Can Humans Create Rotational Motion of Water Using Their Own Electric Field?

AI Thread Summary
Creating rotational motion of water using only a human's electric field is not feasible, as humans do not generate a significant electric field. The idea is considered pseudo-science and lacks scientific backing. Without additional tools or accessories, it is impossible to achieve this effect. The discussion highlights skepticism regarding the viability of such concepts. Overall, the notion remains unsupported by credible scientific evidence.
asafbuch
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Hi everyone!

I wanted to know if there is a possible way for a human-being to create a rotational motion of
water in a metallic box by himself, probably using his own electric field (is there such a thing?)
with no other accessories? It might be related to the term "Electric people"...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
No.

People don't produce an electric field as far as I'm aware (nothing substantial anyway).

This whole concept is pseudo-science at best.
 

Thread '1:1 versus 2:1 Mechanical Advantage debate'

The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
View full post »

Thread 'Newton's first law?'

Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
View full post »
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'

Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'

Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
View full post »

Similar threads

Can a Spinning Astronaut Use a Tethered Bowling Ball to Gain Motion in Space?
Replies
2
Views
1K
Can a gyroscope lift a fulcrum (and itself), hinged to the floor?
Replies
8
Views
3K
Investigating the water-ice electret
Replies
1
Views
2K
I Can Specific Oscillating Electric Fields Heat Dipolar Molecules Selectively?
Replies
4
Views
1K
B Is the Kink in the Electromagnetic Wave Responsible for Delayed Motion?
Replies
8
Views
2K
Rotating a spherical conductor in an Electric field
Replies
20
Views
3K
Misc. An improvement on my previous low-tech way to rotate solar panels
Replies
18
Views
2K
I Non-Inertial Relativistic Dynamics
Replies
18
Views
1K
Investigating Motion of Rockets & Satellites: Advanced Mechanics Depth Study
Replies
2
Views
2K
Rotating/moving an object in space by the use of thrusters
Replies
8
Views
7K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top