't we just model this mathematically? It would look cool to follow your suggestion, but I don't understand how it would help us understand anything. I bet a physics student could throw together a python script in a few hours that could simulate an oscillating magnetic field.
Then again, maybe I have no idea what I'm talking about.
Uniform magnetic fields do not put a force on metal but rather a torque. The magnetic field lines emanating from the end of a magnet are diverging and therefore a force will be felt by a steel bar there. The magnetic field produced by a solenoid is similar to a magnet. The field lines you drew in the video would be produced by a single straight wire. Any iron filings would be torqued to align in circles yet there would be no lateral force on them.
@RustyTube a solenoid is basically a conductive material (copper wire e.g.) wrapped in a spiral (like a spring) which generates a magnetic field when electric current is sent through the material. A moving magnetic field through the solenoid can also produce an electric current in the circuit.
@RustyTube A solenoid[nb 1] is a coil wound into a tightly packed helix. In physics, the term solenoid refers to a long, thin loop of wire, often wrapped around a metallic core, which produces a magnetic field when an electric current is passed through it. Solenoids are important because they can create controlled magnetic fields and can be used as electromagnets.
@Grubnar The term solenoid refers specifically to a magnet designed to produce a uniform magnetic field in a volume of space (where some experiment might be carried out).
Wouldn't there be a magnetic drag on the orbit? Seems like there should be a good limerick here, tho.
Ilicium 1 week ago
I think in the scenario you're suggesting (constant field), there would be a very small inwards force on the metal ball, that occurs in relation to charge separation within the ball and a denser field nearer to the solenoid. The ball will probably spin on an axis perpendicular to that of the solanoid and the system will gradually loose energy due to resistive losses within the ball. Ball size would probably matter. Could your thought experiment actually be a charged ball going round a solanoid?
alsmith20000 1 month ago
If you like this Idea then Vote for this experiment:
Can water orbit a charged rod?
theblindbadger
Team membersJack Goodwill, Harry Green
/watch?v=4q-xIXjNAEg&NR=1
ExtantFrodo2 1 month ago
shit, i knew someone had already thought of this idea... but i was thinking more about a magnetic ball hovering in the air of the station and if you throw a small metal ball close enough too it it goes into orbit...
drorjs 1 month ago
Since all you have ever been taught about space is irrelevant/lies' ALL into its entirety, I will not argue the points I understand dealing in this magnetic theory , GOD IS OMNIPOTENT, but very real and soon I will introduce him to you in one of my new videos am about to up-load as far as physics goes im sorry thunderfoot not even your SMARTest physics teachers" in your colleges" understand true physics' or has anyone in America since around 1865 you couldn't pass an eighth grade test from 1863.
Dan1uc 1 month ago
@Dan1uc LOL! Ignorance!!
Tairaa2 1 month ago
@Tairaa2 Is that your best? hehe! not one untruth has left my lips.
Dan1uc 1 month ago
@Dan1uc You're first sentence reads:
"Since all you have ever been taught about space is irrelevant/lies"
So, your opening sentence is untrue.
Tairaa2 1 month ago
@WhistlinWind Christians are such CRY BABIES! You know damn well if you Christians could you would bring back burning folks at the stake & we Atheist would be first to be grilled at Sunday Church Luncheons. All we Atheist would do is what we do now point out how irrational you folks are who believe in things like virgin births & the resurrection of the dead. You probably think trying to stop or lessen Global Warming is just a Liberal plot to stop the return of your Demi-god, huh?
Viracocha711 1 month ago 2
I think that ball size would matter, seeing as magnetic fields are (typically) much smaller and have much steeper gradient in force strength at different distances, correct me if I'm wrong but I'm thinking different sized balls would have different forces acting on them because parts of them lie in stronger areas of the field and some lie in weaker areas.
Though I suppose that the stronger pulling on the inner edge of the ball and weaker pulling on the outer edge might balance each other out.
TheMagnoxian 1 month ago
@TheMagnoxian Different sized balls would behave differently simply because they have different mass
ThallesNinja 1 month ago
@TheMagnoxian What you're referring to is the tidal effect. It's what keeps the near side of the moon facing earth, and the far side facing away from earth. All that the gradient does is effect the orientation of the body, but not its orbit. So, no, the size or mass of the ball would not affect its orbit.
rodrommel 1 month ago
It wouldn't be hard to write a computer simulation with an oscillating field. I predict that collisions would eventually throw the smaller balls out of the system.
Tapecutter59 2 months ago
What a load of balls
benolly22 2 months ago
Well thunderf00t, if the balls touch... then its gay.
BTJMB 2 months ago in playlist Uploaded videos 18
@MyCowDied actually it has not been proven that the universe depends on an observer . You do not understand the fundamental laws of quantum physics. The double slit experiment is certainly not a law. Stop giving physics a bad reputation and understand subjects rather than misrepresent them. Thanks
KELBYL 2 months ago
@Niemtol2 Thank you
KELBYL 2 months ago
@WhistlinWind I see 40+ people agree with my last comment to you. Care to reflect on my comment yet?
KELBYL 2 months ago
@tcpprotocol Theories are irrelevant. The point I was making was what happened in the double slit experiment was that two different outcomes occurred where the only independent variable was the existence of an observer. Surely an outcome such as that has to prove that the fabric of the universe alters when an observer is present. Only the cause of that outcome is theoretical.
MyCowDied 2 months ago
@rkyeun Look at the theory of quantum entanglement. Our perception of reality is merely a perception so it would be ignorant to assume that everything exists in the same way without observers. For all you know the universe began two seconds ago and "the gaps were filled in" so to speak. For all you know, last time you went to sleep you were Gordon Brown you but your conscious thoughts rely on a physical memory.
MyCowDied 2 months ago
@rkyeun Actually it has been proven that the universe does depend on an observer. Look at the double split experiment, it's one of the most fundamental laws of quantum physics. What about schrodinger's cat? I don't believe in a God but it's arrogant to assume that such a belief is completely irrational.
MyCowDied 2 months ago
@MyCowDied It hasn't been proven... this is exactly why there are several competing interpretations of quantum uncertainty (Copehagen Interpretation, Causal Interpretation, Many-Worlds Interpretation, etc) and most of them rest on Bell's Theorem which hasn't been proven and Bell himself said you could get around it in a superdeterministic universe where free will is an illusion. Also, non-local hidden variable hypothesis and retrocausation haven't been ruled out.
TcpProtocol 2 months ago
We need to send thunderf00t to the iss
christophertaylor87 2 months ago
HAHA! HE'S TALKING ABOUT METAL BALLS! :)
Interesting stuff, though 0.o
NeverisAwesome 2 months ago
@elitistb616 Another rational argument is that we perceive time as a "one way street" of cause and effect. Should all life cease to exist then a large number of physicists would argue that, as a dimension, the arrow of time would also cease to exist and there would be nothing to experience the universe. Thus, in a sense, the universe would end. This could suggest that the purpose of our universe was so that life could exist. An argument in favour of God. You need to be less stubborn.
MyCowDied 2 months ago
@MyCowDied
The universe does not depend on observers. The stars didn't wink out of existence the first thirteen billion years that nobody was around to look at them, and they won't do it the next either. Objects don't vanish simply because you've stopped looking at them.
The "arrow" of time is a result of the temporal component of the spacetime metric being negative, while the spatial components are all positive. This means you can move and rotate easily in space, not so much in time.
rkyeun 2 months ago
@elitistb616 Surely, if you were to find a castle in the middle of a forest you would argue that it is entirely rational to come to the conclusion that the castle must have been designed and, by the laws of probability, would most likely not occur naturally. The same logic could be applied to the universe. Surely due it's complexity and scale it arguably must have been designed. Therefore it is rational to believe in some form of creator.
MyCowDied 2 months ago
@MyCowDied
No, you cannot use "the same logic" for the universe.
The premise of your claim that the castle is designed is that you have evidence that humans build castles. The premise of the claim that beaches are natural is that we have evidence of how water naturally erodes rock.
You CANNOT infer a painter from a painting. Implication does not reverse that easily. It is only because painters are ALREADY proven to exist and to make paintings that you can attribute paintings to them.
rkyeun 2 months ago
@elitistb616 Yes but the cause for is experiencing the universe through our own eyes isn't quantifiable. That is to say that, my experiences are stored physically but in a non-physical sense the fact that I perceive the universe as a linear, causal chain from the perspective of what may be called a "vessel" by a religious person isn't quantifiable. Also, the idea of a concept being rational is purely subjective.
MyCowDied 2 months ago
You don't need to do an experiment. The magnetic fields are almost identical to gravity in that the inverse square law will imply that you have elliptical orbits for all bodies going around. Multiple bodies won't behave any differently unless they also emit a magnetic field in which case you'll get chaotic dynamics. Fluctuating field strength will just make them fall in faster or slower and so change their trajectory. There, problem solved. Good night.
coolman9999uk 2 months ago
I think it's fairly well established that ball size does make a difference ;-)
mandolinic 2 months ago
I think you can do this experiment here on earth quite simply (with a good enough approximation):
Use a very hard surface e.g. glass and level it very precisely. Then use a very precise perpendicular solenoid going through the glass surface. Presto.
DerOldHerr 2 months ago
You wanna know whats cute...? After having an argument with a physics teacher over the use of actual vacuums V. the vacuums of space, I went through past notes of logic that I made and Theorized this exact phenomenon. Let it be known that I am a Junior in High School.
NoRealReality 2 months ago
GODDAMMIT WHY DIDN'T I SEE THIS BEFORE!?!?!?
I entered a couple of days ago, but this idea is SO much better >:(
05swanbe 2 months ago
I'm not a physicist, so I may be wrong, but this doesn't seem like a very complicated problem. Aren't the laws of magnetism and whatnot very well understood at this macroscopic level? I just think that these experiments could be done well enough in simulation, using just computers. Why do the experiment for real? Experiments are best to do for things that we can't yet simulate well enough, which is mostly everything.
cbernier3 2 months ago
"Ball size doesn't matter?"
that's NOT what she said!!!
ZachValkyrie 2 months ago 4
@WhistlinWind lol
KeithUnderneath 2 months ago
hey! Can you make a video about Nikola Tesla?
iRobii 2 months ago
Great the way this is a video about electromagnetism and orbital mechanics and the first comment I read is an argument about religion. Fuck off people.
EclecticSceptic 2 months ago 10
I think ball-size would make a difference due to extra mass/inertia. However that could be compensated by giving the bigger balls more excess electric charge. I too can't see why these magnetic orbits should not be possible as long as they are placed on the solenoid's equator. I'd love to see the ISS try this!
noblessus 2 months ago
How the FUCK did people start talking about atheism. This is a video about magnetic orbits.
JEEZ.
weurRTG 2 months ago in playlist Uploaded videos 3
Thunderf00t read about CERN Laboratories very interesting discoveries happening there.
2scary4yu 2 months ago
The last 2 bits of that with the magnets or 'just metal' (I assume you mean permanent magnets or paramagnetic materials) would depend very strongly on the magnetic susceptibility and the speed of the change of the internal state of the magnet/metal. Assuming that this occurs quickly then it's just a 1st or 2nd year classical mechanics question (maybe 2nd/3rd if its set up with inter-ball interactions that require a numerical solution).
Shrubbist 2 months ago
I have a couple of metal balls that go into orbit on occasion> :p
99minerkc 2 months ago
WAIT a minute! Do ghosts have gravity? OMG! I think I getting on to something here! If we can harness the power of ghosts, we can win the fight against gravity! I smell a Nobel Prize!
mikekrbnz 2 months ago
Indeed you can not play with gravity. You just proved it! It was made to be as is. You do not joke around with god creations. It will bring you towards hell!
GeezUsLove 2 months ago in playlist Uploaded videos
so... using trampolines for fun will send you towards hell... right.
Also, pictures and speculation are not proof of anything... but you apparently beleive all the 'jokery' that went into researching how to build your computer and all the internet sent people to hell. Not that this has stopped you from making use of their heathen discoveries for your own benefit.
CathakLinari 2 months ago
I thought they didn't want magnets on the ISS, otherwise I was going to propose something like this.
Tyrannobeast 2 months ago
It is truly amazing to view in retrospect the awesome sum of knowledge the human race has uncovered, and to still have the chance to relish in the mysteries that still exist.
NASTEfilms 2 months ago
Ha, he said balls like 30 times. Balls.
dbryantmsed 2 months ago
You can probably approximate the result on earth using a hard, level surface for the ball to roll on. You'd have additional friction losses but it'd be good enough to see if it's even worth sending into space. I'm skeptical it will work since magnetic force is along the field lines, not perpendicular to them (there is no attraction to the center of a bar magnet, for example). However, replace the metal ball with an electrically charged plastic ball and you got something!
Smidge204 2 months ago
I hope someone picked this up, sounds cool :) The comments on these videos are almost as entertaining as the videos themselves lol. Peace Out ~PG~
PaganGlade 2 months ago
Damn you to a hell of really difficult calculus problems :) I am supposed to be working not thinking about cool ideas for the ISS.
Thank you once again for a really thought provoking idea...
TeabagSalad 2 months ago
this sounds pretty neat
Dxx36 2 months ago
i wonder how TF feels about the most popular comment BY FAR being "It isn't gay until the balls touch."
also... I'd expect there to be some sort of math that could figure this out is there not? at least in theory before practice...
NeverEnoughBall 2 months ago
Whistlinwind's just MAD because someone pissed in his Cheerios, and it wasn't an atheist. :)
leannvlewis 2 months ago
0:18 The orbit would be affected by the strength of the magnetic field and the tangential speed of the metal ball. Actually, the friction between the air inside the ISS and the balls would cause the orbit to fall after a while
0:38 in principle, every orbit you place the balls in is gonna be an elliptical one. Changing the intensity of the field would just change the eccentricity of the orbit just like burning a rocket motor in orbit changes the eccentricity of that rocket's orbit
rodrommel 2 months ago
thunderfoot just figured out ablative armor for the iss
mashersmasher 2 months ago
@WhistlinWind ... Atheists are hateful and weak?? ha ha. Actually most references will show that Atheists are just people who are not Theist. They essentially grew out of imaginary friends if you will... It has nothing to do with hateful and weak. nice Nazi reference, you peace wishing weirdo. I don't have to try to be better than you.... you just make being superior the default position.
KELBYL 2 months ago 65
@KELBYL " I don't have to try to be better than you.... you just make being superior the default position."
Hahahahahaha, brilliant.
Niemtol2 2 months ago
@KELBYL Well put...
honda2363 2 months ago
Never a miscommunication
wHisperis001 2 months ago 41
@wHisperis001 You can't explain that!
crusaders36 2 months ago
It's magnets. How do they work?
You can't explain that!!
Tide comes in and tide goes out!
Zhyppers 2 months ago 2
@Zhyppers Oh Ha Ha ! ;-)
O2BSoLucky 2 months ago
@Zhyppers Yeah, but where'd the moon come from?
FreindlyRanger 2 months ago
"Either way it would look cool"
EmerseYourSelf 2 months ago
Why spend a million bucks to perform the experiment in a microgravity environment when you could do it on earth for a ten thousandth the price? Air table and pucks.
Libertarianist 2 months ago
@Libertarianist Better yet a superconductor table with quantum superconductor pucks which would facilitate doing it in a vacuum. It's still an interesting experiment. I hope someone performs it. I have my own micro gravity experiment involving an apparatus to test the fabrication of buckytubes under a variety of accelerations (up to 1G) and atmospheric pressures (perhaps even using different gasses)
/watch?v=xct4UcriEHY
ExtantFrodo2 2 months ago
@ExtantFrodo2 I'm not a physicist but I thought of that and concluded that a superconducting levitation table in a vacuum might not be a feasible option. The solenoid would induce currents in the super conducting surface and may cause undesirable interference. Perhaps the pucks would begin to bounce or rock until colliding with the surface of the superconductor. That also would be much more expensive.
Libertarianist 2 months ago
@Libertarianist I was wondering about that too. I was just upset about the drag and trying to find a 'work around'.
ExtantFrodo2 2 months ago
I've been up for almost 48 hours and when that happens, I revert back to the sense of humor I had when I was 12.
He said "balls". x3
apopheniacMCMLXXXIX 2 months ago
@apopheniacMCMLXXXIX Now now, It's a well known fact that men never really mature past the fourth grade we just get a better vocabulary. There is no real reversion here lol
TheAmazingLeztits 2 months ago
@WhistlinWind
How many atheists can you name that behaves the way do described? Or even displays the hate you did towards him, back at you?
Thanks.
dlite922 2 months ago
@thunderf00t Surely the metal balls used would be of different mass. The smaller balls would have to travel at faster speeds to maintain the same orbital distance and would crash into each other before long.
DreamChasing 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
An interesting tidbit about memories. They aren't stored in the mind like computer data bits. There is no physical space where it is stored, however the physical space which activates upon recalling memories can be damaged or shredded and the memories will disappear. Timeless existence achieved.
MarksmenTM 2 months ago
@WhistlinWind You have found nothing.
arseymcpherson 2 months ago
@WhistlinWind sooo.... you're an atheist then? (based on all your hate)
mccabe1958 2 months ago 2
@WhistlinWind I think you're smoking some weed that's just a bit too much for you. Downgrade to the Yankee Ditchweed until you get used to smoking pot. If you are now using Yankee Ditchweed, perhaps it is time you tried a new drug.
TheSaturnalia 2 months ago 3
@they refuse to accept any philosophical argument that deals with a completely incomprehensible theory that could still apply. Something completely incomprehensible will be widely accepted with evidence in particle physics but the same can be said about philosophical arguments. E.g. the design argument has plenty of evidence supporting the existence of a God
MyCowDied 2 months ago
@sines134 circumstance. Do you get what I'm saying (it's quite difficult to put into writing)? My personal approach is that which I've just explained but I don't pretend to be an expert on the matter, I'm just putting forward my viewpoint. Sorry for spreading my replies out, YouTube only allows for short comments. I don't agree with some religious views which adapt facts to fit archaic theories but equally, the human mind can only comprehend so much and the downfall of many atheists is that the
MyCowDied 2 months ago
@sines134 in the brain then our experiences are just recording and the idea that we live through our own experiences. You see the world through your own eyes but the only thing to keep you aware of this is your memories. This could suggest that everybody experiences their life through the vessel which is our body and that all consciousness comes from the same source. To me that is a rational and philosophical approach to life, that everybody is the same person only exposed to different circumst
MyCowDied 2 months ago
@sines134 By saying "something that can't be quantified" I'm referring to an abstract concept. For example, the idea of a conscience separate from the physical world that we experience. It is rational to believe in the idea of a soul because abstract thinking allows us to consider various hypothetical situations which can never be proved or disproved. For example the idea that the universe was created at this very instant and "all the blanks were filled in" so to speak. If memories are stored i
MyCowDied 2 months ago
@MyCowDied "It is rational to believe in the idea of a soul because abstract thinking allows us to consider various hypothetical situations which can never be proved or disproved."
Actually it is not rational, because there is no logical chain supporting your statement. Simply because humans are capable of creating hypothetical unprovable situations in no way logically ties in to the idea of a soul. The only thing abstracting thinking proves is that humans are capable of it.
Elitistb616 2 months ago
Employing AC solenoids in combination with spherical magnets will
result in locomotion as well as levitation............However you will not
be able to keep magnets separate ..........
Energyfield 2 months ago
@whistlinwind Sorry for eavesdropping (if you can call it that) but I think the whole atheist-theist internet war stems from the general ignorance of some Christians (e.g. the Pope) that upsets atheists, and the general arrogance of some atheists who refuse to accept any plausible explanation regarding anything that can't be quantified (e.g. Richard Dawkins). Combined with the attitude people adopt due to the anonymity the internet provides, it tends to turn nasty.
MyCowDied 2 months ago
@MyCowDied "the general arrogance of some atheists who refuse to accept any plausible explanation regarding anything that can't be quantified (e.g. Richard Dawkins)."
Why would such an explanation without evidence or plausibility be considered plausible?
Elitistb616 2 months ago
@Elitistb616 Just because something isn't quantifiable doesn't mean it doesn't have evidence to back it up. As I explained to sines134, the concept of consciousness and experiencing the world from your perspective has evidence to support it. You see things through your own eyes but that experience is unique to you and so isn't quantifiable.
MyCowDied 2 months ago
@MyCowDied "Just because something isn't quantifiable doesn't mean it doesn't have evidence to back it up."
You are answering a question I did not ask. However, your consciousness and experiencing the world can actually be quantified. We can measure the electrical signals and study the brain chemistry. There has even been some success at decoding thought patterns and stored memories.
Yesterday's miracles are today's myths.
Elitistb616 2 months ago
@Elitistb616 I don't want an argument though, and I apologise if my point of view offended you but that is my personal experience on the matter. I'm only fifteen but having been part of a catholic education system my entire life I have been exposed to various different opinions and experienced compulsory philosophy and ethics courses that are relatively unbiased. I don't agree with attaching physical characters to philosophical teachings (such as Jesus) but there is some validity in theism.
MyCowDied 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MyCowDied "I don't agree with attaching physical characters to philosophical teachings (such as Jesus) but there is some validity in theism."
An interesting assertion. I now ask you to provide evidence to that assertion.
Elitistb616 2 months ago
@MyCowDied How is it arrogant to not accept some kinds of answers, and instead say "I don't know"? And that's ignoring the idea that your claim is wrong. I, and plenty of other atheists, including Dawkins, am perfectly happy accepting qualitative answers. Quantitative are just prefered.
Unless by 'can't be quantified' you mean 'has no evidence'. In which case... I hope I don't need to explain why not believing in something without evidence is a sign of a rational mind.
Sines314 2 months ago
@klaxoncow He spelt it "sandwich" which is the correct spelling... unless he changed it after seeing your comment.
MyCowDied 2 months ago
So what's the answer!!??
stiqula 2 months ago
Oh my god, that's brilliant!
IdleGod 2 months ago
well they will hit each other eventually and bounce of in different directions, not hard is it.
bicnarok 2 months ago
Do it.
FinianBlaxhall 2 months ago
Obviously following ethical understanding the balls should never touch.
ScientificExploits 2 months ago
Could be quite funny experiment, but I see a lot of problems.
Do you double the force from the magnet if the mass of the ball doubles?
Unlike gravity the magnetic force can easily be bent
Is this thought to be 2D or a 3D experiment?
A magnet does not have a uniform 3D field like gravity
rusle 2 months ago
@rusle Not to mention that 1. it would have to be done in a vacuum, or else drag would cause rapid orbital decay, and 2. because there are so few combinations of speed and direction that would result in stable orbits, it would take forever to find the right calibration for one ball, so it would be easier to just shoot a spray of iron filings into the system and watch the tiny minority that neither fall into the magnet nor escape from it.
Sesoron 2 months ago
Great consept, tfoot.
omnimetabell 2 months ago
You do know you've spelt "sandwich" wrong, yes?
KlaxonCow 2 months ago
This is genius! This is defo a good idea!
Guitareben 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I've always wanted to see a magnetic "orbit" demonstration in weightlessness!
Frosttty 2 months ago
Comment removed
Frosttty 2 months ago
Thunderf00t would have massive balls. Click here if you think he shaves them...
kusalaviro 2 months ago
@WhistlinWind Youtube atheists aren't most atheists.
Andizottel 2 months ago
Balls should never collide
AnonaThetan 2 months ago
I like the way he says "ball size"
NorseMariner7 2 months ago
I think you'd either have to be incredibly precise with ball speed or have some kind of microcontroller monitoring where a ball is and modulating field strength accordingly, and don't even think about multiple balls.
Would be cool to be proven wrong in this case though. Ballplanets in the solenoid system? Yes please.
technicalfool 2 months ago
Fuckiing magnets how do they work?
19822andy 2 months ago 2
@19822andy Magic man done it!
jaynkay100 2 months ago
I bet Thunderf00t would love to be 14 to enter this competition
19822andy 2 months ago
The paths will change to ellipses but they will be different ellipses for each ball (same shape, different orientation); the changes in angle at each point in time and the changes to the distance from the solenoid will all be constant between the balls since size doesn't matter. The only collisions that could occur would be because the distances between the CoMs would be equal to the sum of the two radii of the balls, the CoMs should never try to occupy the same space
Tikorous 2 months ago
And if it fails we get to say "it's gay, balls are touching"?
gpdl00355 2 months ago
As I said, that's just theory.
danschaoticmind 2 months ago
Uhhh... touchy. Great idea but unless if the flux lines are at different polarities, the spheres would likely just collapse back towards the magnetic sources. I'd have to consult a book I have concerning magnetic theory (Taken as part of my degree in RF engineering) but if I recall right, suspension would only occur with the introduction of opposite polarities at distance creating equal force that would act upon an object. In short terms, the variances in field strength may collapse the orbits.
danschaoticmind 2 months ago
Hmmm, I'm an Electrical Engineer, I should be able to work that out and I'm sorely tempted to, it's a nice little brain teaser. If I get some time later in the week, I'll throw a few hours at it.
Watch this space but I'm not promising anything.
tvsinesperanto 2 months ago
Magnetism is only a theory. The balls are held in place by the FSM's noodly appendages.
Hyperplaterine 2 months ago
I used to know how magnets work, then I took christianity to the knee.
yohan20 2 months ago
Please, don't let the balls collide, that would be really gay.
superraiden 2 months ago
DO IT!!!! I want to see this on the MSS!
TheSH1N1GAM1 2 months ago
I don't think you can get a stable orbit because the magnetic force is too strong at close proximity but very quickly diminishes with distance.
ShwangShwing 2 months ago
@ShwangShwing The magnetic force, like the force of gravity, is an inverse-square law.
emkajii 2 months ago 21
@emkajii Can you give me the equation? I know the equation for the force of gravity, but I don't know how to calculate the force between a solenoid and a ferromagnetic object.
ShwangShwing 2 months ago
@ShwangShwing dude wikipedia....
azmanabdula 2 months ago
@azmanabdula Already checked before asking.
ShwangShwing 2 months ago
Comment removed
azmanabdula 2 months ago
@ShwangShwing ok try this...
h t t p :// w w w (dot) newton (dot) dep (dot) anl (dot) gov/archive (dot) htm
remove the spaces...
and obviously replace the space (dot) space with a .
azmanabdula 2 months ago
@azmanabdula newton.dep.anl.gov/archive.htm. fixed ; )
yeshuahfullofit 2 months ago
@yeshuahfullofit so what are you doing?
azmanabdula 2 months ago
@azmanabdula Not much. Just "passing to and fro" annoying xians on YT, because I can. ; )
yeshuahfullofit 2 months ago
@azmanabdula I see "snotofgod" has subbed you.
yeshuahfullofit 2 months ago
@yeshuahfullofit No shit!
can you delete subscribers?
i want nothing to do with that man..."slobofgod"
his ignorance runs like diarrhea from the buffalo.....
azmanabdula 2 months ago
@azmanabdula "can you delete subscribers?". Yep. Just 'block' him. That will remove him from your subs. After a day or two you can remove the block, if you wish, or just leave him blocked. I say 'fuck him'. He won't let anyone debate him or even question his assertions without blocking them so I don't think he should have any say.
yeshuahfullofit 2 months ago
@yeshuahfullofit then again....
im all for freedom of speech....i dont know...
azmanabdula 2 months ago
@yeshuahfullofit I remember I literally posted a comment on shockofgods video saying I disagree and i was blocked
AgrivatedKillah 2 months ago
@AgrivatedKillah Absolutely. That is the extent of the respect 'shitofgod' displays for freedom of speech or anyone's opinion other than his own. Until he sees fit to respect my opinions, I see no compelling reason to respect his. "Do unto others...".
yeshuahfullofit 2 months ago
@azmanabdula click on to his channel and hit 'block user'. ; )
yeshuahfullofit 2 months ago
@emkajii magnetism drops off like1/r not 1/r^2.
xkoenigseggx 2 months ago
@emkajii It's not that simple. The field strength from a moving charge falls off, more or less, like the inverse square of the distance, but that's not directly relevant here. It's pretty complicated - the magnetic field induces a dipole in the metal and the dipole in the metal feels a force from the gradients of the magnetic field. And that's just the first level approximation you make after you make some approximations about what you think the field is doing.
odysseus9672 2 months ago
It isn't gay until the balls touch.
FlowCell 2 months ago 78
@FlowCell Not that there's anything wrong with that...
extrovertedthinker 2 months ago
You can't explain that
m4c13k86 2 months ago
Is this a subtle joke thunderf00t? Was the reference to balls colliding an analogous reference to the meme of 'balls touching' ... lol.
schr4nz 2 months ago
Aren't all orbits elliptical?
johnrcoben 2 months ago
@johnrcoben in actuality, yes, but with this device you can change the frequency so that the orbit is forced to be circular. all other frequencies would cause the orbit to be ovular.
alex12123002 2 months ago
@alex12123002 Frequency of what? How would this "frequency" change the shape of the orbit? What are Kepler's laws?
johnrcoben 2 months ago
@johnrcoben err I meant magnetic currency. TFoot's hypothesis is that changing the magnetic currency a certain way would change the shape and action of the orbit. That's what would need to be tested and observed. I'm not a scientist myself; I was merely trying to re-state what TFoot was saying (and I did so badly the first time around).
alex12123002 2 months ago
Why does it sound like he talks with a bunch of marbles in his mouth...
myjizzureye 2 months ago
@myjizzureye hahah
Neueregel 2 months ago
@myjizzureye lol
Refreshernoob 2 months ago
Why can't we just model this mathematically? It would look cool to follow your suggestion, but I don't understand how it would help us understand anything. I bet a physics student could throw together a python script in a few hours that could simulate an oscillating magnetic field.
Then again, maybe I have no idea what I'm talking about.
ross817 2 months ago
Uniform magnetic fields do not put a force on metal but rather a torque. The magnetic field lines emanating from the end of a magnet are diverging and therefore a force will be felt by a steel bar there. The magnetic field produced by a solenoid is similar to a magnet. The field lines you drew in the video would be produced by a single straight wire. Any iron filings would be torqued to align in circles yet there would be no lateral force on them.
WarmWeatherGuy 2 months ago
The "show begins at..." link doesn't work for me, I get "an error has occurred."
Why doesn't the info say what date? Are we to assume today?
TheCuriousSkeptic 2 months ago
Tf00t, you had to realise as soon as mention ballsize you were going to get comments about testicles.
uknowispeaksense 2 months ago
well put mr foot, and very intriguing. what can we do to support/push forward this initiative?
TheStclairfamily 2 months ago
Fantastic. WTF is the point of this video?
mryateman1 2 months ago
Ball size *always* matters!
busterbox 2 months ago
oh if only we knew how to control gravity using a dimmer switch.
bogdan1231 2 months ago
@bogdan1231
Ancient Aliens
chadd990 2 months ago
I apologize for a dumb question, it is actually because English is not my native tongue: What is a solenoid?
RustyTube 2 months ago
@RustyTube a solenoid is basically a conductive material (copper wire e.g.) wrapped in a spiral (like a spring) which generates a magnetic field when electric current is sent through the material. A moving magnetic field through the solenoid can also produce an electric current in the circuit.
Hope that helps!
Ahuc899 2 months ago
@Ahuc899 Thank you very much. Yes, it does help.
RustyTube 2 months ago
@RustyTube A solenoid[nb 1] is a coil wound into a tightly packed helix. In physics, the term solenoid refers to a long, thin loop of wire, often wrapped around a metallic core, which produces a magnetic field when an electric current is passed through it. Solenoids are important because they can create controlled magnetic fields and can be used as electromagnets.
Grubnar 2 months ago
@Grubnar The term solenoid refers specifically to a magnet designed to produce a uniform magnetic field in a volume of space (where some experiment might be carried out).
Wikipedia is your friend!
Grubnar 2 months ago
@Grubnar Thank you very much. Now I understand.
RustyTube 2 months ago
I've got your metal balls right here.
grits011 2 months ago