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
might touch on some van halen.. it makes my hair standup. stevie wright Evie baby let your hair hang down..
smoky dawson homestead of my dreams....i know your looking straight at ae ea
Cat Stevens Leapin and a hopin
I 'm not technical i don't practice in the art's of trickery. i only have a Polaroid
but in all seriousness
How many cur rents do you see?
also what do you see when you look at the word current?
Google E=mc2 what do you see? Where does E=0 its more than likely non trivial.
Whats the moon that ed's standing under represent?
if that was even his name? EDL? i know what it represents and i'm just an everyday person.
The well ?
Have you ever looked at an observatory? through a looking glass
jars of?
What the Moon shadow process? whats happening?
to have 1 there must be 2 or you wouldn't exist?
whats ac/dc?
i don't know how many can put 2 dots together let alone 337 or even 50
Have you ever watched HBo
or read very old freemason books or who Humphrey potter is
Smiley faces emotions
Is anyone interested in working with me
I am not alone in this, I know , but I mention it because I do not want a reader to think I am un approachable or always right!
So to love, the heart the wrapping of coils and the joining of coils in the heart so that they magnetically love each other, so that magnetic current " flows" .
@Antigravity asks how many currents do we see.
In nature I see few currents if any. Rather I see flowing bodies of matter that carry other bodies as markers. In my paradigm, the fluid dynamic, I am fascinated at how fluids move within each other while the overall shape appears to remain un involved!
The fluid paradigm allows for this kind of interpenetrability, which is why so much classical thinking is based in the fluid paradigm. The aether or plenum is a fluid within which all materiality exists and manifests.
That our forefathers posited an immaterial realm which determined the material is not psychologically strange. Rather it completes the causal picture in a satisfying way, until one asks the begging question, that is!
Philosophically there is no answer, so the pragmatic principle of exhaustion was set out before all philosophers. Simply it states: stop analysing when you are exhausted or the topic is exhausted! Turn to synthesis .
The fractal nature of our experiential continua was thus encoded in this way. . For example the ChristiannPaul spoke of the seventh heaven , or we talk about cloud 9. These are so called " levels" of conscious experiential "reality" or states of mind or awareness that we may culturally accept as normative.
However when Benoit Mandelbrot studied the topological practices of certain geometers, and their penetrating enquiry into natural forms, he was able to escape not only from Nazi Germany, but also from the Academic dictatorships of his day and pull all these concepts together by their inductive iterative approach. He found that these few conceptual tools of induction, iteration and free scaling could produce natural looking topological patterns out of complexity. His early access to that iterative wonder machine, the computer with the for loop practically demonstrated that symmetry, algebraic symbols for symbolic arithmetics, ratios and proportions were a theurgical or god given urge response to existence in our experiential continuum. A sunthemata or contract some of us as Natural philosophers make with the powers that " be" ,
Benoit added one crucial concept to similarity and congruency: almost self similarity.
Thus we may not truly be fractal without almost self similarity. At all scales we find psychologically similar or identical processes . But in computational logic, iteration of exact identity produces invariant form. Similarity in computational logic has since Pythagoras been addressed by ratio and proportion . As a consequence it became fashionable to dismiss everything else as chaos( gas like!) or worse yet as occult and the work of the Devil!!
Thus many natural forms were called monstrous because they did not appear to obey the rules of congruency or similarity.
Almost self similarity means we can write in computer code
Z:= Z + C
or any variant.
By this symbolic arithmetic Mandelbrot realised the Iconic Mandelbrot set. He did not discover it, because many pioneers in the works he studied and learned from drew parts of this shape by dint of going through the process by hand! But Benoit does deserve to be remembered as a tireless champion for thinking and apprehending in this fractal way.
So when such as Boyle believed that invisible fluids inhabited corpuscular matter and later Galvano posited animal fluids that within flesh combined to produce animal electricity , it was natural to propose by the time of Volta ac2 fluid model.
That Franklin proposed a book keeping version of the 2 fluid model is often overlooked. 2 fluids has never seriously been challenged! In fact as time went on, the neutral core upon which these two fluids were thought to rest , thus forming the neutral corpuscle, gave way to the proton, electron and neutron concept.
Thompson who seriously redacted the corpuscular theory of the European Alchemists proposed a mixture of these fluids into an organic whole, like a blood corpuscle.
Bohr and Rudderford produced experimental data which led to the current satellite model.
This nuclear architecture removed the corpuscle to unheard of scales of diminution! Today we still use the word particle to depict these tiny corpuscular conceptions. Quarks are corpuscles and so on.
At each scale a kind of order is restored to the symbolic depiction at the cost of obscuring the immense complexity, and inherent " chaos" of the fluid mantle sound these particles.
When Volta challenged the prevailing book keeping model of Franklin, it was only to point out that 2 types of forces one attractive and one repulsive are necessary to achieve stable dynamics! But that was ignored until later. Even today Earnshaws mathematical demonstration of the instability of the electron model or the one fluid model is not apprehended. Thus the electron as a particle of purely one essence can not be stable, neither can a proton!
An atomic nucleus is always a dipole it its poles are inherently unstable and therefore suspect of even existing! We get around this by saying they are given elements of the model!
There isvannalternative explanation. It relies on the dynamics of a fluid not on some putative charge centre.
In fluid dynamics do I see currents? Yes I do and not just two! However I can reduce the currents to a rotational basis of 2 . I can not reduce them to a translational basis of 2 .
The rotational basis is CW and CCW.
This simplicity is confusing because of relativity. I find I need topology to sort it out and non symmetrical topology. This type of topology becomes my reference frame , but only if it is non dynamic relative to me!
A pair of coils can be set out as a reference frame.. The topology of the wrapped wires is different and not affected by the rotation of the coil hub itself! Thus regardless of the coil hub orientation in space a CW wrapping is topologically different and opposite to a CCW wrapping.
Now if I wrap a coil CW away from me that is topologically different tomwrappingba coil towards me. The finished coils look different and the ends point differently. .what we notice is the magnetic current respects that difference! The magnetic current within the cores of those coils love each other!
If we join the ends up they form a heart shape! When we place it in that heart shape, the wrap of both coils move in step in the same direction but in an opposite rotation . Thus one coil is comingbtowardva join inna CCW rotation, the other inna CW rotation. This is the reference of the symbol on the front of some covers of Magnetic Current. They also reference the fishwire magnets Ed used as detectors,.
It is clear then that identical coils connected at the same ends do not like each other . The winding end switches , it switches in both ways : from winding CW away from to winding CCW toward me . There is no heart shape and innfactbyou get crossed wires! These magnetic currents oppose each other.
So without ever seeing a current inna wire we can see the magnetic behaviour opposing each other like two winds or windings , or loving each other .
We can see two topologies flowing in windings that oppose yet they love each other .
That is how I see 2 magnetic/ rotational currents in the magnetic current of a PMH.
If a Imhotep claims Ed demonstrated that the magnetic current in a PMH behaves the same as the posited electric current "in a wire', I have no problem inductively concluding that a magnetic current is almwe need to base our explanations on.
Sorry if spacings have gone but they were the easiest characters to delete xxx
In light of the above this question arises: how do you produce a more powerful magnet? By putting more north poles topologically next to each other , or by putting more north and sout poles next to each other?
When we increase the winding we effectively put nort south poles together, but we do it in such away that the flow of the magnetic current is intensified rather than spatially distributed or extended.
Thus magnetic intensity is increased by the winding number but only if that winding preserves and conserves the magnetic flow .
Putting opposin windings on the same core should lead to destructive breakdown of the coil , as well as short circuit and other problems. That is my guess, based on this understanding. Can anyone relate to that?
Opposing windings : one layer CW away the second layer CCW away . That is wrapping a loop of wire on a coil ?
Note the loops are separated and it is not one continuous wrapping of a single loop .
The topology creates a very intense magnetic field which intensifies in the centre of the Coil, and has only one detectable pole at that point.
Poles are not significant. Rotational dynamics are
Note that Ōrsted did not propose a current in the wire but two vortices relative to the Battery! The south vortex pushed away the south pole of a magnetised needle and the north vortex pushed way the north pointing end.
Everything had to be properly lined up as Ed put it, to see what Ōrsted proposed.
By setting the battery in the east west axis ed proposed to show that the north vortex came out of the battery regardless as did the south vortex . True to form they induced north and south magnetism in his various test fish wires.
The magnetic vortices were evidently coming from the battery , but Ampère proposed that a current was circulating in the wire!
I missed this statement when last I read .
However Ampère also proposedbthatbthe fluids by circulating in tiny vortices within the flow produced the magnetic vortices. Thus his electrodynamic was the electric fluids in dynamic turbulent- like flow in a circuit. So I correct earlier post regarding Ampère in which I emphasise the magnetic basis of his work. He clearly believed in an electric fluid basis.
I therefore disagree with this description of electric charge as a potential fluid, adding electrostatic potential to a neutral core. Indeed I take the very rotational dynamic as necessary and sufficient to base both electric and magnetic phenomena on.
Since a choice was made by Ampère between 2 formerly independent forces I resolve the connection not to one of them but to the evident dynamic of rotation exhibited by both.
I have then defined magnetic as being properly a description of rotational dynamic because it is fundamental to all motio s in and of space, not just an extremely special case of straight line action.
Biot Savot both ignored the speculation about a particle current or fluid flow and simply put magnetic vectors around a box or cuboid form perpendicular to its long axis . This less detailed approach nevertheless revealed mathematical similarities to Ampères because both implied a current flow in the wire.
However Ōrsted maintained a propagation of 2 vortices guided by the wife was the more natural explanation.
No one can deny the efficacy of both positions although the mathematics was pushing readers toward a current within the wire.
Maxwell and Hertz and Heaviside thus established that a vorticular flow about a guiding wire( a conductor) is not only feasible but undeniably essential to calculating electromagnetic waves. That current is problematic came later with the Kinetic model of Lord Kelvin failing to explain long distance undersea transmission line failures.
The current in a wire fails, as Ivor Patt points out clearly. A wave that is a magnetic rotational wave at radio frequencies is what we o serve as " electricity in a wire. "
That a battery can drive that wave is the mystery we are only beginning to solve by NMR research into material behaviours.
Oersted envisaged not a current but a dynmic vortex between the poles of the battery . In fact two oppositely rotating vortices, but static ones not propagating ones.
Ed took this idea and howed ho the magnetic vortices related to the north and outh individually, the individual north magnets rotated in a way that pushed the north magnetic poil to the east while the south individual magnets rotated to push the south pole to the west.
He demonstrated these vortices by the magnetisation of his fish wires. How they were placed around the wire attached to the battery depicted the ortices spraying out their individual magnets.
So it wa the battery that established the vortices and thus the direction of rotation relative to the earths magnetic force.
Then, as we read Ampere changed everything from a static scalar field to a dynamic circuitous current generating a bar magnet polarity oientation or a magnetic dipole.
The current was based on the static 2 fluids now moving in a circuit generating( not known how) a perpendicular magnetic polarity.
Why a current? In all his experiments he not only saw the forces moving magnetised loads, but also movements by non magnetised elements relative to the wires that connected to the batteries.
The idea of " courante" or something moving in the wires was observational ly suggestive. . The static magnetic field was related to a dynamic electrical tension .
He showed this in ome ingenious experiments demonstrating motion. But it was Faraday and others who conceived of a motor .
After mere currents associated with wires became the intuitive way to describe ele trinity, the vortices of magneto statics were now generated by these moving current elements , but no one knew how. It was and is an Ampèrian predilection which subverted Örsteds vortex dynamics, which few understood let lone believed.
Thus when Faraday and Lenz looked into the magnetic effect they found a contradiction! The changing magnetic behaviour gave rise to the" electric current! "
There was no current in electrostatics . Suddenly after Ampere there was a current but this was in electrodynamics. Later it was called electromagnetics, because current now was indivisible linked with magnetism, but electrostatics has no current! Similarly Magnetostatics has no current of magnetism, no magnetic current!
The solution is obvious, electrostatics and Magnetostatics are equally founded on misleading static assumptions. Dynamical assumptions are fundamental and ele trodynamics morphed into electromagnetics to correct that failure.
However it is an assumption of Ampere that makes electric current the fundamental dynamic.
My argument is and has been that the fundamental dynamic is neither ele trial or magnetical, but rather is a trochoidal surface dynamic in a fluid medium .
This dynamic I ave labelled as magnetic in recognition of the demonstrable vorticular nature of Örsteds magnetic forces.
The atmosphere and 2 fluids hypothesis was in Volta's time . No clear concept of electric and magnetic scalar fields was in place. So Volta's battery of crls compared to the windhurst machine and Franklins Leyden jar battery , Mesmers animal magnetism all created a onfusion that needed a simple coherent explanation.
We know Volta had a theory of atmospheres about materials , that was rejected for the galvanic cell chemical reaction. But the 2 fluid explanation underpins that model
Without Ampères current hypothesis Faraday would have not connected the electrolysis wires to the voltaic cell and the ions in a circuit. .
For a while the magnetic vortex was ignored until Faraday was ble to show how the vortex generated electric current independent of the voltaic cell. But it was tesla who demonstrated that magnetic fields in dynamic action were the source of electricity.
For essentially the same reasons this idea was like Volta's , rejected for an electric source as envisaged by Ampère .
Maxwell realised one thing was missing from Ampères ideas, free space generation of electricity by magnetism! That is the contradiction of Ampères idea, so it had to be included in the cues side of the current, and electromagnetism proclaimed.
Chemical action was lost as causation, andvVoltas atmospheres in some version were back, but confusingly.
Of course chemical action now had to be reinterpreted in the light of these mysterious forces . Here electric models predominated until the NNR data came to the fore.
Now a new interpretation was needed , but buried away in medical and mathematical science
Until now !
A simplified Fourier mathematics in 3d
But only on one trochoidal surface !
The topology of the 12 by 12 abha coil concentrates the poles into the central axis.
The concentration of the "field " is so palpable that material responds to it showing its fluidic behaviour and rotational dynàmic .
Traditional solenoid theory would lead on to expect a magnetic field polarity within the windings not in the coil axis , but the fat that the field polarity is in the donut centre is testament to the rotational dynamic of the vortices or rather trochoidal surfaces. The big coil behaves like the little coils of which it is made
A 12 by 12 by 12 coil has not been designed or even talked about till now. , but such a coil topology would exhibit the same behaviour.
I know that you speak German a little. If you know Russian a bit also, reading the following book The Last Secret of God (Electrical Aether) might bring a real joy to you. To download the PDF version of the book just click on the top green button on the page which reads Скачать (pdf, 6.40 Mb) .
If you don't speak Russian at all, you might still want to browse the book using an online translator (Google Translator for instance) to get an idea what this book is all about.
And good to hear from you again ! Hope all is well with you xxx
My contention is the main contributor is the stark! . Ampere had information via Volta that the electric flame flowed apparently between electrode ends, others. We're an,e to show a mile r more induction/ conduction path ( before agnetidm was connected to electricity) and indeed Ampères own experiments showing motion in mercury and other conductive fluids are natural precursors to a " current" notion.
What alternatives are now possible ?
The favourite fir me is standing " wave" behaviours . These are really rotational behaviours best thought of as cymatic patterns which change with frequency, thus a standing vortex can be dynamically active in a cymatic sense that organises material behaviour into flows depending on frequency of its trochoidal perturbations.
The perturbations may be triggered by phase differences also
Amplitude variations will also contribute to the rotational variations associated to a given Equipotential shell of thevB flux shells .
Here you go https://www.dropbox.com/s/ahmleq7r4yrfpop/TheLastSecretOfGod.pdf
Before I cn answer that question observe that Equipotential lines are measured around circuit attached to a battery by an ammeter / voltmeter. . This means there is an emf driving an ammeter ostensibly between the opposite sides of a circuit. It is explained by a " current " flowing in the conducting fluid shorting the circuit.mbut that current does not flow from one side to the other! Instead a spread of equipotentials circulate between the wires in a trochoidal pattern. The emf is thus petpendicular to these Equipotential surfaces.
We see precisely the same structure when we mark out the equipotential lines by a dipole magnet.
What that tells us is that electric force or emfbactually is petpendicular to the magnetic field !
So why do we posit an emf along or in a wire?
This is a convention and an assumption that supports a presupposition of a current. .in a wire! Meaurementbshowsvemfvactually points out of a conductor perpendicular to,the magnetic field.
What actually is sheeting or parallel to The conductor/ inuctpr is the dynamically stable magnetic field.
So rather than positing a current we could posit a dynamic magnetic flux which transmit all the effects of a electric current by trochoidal surface interactions.
So what a spark is is where the magnetic sheaths at a certain high frequency of oscillation glow briefly ,while others don't glow or still others that are at an x- ray frequency and above. The convoluted path of spark shows the convolution of trochoidally active magnetic surfaces.
Dan winters, like ken wheeler and evennNasdim Haramein are difficult to understand because I lose their train of connected thought forms or patterns .
Marko Rodin is difficult because he frequently interrupts his train of thought patterns . But the one connecting thing is geometry . And geometry has been screwed since it came into the west and was Dom aged by Aristorle!
Pythagorean schools taught Rhetoric and Astrology as gifts of the Musai to be imparted to mankind. To grasp astrology the sphere as a dynamic measurement standard is crucial. The sphere is a Metron for dynamic behaviours and for motion.
The straight line is a consequence of spherical interaction .
The ratio is the recording of comparable or commensurable line segments by a process called Euclids algorithm, or the highest common factor or highest common divisor. The pattern is that of pollaplassios or multiple form of one magnitude by another sketching it out ( Skesis) by a careful sizing( pelikotote(?)) involving a placing down of the metron( the ,Essex magnitude) onto the greater magnitude( Katametresee) .
The multiple form thus sketched is of the same kind( homogenes) of magnitude., and so a ratio or logos can be declared or stated. ( legetai) .
Now in this process the magnitudes can exceed one another( Uperexein) that is the process dies not have to deal with exactitude like Arithmos does, be ause Arithmoi are exact multiples of a Metron , an exact multiple form of a Monas or unit. This unit is the Metron used to count Arithmoi! They are exact multiple forms of the unit Metron the Monas Metron.
Logoi therefore addresses exactitude and exceeding or falling short of exactitude. The word for odd perisos means to be approximate, the word for even means to be exact ( artios)
With these principles the Pythagoreans found and recorded many invariant ratios , and these formed the basis of a " lawfu" or rational description of the universe, in dynamic motion.
The Metron which is the sphere is particularly powerful. It measured the position of stars and p,antes in dynamic motion, and it tamed the chaos of the writhing spiral or snake/ dragon.
Thus trochoidal rotation is the ancient way of describing dynamic phenomena .
The golden ratio is thus an invariant relationship between arcs on a sphere and these translate to straight lines in a polyhedron and to the sacred geometrical philosophy of life etc.
Sacred geometry is a misnomer . It is the invariant ratio of arc magnitudes which form a stable dynamic architecture with fractal symmetry and entrainment.
It is a Spaciometry that encapsulates a dynamic form in space . It turns out this invisible ratio of rotations leads to physically dynamic phnomena within that space, and these phenomena are stable .
Geometry sketches out these ratios of magnitudes on the ground. Spaciometry sketches them out in space. Fractal topology expresses the dynamic ratios involved at each iteration at each scale within that space and it is dynamic.
When one uses these Fractsl distributions in space to describe rotational force dynamics many dynamically stable structures are identifable( emerge from the invisible dynàmic!) .
Dan winters claim, ken Wherlers claim is that this is magnetic behaviour. Marko Rodin's claim is that there are other powers and forces his vortex mathematics reveals based on 9 arcs.
Randy Powell has taken it further using arc multiples ofv3, 6 and 9.
There is of course no end to the patterns possible to explore, but the ratios become unwieldy if no simple structural way of dealing with the patterns is found.
The incredible modulo arithmetic or clock arithmetic( Arithmoi) is a structural way of apprehending a spatial dynamic iteratively.
The spark or flame can be modelled in these types of rotational dynamics which respect the vorticular dynamic without reducing it to a current within a wire !