The magnetic ocean . Magneto dielectric materials include water and all types of colloids, solutions and compounds and admixtures..

I start with materials which exhibit magnetic behaviour. Lodestone crystals, amber resins and inorganic and organic admixtures that modulate the easily observable global behaviour.

Fluids and solids are included in this admixture, and unlike Newton who specifically excluded such things from his initial description of corpora/ bodies under discussion, I do include these as did sir Robert Boyle.

My fundamental theoretical model is not based on bodies / corpora but on dynamic pressure surfaces in space.

Surfaces are defined by curvilinear coordinate systems which is why spheroidal and vorticular surfaces are natural outcomes of this kind of reference frame.

This kind of reference frame means complex surfaces can be set as fundamental substrates for force vector ( including curvilinear ones) in any situation of interest.

The simplest dynamic then becomes rotational, and we may choose pivoting swings or pendulums as initial dynamics to study. ]]>

The experiment I am researching is whether a Leyden jar has been charged by a permanent magnet. Inside and outside. Alternatively has one been charged by an electromagnet inside and outside.

I have searched simply and found no forthcoming results.

The more complicated search would be with regard to a magnetron in a microwave cavity charging the cavity or a Leyden jar within it. Now this is very dangerous, as all microwaves forbid metallic pans in the cavity.

I have seen plasma balls generated in a microwave, but my simple question is the place where I want to begin.

Has anyone done this experiment with a Leyden jar?]]>

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pier_Luigi_Ighina]]>

]]>

It gives a coherent description of the true nature of electricity, magnetism, light, and everything else.

It's a good start to understand acquire a perspective on how the universe works, and how Ed did it.

I'm attaching an excerpt of the book here below, in TXT format.

]]>

Thanks/Gill

https://oneseventhheaven.weebly.com/]]>

]]>

]]>

]]>

Official video:

https://news.sky.com/story/spacex-successfully-launches-falcon-heavy-rocket-11239614]]>

In the paper Newtonian mechanics: An implication of extended relativity (the paper is attached below for your convenience; if you have trouble retrieving the attachment, try here) I entertain a seemingly preposterous idea that Newtonian mechanics in its entirety can be inductively derived from a single principle which I call extended relativity. By employing the notion of inductive implication (as opposed to deductive one) I want to emphasize that my derivation relies on assumptions induced by common sense and everyday experience (like additivity of inertial mass, for example, or the simple observation that kinetic energy grows monotonically with both mass and velocity).

The essence of the paper can be summarized as follows:

(1) functional relation between kinetic energy, mass, and velocity (K ~ mv^2), as well as conservation of momentum (m1V1+ m2V2= 0) are both inductive implications of Galilean relativity. This effectively means that all three laws of Newton follow from a single principle – the principle of relativity of inertial motion. In mathematical terms, the derivation boils down to solving the following two functional equations:

2g(m) = g(2m),

f(–v) + f(v) = f(–v + w) + f(v + w) – 2f(w); and

(2) inverse square law is not merely a geometrical law from which it follows that the intensity of emanation must decay as inverse square of the distance from a point source - inverse square law is an inductive implication of relativity of scale.

When I came up with this idea of relativity of scale I was quite ecstatic - I thought I hit upon something new and of great importance. But shortly after, I had the opportunity to see the light of the Russian adage: Everything new is actually well-forgotten old. It turns out that the great Galileo has already pondered over the possibility of scale invariance of the laws of nature, but he rejected it due to its unacceptable, as he thought, implications. The following quote from Feynman gives an idea of Galileo’s reasoning that lead him to reject the principle of scale invariance:

The fact that the laws of physics are not unchanged under a change of scale was discovered by Galileo. He realized that the strengths of materials were not in exactly the right proportion to their sizes, and he illustrated this property that we were just discussing, about the cathedral of matchsticks, by drawing two bones, the bone of one dog, in the right proportion for holding up his weight, and the imaginary bone of a ‘super dog’ that would be, say, ten or a hundred times bigger – that bone was a big, solid thing with quite different proportions. We do not know whether he ever carried the argument quite to the conclusion that the laws of nature must have a definite scale, but he was so impressed with this discovery that he considered it to be as important as the discovery of the laws of motion, because he published them both in the same volume, called ‘On Two New Sciences’One can easily see that Galileo's reasoning is not quite free of logical fallacies here: the scaling is not applied consistently at all levels of fractal structure of material universe. But let us take a look at Feynman’s own arguments against the principle of relativity of scale:

Suppose that we ask: ‘Are the physical laws symmetrical under a change of scale?’ Suppose we build a certain piece of apparatus, and then build another apparatus five times bigger in every part, will it work exactly the same way? The answer is, in this case, no! The wavelength of light emitted, for example, by the atoms inside one box of sodium atoms and the wavelength of light emitted by a gas of sodium atoms five times in volume is not five times longer, but is in fact exactly the same as the other. So the ratio of the wavelength to the size of the emitter will change... Today, of course, we understand the fact that phenomena depend on the scale on the grounds that matter is atomic in nature, and certainly if we built an apparatus that was so small there were only five atoms in it, it would clearly be something we could not scale up and down arbitrarily. The scale of an individual atom is not at all arbitrary – it is quite definite.From the logical perspective, Feynman’s reasoning is not much better than Galileo’s. Indeed, how does Feynman know that “the wavelength of light emitted, for example, by the atoms inside one box of sodium atoms and the wavelength of light emitted by a gas of sodium atoms five times in volume is not five times longer, but is in fact exactly the same as the other”? Did he, or someone else for that matter, conduct an experiment with enlarged five times atoms? He says: “matter is atomic in nature” and “scale of an individual atom is not at all arbitrary – it is quite definite”. How so? All our experience suggests otherwise. First we have discovered molecules, then atoms, then nucleus, then quarks (not entirely sure about quarks though - this could be a bogus theoretical construct). On what grounds is based Feynman’s belief that there is an end to that process? Does not Feynman know that the hypothesis of ‘elementary’ particles that occupy mere mathematical points in space without extended structures of any kind invariably leads to all kinds of nonsense and irreconcilable contradictions? It seems logically more consistent to conjecture that there is no such thing as ‘elementary’ particle in nature at all, that the distribution of matter is inherently fractal both up and down.

Speaking of the fractal nature of matter structure, I recall an incredibly bold and daring picture A.N. Kolmogorov had painted in his 1973 lecture inaugurating us – the newly-fledged students of his mathematical school. He said something to the effect: There is nothing in physics, or in science in general, that could rebuff the conjecture that the entire visible universe is nothing but a smoke from a businessman’s cigar. He was speaking figuratively, of course, but the idea is clear: The distribution of matter in the universe is fractal in nature. A.N. Kolmogorov evidently had a clear understanding of the idea behind the notion of fractals long before B. Mandelbrot coined that word in 1975. To substantiate that claim, I resort to the words of Mandelbrot himself (see “Fractals and Scaling in Finance” by Benoit Mandelbrot, p. 115):

Scaling in turbulence. Taking a path-breaking intellectual step, Richardson 1922 adapted [Jonathan] Swift as follows]]>Big whorls have little whorls,

Which feed on their velocity

And little whorls have lesser whorls,

And so on to viscosity

(in the molecular sense).

The next step after Richardson was taken in Kolmogorov 1941. In a class only with Lévy, Kolmogorov (1903 – 1987) was the greatest probabilist of this century. I barely knew him personally, but greatly admired his extraordinary range of achievement. At the mathematical end of his range of interest in probability theory, Kolmogorov 1933 seemed to me too close to comfort to the work of the ultimate decorator who rearranges existing material. But Kolmogorov’s papers on turbulence were filled with novelty and daring.

<<img src="http://magneticuniverse.com/uploads/editor/72/4in1scbffact.jpg" alt="" />

img src="http://magneticuniverse.com/uploads/editor/ar/ckrmeslnbux3.jpg" alt="" />

]]>