The Way Electricity Runs In A Wire



  • edited February 2014
    Researching inductance it seems it is a product of 2 ideas of current: the first is the magnetic current or flux, thought to permeate the air and other materials. How this is measured in practice has varied from the direct methods Weber used to the indirect proportion of and electric current relation based on Faradays law.

    Faradays law defines flux change as proportional to current change. Current , said to be measured in amperes is usually measured by dynamic magnetic behaviours.. Amperes are a magnetic force attraction. This force is measured mechanically, by a spring force gauge. This defined force is used to define 1 coulomb, a unit of charge, flowing through in 1 second..

    This somewhat convoluted arrangement clearly highlights the preponderance of magnetic behaviour in our measurement of all electromagnetic phenomenon. .

    The use of electro is not misleading if it is applied as intended, that is as a description of the source of magnetic behaviours. These are usually glass or amber like crystals. Ferro crystals also produce magnetic behaviours however electro magnetic behaviours have now become confused with ferro magnetic and metal salt crystal magnetism.

    Thus what is this electric current that Faraday links to flux? It is the rotational form that Magnetim takes as it conducts or rolls onto the guide wires like waves rolling onto the beach.

    The second current is the supposed electric current that flows through or rather around the surface of the wire, driven by the battery..mthese phenomenon are thus related and thought to have a causal relationship. The effective units are current squared or electrical form of power, or energy.

    We could equally say a magnetic form of power.

    If we widen our scope a little we will admit that any wire acts as an antennae. Thus environmental magnetic flux is incident on it in exactly the analogy of waves rolling onto a beach. We also know that so called electros cannot flow at the speed of light and so what is flowing around and in the surface of a wire guide is a strain undulation.

    This strain undulation as a rotational form we perceive as magnetic behaviour and a radial component we perceive as electrical. From the antennae research we know this strain is already oscillating around the wire. The battery therefore only enhances this rotational strain transmission with a radial variation component.

    How precisely it does that, no one has really done the research on it , beyond the suggestion Leedskalnin made.

    Batteries, as repositories of these magnetic plasma flows in opposite directions with the same gyre, have been a mystery since Volta was told his explanation was not correct , but galvano's was the one that would be adopted! Thus the electron was cobbled together from Thomson's ratio to save face.

    Thomson knew that Earnshaws had argued this model was not stable: little regions of plus and minus charge. This was the favoured metaphor, but it would not work. So Thompson invented the sticky pudding model. That is electrons were attracted inside a positive charged region, hat overcame their tendency to fly apart. The region as a whole was neutral which is why atoms do not fly apart. Subtle variations in this overall charge explained why atoms should be in a dynamic undulatory system.

    The sticky pudding was replaced by the solar system, but conveniently the issue of electron instability in the shell was ignored. Action at a distance was invoked, justified by N incorrect version of Newtons model of gravity AND levity. This action at a distance was merely called electrostatic attraction, because of the electron. Magnetic attraction was obscured itching the atomic model.

    Finally convinced they had a real particle called an electron and another particle called a proton, they renamed action at a distance as a field. This was applying some concepts Faraday had been developing in correspondence with Maxwell.

    This field, for Maxwell was a region in which strain could be transmitted , and tat region was considered to be aether. So Axwell used a hydrodynamic or fluid dynmic model of the aether to calculate how strain would propagate through it.

    His hydrodynamic modelling was very close to aerodynamic modelling still used today. The aether stored and transmitted the strain called the Electric Strain. This was of course analogous to Volta's assertion of an atmosphere round metals. However this was taken further into the atomic model by Eistein and Bohr. This field or atmosphere was supposed to be around the particles now called the proton and electron!

    The neutron was invented to mitigate he measured forces, because, as Earnshaws had showed, the solar system model was unstable!

    It still is unstable and has been one of the main problems of nuclear research into te neutron.

    Eventually they came up with the idea hat these particles just glue together!
    The strong force was invented and later the notion of a gluon that supposedly carries the strong force.

    These forces are all based on the unexplained notion of charge. This charge is usually taught as electric. However there is no reason why it should not be taught as magnetic.

    Charge as the ultimate generator of force is how quantum physics etc want to proceed. This to me is an unnecessary complication. Instead of charge we might as well use Newtonian motive. I have called this Newtonian fluid motive. It is the same notion as Energy , and so, batting ny unfortunate interpretation of the term energy I would replace motive by the term energy.

    We then have one mysterious entity of mythical attribution called Energy. This transmutes and transforms into orce , heat, light etc. including me hnical Energy( through force).

    With that we can then view fields as energy fields( aethers) that transmit strain( stress or force deformation over a volume or surface) the principle motion of which is trochoidal rotation..
    From this set up I derive electro thermo magneto complex Motion behaviours as models of aether or simply space energy density variations.

  • edited January 2015
    The experiment is done usually with closed or open materials to show it is not the geometry that is of interest.
    The geometry has a major influence on the effect though. For example, while one single thin axial cut does not appreciably affect the pronouncement of the effect of slowing down the free fall of the magnet, six or eight of such thin cuts, equally spaced around the circumference of the tube, would almost completely eliminate the effect.

    When the eddy currents, aka Foucault currents, are invoked to somehow explain the effect, the discussion of the geometry of these eddy currents is conveniently avoided (the direction of the currents, the size of the loops etc). Why is that? Well, I think because these eddy currents are nothing but an ad hoc device used to patch the holes in the orthodox electromagnetic theory of Maxwell. Just like the displacement current is an ad hoc device, introduced by Maxwell himself to overcome the logical inconsistencies of the theory.

    In his book titled "Modern Electrodynamics and Reasons for its Paradoxicality", 2003, the late Russian electrical engineer and physicist Gennady V. Nikolaev describes dozens of new electromagnetic effects (alongside with many widely known ones) that contradict Maxwell's theory.

    As of the difference between copper and aluminum, the aluminum tube would require thicker walls for the effect to be pronounced:
  • Barau I agree with your suspicions.
    When I first started to think for myself I found many patches and inconsistencies, but worse a positive hostility toward any kind of questioning.

    Fortunately, the Internet has allowed for a freer enquiry. I no longer hold professors etc as the pope! Like me they have to figure things out, but unlike me their reputations and livelihoods depend on this existing cash Cow!

    Also, I can be more radical in my views than evn the most radical in post scientist. I do not have to start with quantum physics or particle physics, and in fact I do not.

    There is much to unlearn as well as learn!
  • edited April 2014
    The structure of the vortices in a conductor are very regular.
    The behaviour of such vortices is to align in an anti parallel structure. Because wire is drawn and twisted these vortices tend to align, up along its length.

    In a solid lump of conductor, hammered or poured, these regular patterns do not penetrate the whole way through. In particular iron tends to form crystal cells of these vortices rather than stretched out strands or ropes.

    Thus copper is a poor magnetic inductor because it conducts the magnetic energy along these strands at the speed of light. Iron on the other hand is a good inductor because it stores the magnetic energy in these cells. These cells are highly mobile! In fact they grow and morph according to how much magnetic energy they are storing. Consequently magnetic energy conducts from cell to cell, filling each cell before flowing on. This meand iron is not as good a conductor as copper,

    The magnetic energy always flows in both directions, so the idea of a current flowing one way is misleading.

    The complex rotation of magnetic energy about these wires has been glossed over.. The highly rotational energy is vorticular in all directions, but a conductor acts as a rail track and latches only onto one type of a part of the rotation. This allows it to roll along the wire at amazing speed. Meanwhile, in the space outside the wire this magnetic energy is creating rotational patterns. Like the vortices propelled by a fan blade this energy twists along round the wire.

    Foucault currents or Arago's disc show that magnetic energy is deflected and rotated into regional structures like the cell in iron crystals. These cells concentrate the earth magnetic field to produce effects. In an applied stringy field , the created magnetic cells on one side opposes that on the other side. The crystals are thus squeezed , and this applies a frictional force on that area
  • edited March 2014

    Interesting and well said. I was recently thinking along similar lines - that we lost our ability to truly think when we separated the arts and sciences. Leedskalnin's body of work can represent a re-convergence of the two - sculptor, scientist, philosopher, rhetorician, etc. Scientists touted as the greatest of all time were artists - Einstein played the violin and piano; Edison, the piano; Glaser, the violin. Even Franklin played his own organ, daily. Keety too, knew the importance of the connection, as did Grebennikov. DaVinci then being the archetype.

    Scientists of the last few generations have been slaves like the rest of us in their own right, boxed in and cut off or deprived the opportunity to explore their own esoteric side. But I think the internet is reversing this capitalism driven paradigm across the board. I've been working with some very bright engineering students who are bit more evolved and more balanced in their observations. Perhaps one day we will see a true reestablishment of the artist-scientist archetype based on virtuosity, wonderment, and creativity rather than strict methodology.
  • edited April 2014
    The idea of a current in a wire is misleading.

    Within all materials the state of matter called plasma exists. It is free to flow in any direction, apparently, but this is not the case. In the fluid dynamic model of matter viscosity is compared to inertia by the Reynolds number. The reason for this is because rotation fundamentally underpins all motion.

    To correct for a mechanical misreading of. Newton et al in which curvature was deliberately ignored or down played in astronomical mechanics Reynolds had to implement his famous comparison. While mechanics old allow for elastic behaviours in their formulary they tended to ignore viscous forces. In fact Newton ignored them by focussing on lubricity in his pioneering work on fluid mechanics.

    By ignoring viscosity, Newton found it difficult to come to any convincing model of the data. His purely abstract model, consisting in unreal point masses etc gave better results than his more detailed Anlysis of fluid behaviours. He did not understand , nor did others for a long time after that lubricity was the inverse concept required to make headway! Viscosity is the inverse of lubricity.

    As a concept, viscosity covers in a measure all the behaviours associated with electro Thermo magneto behaviour. Later petmittivity and emissivity were coined to capture some of the specifics of viscosity in relation to electric and magnetic behaviours.. The more general concept is viscosity, and it covers all these perceived interaction.

    Reynolds in comparing the inertial and viscous constants was dealing with the turbulent mature of motion. Thus he was dealing with the curvature inherent in turbulence. This was a scale for the average curvature of regions of a fluid in a turbulent mode, especially in a dominating directional field( eg so called " gravity" field). This field determines whether curvature results in spheres or spiral vortices in a viscous fluid!

    So Eds/ Gilberts plasma moving in 2 directions around a wire and in a wire create the spiralling field effect called electromagnetism, while this helical vortex itself is called an electric current.

    Here's the difference: this current does not flow through the wire. It enters the Eire from the out side like waves rolling onto a beach! Thus the apparent speed has nothing to do with a flow of current along the ire. The wire is immersed in a sea of fluctuating energy which contains frequencies at all ranges. The wire resonates with these frequencies at all times. The wire is an antenna.

    This common fact about conductors in particular is relegated to the radio engineers. It is a fundamental explanation of electro Thermo magnetic plasma behaviours. Because these plasmas are everywhere the speed in a conductor appears instantaneous . However what does take time to travel is any strain in this ubiquitous electro Thermo magneto field.

    This video gives the latest information on this phenomenon. Of particular interest is the motion of a " double layer" ed pointed ot how magnetic currents behave and the video at the beginning shows that these double layers are dryer table along an antennae even in a car battery set up!

    Lodge observed these double layers as spark intensities and immediately called them Maxwell waves. Hertzian waves were found by Hertz who finding them in "free" space linked them to light waves. These waves are spherical regions in space or along a conductor where the magnetic double layers form, indicating counter rotating plasma Spheroids.
  • edited November 2015
    Classical electrodynamics treats electrical charge as a fundamental notion while magnetism - as a derivative one: a moving electrical charge creates somehow a magnetic field. But what is electrical charge? To my knowledge, no one has ever succeeded in describing electrical charge in simple mechanical terms.

    I believe that the main problem with Maxwell's electrodynamics is that it stands on its head. Indeed, as opposed to electricity, magnetism has a clear mechanical interpretation - it is a vortex in some kind of media. A small particle placed in that vortex will experience centrifugal force. If that particle is moving with respect to the rotating frame of the vortex, the particle - in addition to the centrifugal force - feels the Coriolis force as well. That's what magnetic force is. Therefore it seems reasonable to try defining electrical charge in terms of magnetism and not the other way around.

    In order for that little particle to experience the Coriolis (magnetic) force all it needs to do is move in the rotating system of the vortex - the particle itself doesn't have to spin. But imagine now that the little particle (in addition to translational motion) is spinning fast. In other words, we treat that little particle not just as point particle, like Newtonian mechanics does, but as a little vortex in the same media. How will it behave now? There is no doubt that the behavior of the little vortex will depend on the orientation of its spin vector with respect to the spin vector of the big exterior vortex. Maybe that's where the "plus" and "minus" electrical charges are coming from. This would suggest that electric charge is a kind of vector quantity rather than an algebraic one (+ and -).

    Check out the attached file; it is the only English text by late Gennady Nikolaev (the inventor of so-called Siberian Coliu) I am aware of.
  • edited May 2014
    The spin of a material point is simply ignored. In fact in most Newtonian mechanics point spin is left out of the equation unless the material point is large!

    The only mechanics that routinely includes the spin of material points is Fluid mechanics, however, even that analytical treatment ignores much of the spin a fluid element as a material point may have. The vortices discovered in fluid dynamics as stable structures within the medium, were first treated Mathmatically by Helmholtz and Kelvin, who set out a kinematics for vortices which now we know to be wrong. However it did initiate the mathmatical treatment of point spin.

    Few understood it and even fewer understand it today. Vortices were quietly sidelined by mainstream Western physics and mathematics, and fluid dynamics was burdened with empirical data only partially explained by the accepted mathematics.

    Nevertheless a few noteable physicists maintained the fundamental notion of vortices in physics , like Vladimir Ginzburg , but the idea was buried in obscure mathematics. The Coriolis force in a rotating reference frame is a much studied phenomenon, modelled only partly by fluid dynamics until the advent of Computational Fluid Dynmics.

    Claes Johnson is at the forefront of correcting the fluid Dynmical modelling of flight. In so doing he has found the flaws in Helmholtz Kinematic assumptions, and raised the importance of Vortices in the explanation of flight.

    But he has also made clear , perhaps without realising how the electro Thermo magneto complexes work as structural mechanical components.

    The fundamental motion at all scales is rotation. Thus vortices are everywhere and everything!. A copper wire is itself a twisted vortex of material by design. Iron or steel,wire is similarly rolled and twisted but is less ductile and so drawn more than twisted. Aluminium is even more brittle to draw as a wire. Each of these finer manufacturing artefacts , the twist in the wire affects the overall inductive performance.

    Rotating space on meeting these entirely different surfaces behaves differently . The rotation tends to align itself along a wire. That is it may approach the surface at all ire tigons but it is induced into a lengthwise rotation which follows the wire ( or if powerful enough makes the wire follow it!).

    Induction is a common magnetic phenomenon, and it is this alignment of the vortices to the surface on which they fall. Induction in certain materials is so fast that maxwell coined the phrase "conduction" to mean fast and easy induction. The concept of a flow comes from the connection between the inductor and the inducted. The vorticular force "seemed" to appear at the other end of the inducted.

    This difference in position of induction is called charge. Mechanically it is the identical process of forcing fluid down a pipe. One end of the pipe, when isolated from the inductor appears to be sucking in the other appears to be blowing out!

    Vortices are in fact bubble dynamics, so in zero gravity they do not have the conical structure , but rather the donut hole structure. Any magnet is like a smoke ring with the centre hole being the magnetic lodestone or bar itself.

    In fact some rings and bubble rings and even jet engines are useful models of the vortex dynamics. Along a wire these vortex rings form, so what looks like a current is in fact the inside surface of a spatial "smoke" ring. At a certain distance the smoke ring lifts from the wire and an opposing smoke ring lies contiguous to it along the wire. This is clearly shown in the video at the head of this topic, but is hard to understand what it is you are witnessing.

    When trans Atlantic cabling was laid the problem became apparent. Kelvin explained it in terms of diffusion, but Heaviside explained it in terms of loss of magnetism! The inductance as it was termed was lifting away from the wife, precisely because it is a s" mome" ring vortex! . Heaviside worked out that if you could retain the inductance the wire could transport the magnetic vortex all the way through. Thus he wrapped iron around the copper , increasing the inductance retaining capacity of the system.

    The same principles apply to transmission lines. The active " smoke" ring vortices have to remain coupled to the wire to bring the magnetism along its length. The natural anti rotating smoke rings are coupled by iron coils along the wire, iron coils in the transformers and insulation against leakage of the magnetic vortices to other inducted materials. That inducted materials are called conductors is what confuses the whole issue.induction is a magnetic phenomenon, it is material dependent. If the inductor is a semi crystalline material it is called electromagnetic , if the inductor is a semi ductile material it is called ferromagnetic. If it is a highly ductile material it is now recognised as diamagnetic. The magnetic force appears to pass right through, that is the vortices are rapidly inducted along its surface.

    Much is made of the right angle phase between " electric" and magnetic action, but little is made of the same reaction in a gyroscope! This distinction between electric and magnetic is widely known to be misleading, but it is inexplicable if the vortex phenomenon or rather rotation as magnetism , is ignored.

    In order to stop giving myself a headache I no longer think in terms of electric and magnetic. It is a vortex, a rotational dynamic in and of space,
  • edited May 2014
    Grimaldis diffractio theory of light propagation can now be revisited and Huygens wavefront theory based on it can be understood. We need a little viscosity in space!

    When Grimaldi explored light he observed the classical reflection, due it was thought to a mirror surface, refraction, due to light being broken on entering a medium of different density it was noted and the third phenomenon of diffraction, which Grimaldi surmised was due to light being peeled off in strips along its length of propagation.

    Thus light, whatever it was was fractionable, brittle in some way not understood.

    The reigning theory or philosophy was Descartes. And in keeping with rational god inspired thought the propagation of light was an infinitely fast wave of pressure in the plenum. All that is of a material nature that is non spiritual was called the plenum. But the source of light was god and the great lights he placed in the heavens.

    When Newton began his study of light he heard of Grimaldis diffraction. Combined with the atomist concepts of Leucippius and Democritus Newton immediately conceived of light as ballistae, small spherules of matter blasted through space by intense explosive fire! Later, as he progressed he adopted a corpuscular theory of spherules to account for elastic behaviours assumed in reflection and biological affects of light. Hooke was already able to see cells and corpuscles in living tissue , and spent a great deal of time carefully drawing what he had seen in the microscopic world. It seemed inevitable that matter was granular in nature and that these granules were corpuscles!

    However, Grimaldis paper on diffraction was not seen until after his death and then read only by a few. His conclusion was that diffraction was light being peeled of by sharp edges, and spread out in consequent progression. This phenomenon was clearly seen in harbour waves, and this was clear evidence to him that light was travelling like a wave in the penumbra

    Hooke also, by careful study of the colours seen on butterfly wings , was able to demonstrate that the wings were not coloured but covered in tiny grating like arrangements of filaments which caused the light to "release" the hues observed. This was the meaning of Grimaldis diffraction to him, and it helped to explain what he saw under the microscope. Thus he was supportive of the wave description of light, and his findings were evidence of it. He had read Grimaldis paper when it became available, something Newton never did it seemed.

    Newton's prism in which he showed dispersion of light by refraction and more importantly recombination of light by refraction was the celebrated demonstration of the day, and lead to his acceptance into the Royal society snd the triumph of his optical theory. Dispersion assumes that there were corpuscles to be dispersed. Most scientific thought at the time was atomistic, so atoms of light were easily grasped. That refraction dispersed them was also easily grasped, but that they should recombine was amazing! Newtons explanation was readily accepted. Only Hooke knew it was flawed at the most fundmental level.

    On the continent those who had been working on the wave explanation were challenged by Newton's Optics. Diffraction did not seem able to explain recombination! Actually Newton could not explain recombination but relied on refraction to cover over his confusion. Refraction "explained" focus and focal points, and focus was assumed to be a convergence. Thus a granular medium was dispersed by one refraction and focused by another. Diffraction only seemed to fracture light in a dispersion.

    Huygens a lens maker was puzzled by a phenomenon called Newtons Rings. This appeared to show that light was not recombined on focussing. Instead light was dispersed into rings, and the rings were focused at the focal point giving the appearance of recombination.

    Huygens could only explain this by dispersion happening inside a transparent medium, and then the dispersed waves meeting up to form a big wave. He had to explain the geometrical idea and so used the sphere. By drawing the intersecting arcs he could argue that the spherical arcs crossed each other in a regular way producing Moire Patterns. These patterns were the ring patterns seen in lenses.

    For a Moire pattern to work you must have at least 2 sources of spherical "waves". His geometry only considered the wavefront. Thus his critics asked about the backward propagation implied in his theory and of course he was unble to answer!

    Huygens theory may have never been resurrected if Fresnel had not transformed it Mathmatically! Instead of spheres he used the circular functions. In using the circular functions he was able to show how sine waves overlap to add or subtract amplitude.. Secondly he had a measurement of the speed of light. Light no longer was believed to be of infinite speed. Thus he had a wavelength based on the sine wave. Which he could look for in physical data. His concept of interference required superposition and wavelength. Given these he could calculate an angle of constructive interference. He could then measure this angle in the diffraction patterns Grimaldi had described.

    The confirmation of angles was a big step toward his mathematical description being accepted. Newton had used angles to confirm his dispersion theory , but Huygens was not able to do much beyond intimating a grid of spherical wave emitters produce a moire pattern., but Fresnel was able to look for a wavelength and an interference angle in keeping with the new speed of light measurements.

    The wave theory became dominant because of the Mathematics. Because of this light was no longer studied empirically! The physicality of these waves was never studied. The interference patterns were, but on the assumption that these were sinusoids of the Aether.

    There is another physical understnding of these mathmatical features: rotation of space!.

    Rayleigh in fact described the behaviour of physical space in his Rayeigh wave equations. These equations describe a surface phenomenon that is both longitudinal and transverse. However the dominant view was that of Fresnel, that light was a pure transverse wave phenomenon.

    Fresnels argument was based on polarisation. To explain polarisation using his sine wave model he had to have no longitudinal motion in his wave. However, he was mistaken, because Rayleigh waves have a longitudinal component and are diffracted, refracted , reflected and polarised!

    The difficulty arises due to frequency. Frequency is the basis of wavelength. But Rayleigh waves propagate at the surface at a defined frequency , because they loose power as a function of frequency as the wave propagates into a material.. Thus light travelling into a medium is known to lose power. Even in transparent media. Thus Rayleigh waves dominate at the surface and define a frequency that will be reflected! If this "wave" is refracted into the material it will lose power in certain frequency ranges. What passes through the material will thus be a spectrum of frequencies at different power levels. This spectrum will only make it through the material if absorption snd retransmission occurs as in Huygens point source concept.

    However the angle of re transmission is determined by diffraction! . Thus the light which passes into a medium as refracted light is plausibly, absorbed light that is retransmitted according to the diffractio rules. As it changes media, at the boundary, the light is absorbed and transmitted in a different way. Thus the promulgation of light is media dependent. The Rayleigh waves separate light at a boundary by frequency, the medium responds to that frequency or not creating diffraction patterns of polarised light, while the surface Rayleigh waves scatter and reflect, again frequency polarised.

    The so called reflection of light is again an absorption and retransmission process, so the Rayleigh surface waves principally serve to "scatter" retransmitted light from a surface. They do so by impinging energy at various points in the surface and allowing retransmitted energy to leave the surface. What we frequently forget is thst most of what we experience as light is retransmitted in our visible spectrum. The vast majority is absorbed and retransmitted outside our visible spectrum.

    When we look at the modern empirical data, therefore we have to revise our notions of reflection and refraction in favour of absorption and re transmission with diffraction! And by diffractio I mean the interference caused by spherical dispersion of light from multiple sources in a grid like lattice structure.

    In uniformly viscous space the frequencies at which light propagates are beyond our visible spectrum, and our visible spectrum represents a transformation and polarisation of light by viscous materials
  • Looking at the wave taking into account LIKE POLE magnetic flow starts at the zero and runs circular to the point the flow repels or deflects itself. If it did not repel itself it would complete the circle back to its point of origin. At some point the repelling of itself moves the flowing stream sideways if you will, starting the next of a series of circles it cannot complete. Thus the corkscrew pattern of the wave. This for some reason suggests to me that possibly magnetic polarities not only travel along each other north to south, possibly a wave of singular polarity travels or wraps around itself also to create a circle similar to a coiled snake. It also suggest to me since the ends of the wave cannot join at the point of like force, if you will, must continue on to some point to rejoin, terminate or stop. In the case of north polarity and south polarity the common point of termination is ZERO. North polarity flows along south polarity until it terminates at ZERO. Singular polarity would have to flow from ZERO back to ZERO. If it doesn't the wave would be pushed out from zero a finite distance in a STRAIGHT line and terminate at a point like ZERO but newly created. The limit of the push from zero is zero. The distance of the push starts at zero, ends at zero. This straight line to zero either means a new zero has been added, or, the actual SIZE OF STARTING POINT ZERO itself has been increased to a point the wave end can once again terminate at ZERO. If that straight line polarity moves out from zero back to zero the wave has formed a circle. The polarity within that circle to me would have to be entirely that of the wave that created it, or, entirely ZERO regardless of the wave polarity that created the circle within the wave.
    The circumference of the wave determined by the diameter of starting zero. The circumference of the ZERO PRODUCED by the length of the wave. The polarity inside that circle to me would be neutral. Anything placed inside that circle would consist of or contain both north and south magnet flow and those magnets of opposite polarity from would be attracted and flow too the polarity wave creating the zero polarity circle and back to starting zero along the wave creating the larger circle of zero polarity. This would happen also if the wave created larger circle actually has polarity and isn't zero or neutral. The area WITHIN the circle having a larger repelling force than the area outside of the circle.
    All this is probably wrong and bologna but fun to follow the thoughts a while.
  • Grimaldis diffractio theory of light propagation can now be revisited and Huygens wavefront theiry based on it can be understood. We need a little viscosity in space!

  • edited November 2015
    @ Jehovajah
    The spin of a material point is simply ignored. In fact in most Newtonian mechanics point spin is left out of the equation unless the material point is large!
    This important observation is precisely the reason why electrodynamics does not, nay cannot fit in the procrustean bed of Newtonian mechanics with its implicit assumption that the effects of spin of an object can be safely ignored if the object's size is small enough.

    Whether that assumption is valid or not depends on exactly how the point limit is being approached. If the pace of reduction of object's size is faster than the pace of increase of its spin rate then, yes, the assumption of Newtonian mechanics makes sense. But if the point limit is being approached in such a way that reduction of the object's size is happening at a slower rate relative to the rate of increase of spin rate of the object then the assumption of Newtonian mechanics becomes highly doubtful.

    It is a well known fact in mathematics that the value of the limit can change dramatically depending on how exactly the limit is being approached as illustrated by the so-called Schwarz Surface or alternatively Cylinder Area Paradox
  • The notion of magnetic plasma derives from Gilbert. Gilbert posited little magnets flowing round a lodestone. These were not monopoles as we like to suggest, rather they are monopole seeking. The concept is that the behaviour of these little magnets is determined by a " current" in their mass behaviour.
    Under Gilbert's typology electricity was a magnetic phenomenon found in amber like materials. Strictly Gilbert said we have ferro magnetism and electro magnetism. The same behaviour but in different materials.

    Ed takes Gilbert's philosophy and simplifies it's language. The notion of spiralling plasmas spinning through and against each other is Ed's explanation based on information from his neighbour an expert studying magnetism at the time.

    The simple concept of likes repelling and unlikes attracting is misleading. The power or energy in the space in these interactions is what is important. A powerful south pole in a ferro system can actually attract a weak south pole . The names of the poles, positive and negative are over simplifications Ed attempts to avoid by his helical explanation.

    In space we can now image these helical or Birkland currents around our sun. While scientists still talk or emphasise north and south it is better to think of rotating currents of plasma in anti parallel gyres.

  • How the rotation about a point is represented mathematically.

    Do not be fooled by the misnomer imaginary.
Sign In or Register to comment.