Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Powered by leedskalnin.com & buzzdev.net
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Comments
I have read the link and make the observation that the analysis of Mach is flawed.
Firstly he does not address the term absolute properly, especially as Newton employed it. And secondly he does not address the issue of real and formal systems. In defining space and time he falls prey to the reification of the reference frame and the constancy of a Metron.
Mach does not deal with the philosophical issue because he does not pretend to be a philosopher, and so he fails to give full consideration to the matter. Thus his operational definitions already contain several unannounced absolutes simply because he does not define the meaning of the word absolute.
Newton in using the word Absolute refers to a common classical notion and theosophy dealing with ontological matters. In particular he refers to Aristotles use of the concept: things exist absolutely like god or truth, it was believed or they exist dependently. Newton in setting out space as absolute means no more than it is axiomatic that space exists independent of every and anything else. Few would argue against that. The concept of absolute time derives from a belief in God as master of time, and again few in his time would argue against that. The concept of absolute force however was radical, and derived from Galileo and his empirical observations of the Jovian system.
Stating them in this fashion removes them from debate. Having removed them he can now proceed to the structure of his system by which he gives account of the behaviours of planets and their moons.
They of course should be debated and were by LaPlace, LaGrange and Euler no less . Each found differently regarding their validity, but Euler maintained Newtons principles were the basis for mechanics, and eventually, after holding a more complex position, LaGrange came to agree.
Because the authors have followed Mach they have made the mistakes of Mach. Mass is not defined by density and volume producted. Newton quite clearly defines quantity of matter by this calculation. And the point is it is a calculation, because the result is not quantity of matter, but a measure of the quantity of matter.
The difference between a measure and the entity is crucial. But Newton admitted his choice of names or measures was very suggestive and potentially misleading.
The question what is density is one that baffles physicists even today. However the measure of a behaviour of balance called density is easy to apprehend. Using water as a standard Metron and a balance mechanism I can balance different materials. That balance , ratioed against the unit standard of water I can name a measure called density. This density measure corresponds to a kinaesthetic apprehension that some material with the same bulk require more physical effort to move or in the case of a balance mechanism require more standards units to balance.
In this way every quantity we love and value in physics is a plain ratio to which we have learned to append more than we should metaphysically.
Some of the propaganda is quaint in today's claustrophobic research communities! The theoretical equations actually held back the development of the transistors! The war sped things through removing the academic block caused by vested interests!
Please note, wavelength is misleading: frequency and range of frequency is what characterises the wave and what it will do!
Thus a 2 fluid model of this atmosphere was proposed and held by shamans,seers, natural philosophers,mystics etc. Benjamin Franklin was the first to propose a simpler model consisting of a single fluid. This was not popular but gradually gained ground through certain redoubtable converts in influential positions. Volta came up against such a convert who suppressed his empirical views and warped Volta's thinking to remove one of the atmospheres. Yet Volta never gave up the 2 " force" model: repulsive and attractive.
More than any volta demonstrated the validity of the 2 fluid atmospheric model. Important to his demonstration of a direct current producing combination of material was the necessity of water or moisture.
With that in mind view this video on the findings of professor Pollack . Then understand how a magnetic current may generate thes separations in the atmospheres around all objects at all scales.
What is associated with a conductor is an RF signal. This occurs naturally in any material but is more observable in a conductor where it is mistakenly called electricity .
Pulsation of the magnetic flux vortex
This is what creates motion thus electricity is just pulsation of the magnetic vortex around a conductor or dielectric material.
Triboelectric effects are tribomagnetic pulsation effects?
Finally we can mimic the magnetic current by hydraulic systems.
These pumps can easily become motors. Compare with the generator motor duality.
Note that a pulsating ( expanding and contracting) rotational variation drives the mechanical behaviours.
You may need to look at plasma physics alongside spectroscopic analysis. The colour of a spark is dependent on the material and atmospheric composition surrounding it. White as shown by Newton is a combinatorial product as far as light is concerned.
The corona around certain high energy discharge surfaces is a signature of oxygen reduction . A spark for a great many of the early researchers was called an electric flame! The idea of ectoplasm like phlogistegen was one model of these mysterious phenomena.
Of course a flame is accordingly electro magnetically dynamic !! It is a plasma too.
We have not adequately resolved the mysteries, but we are so blasè we think we know it all.
The language of discourse is critical to the scientific method. Using non biased words and labels helps to maintain open minds. The evolution / intelligent design debate represents a reactionary response to the loss of thought control that the church held for many centuries and abused perniciously. That is why certai words and labels are no longer used today. They distort and bias empirical examinations.
Whle the more careful natural philosophers recognised it as a magnetic phenomenon, usually thought of as at the core or running through the centre of magnetism in some way, others more practically minded succumbed to isolating the spark to electra that is organic crystalline substances like amber, giving up its mysterious power through tribological means.
Of course it was natural to distinguish what one found so clearly that readers might not mistake the novelty of the observation: in short to make a name for one self. Thus the Gilbertians Philosophy was sidelined by less careful researchers keen to make a name while the more academic sought to revise the established doctrine as is the Academic way..
The treatises on Magnetism therefore contained both Magnetic and electric theory and were revisions based for the most part on new empirical observations and measurements.
Lord Kelvin for example revised Gilberts treatise in the light of his own prodigious understanding. However it was Maxwell who established the primacy of the electric " force" in the explanation, drawing heavily on Faradays empirical research findings, but often discarding Faradays own philosophical, and religious interpretations!
It should be noted that Maxwells interest in wave theory and fluid mechanicsl provided a new angle of modelling these phenomena mathematically( , what did that mean?!) .
For most people a mathematical exposition was entirely unnecessary and very obtuse even anachronistic. So for a very long time nobody paid much attention to Maxwells work, except an academic few, especially Helmholtz and Kelvin.
Kelvin was not best pleased with it, as it irivalidated his own views, but also it adopted Hamiltons quaternion paraphernalia ! No way were the laws of electricity going to depend on the concept of imaginary variables!!!
Kelvin personally saw to it that Hamiltons mathematical framework was dismantled and removed from the scene, replacing it with his own more direct notations. He pressed Maxwell to revise his presentation, dropping Hamiltonian notations and reversing his expressed opinion on quaternions.
Maxwell was forced to do this to save his work from obscurity! He nearly failed in that aim, but for his remaining Hamiltonian ideas.
The Irish academics hailed Hamilton as a new Newton, and pursued his mathematical framework into its obvious applications in Physics. Thus the curl, the del, the Nabla , the grad and the div formats for differential equations were developed and pioneered by them. These became standard formats in later mechanical treatments, but in essence Maxwells presentation was well suited for these revisions. Thus Fitzgerald and Heaviside as well,as Hertz under Helmholtz insistence , set about revising and reviving Maxwells theoretical ideas, irrespective of Faradays and Tesla's more empirical treatments.
Despite Hertz demonstrating electromagnetic wave patterns, it still took Heavisides drastic revision of Maxwells work to raise It to any public prominence. Both Hertz and Heaviside heavily redacted the work, dropping many of the more difficult and obscure measurements Maxwell intimated as key notions like the Poyntng vector., as it came to be known.
It was Heaviside, a practical, engineer who made Maxwell accessible to the pragmatic engineer, by reducing his formulae to 5 , of which only 4 are commonly taught academically,,the 5 th , the resistance induction equation is typically only taught to radio enginerrs, or transmission line engineers.
So maxwell was revived by engineers, not academics. And those engineers favoured the plumbing analogy of electricity. They could grasp a current flowing in pipes , what they could not grasp was an energy flowing around the pipes as conductors/ guides. Heaviside lamented this lack of understanding, and it is really only Ivor Catt who has championed this more accurate model .
The solutions to the differential equations Maxwell wrote in his theory were presented as line diagrams in his theoretical work, it is these solutions that mark out standing wave patterns in space if true. What Hertz demonstrated was that these patterns model actual high voltage nodes In a room around the sparking device he utilised.
Thus Maxwell did not predict he merely modelled a dynamic solution to his differential equation of inductive force. He drew these diagrams by Hand, describing the method, as his best approximator to the numerical solution .
The plumbing model is incorrect. We now need to see the fluid vortices that stabilise around conductors and which transmit a wave strain that rotates and reflects and refracts in all,our circuit designs.
Not a very clear article, but essentially demonstrates the radio Frequency wave / rotational vortex of magnetic induction often called dielectric or electric current.
As usual the researchers observe only one type by design xxx
The simplest explanation of the magnetic universe and how the rotational wave/ vortex in the magnetic mode of space or aether can be modelled and studied .
What can we learn about the way" electricity " does not run in a wire but instead is wave guided by inductible materials?
Field aligned means magnetic polarity lines up in the centre of a rotating polarity or vortex indicator! This is what we define as an electric current!
Fluids are not solids and can support vortices of extreme complexity.
Thus electric behaviour is a vortex phenomenon of magnetic flux/ fluid .
It wraps around a conductor/ inductor like a series of rolling smoke rings , establishing a standing vortex complex.
While I am not making any specific claim I do hypothesise that a general model of magnetic vortices should encompass this kind of paranormal activity.
The more specific phenomenon of ghostly persona requires a more complex fractal theory of magneto Thermo sono electro complexes. Knotted vortices , filaments etc definitely have a place as complex magnetic structures in space .