Lines of Force Oversight by Blake Taylor

Blake Taylor wrote to share his epistemological and ontological perspectives about electromagnetism. He insists that, "the conventional direction of magnetism and its associated perpendicularitus adversely obfuscates events".

'The Electromagnetic Revolution 1' (Direction Of Magnetism)



‘The Electromagnetic Revolution 2’ (Uniforms Aint Uniform)



Blake's book now retitled, 'Physics Illusions and Revolutions’ is available at http://www.yowahbooks.com/
«1

Comments

  • Without watching vids I wonder if his point is that magnetic lines of flux are polarity orientations?
    The lines of flux like all lines are a human reference frame imposed on our experiences of magnitude. For invisible magnitudes they are only representative of the effect on a dipole magnet/ bar magnet.
    A dipole magnet again is a human invention to enable a reference situation. Most natural magnetic phenomena is multipolar !. Better still we need to consider what we now observe daily on the sun, the magnetic dynamic is a MULTI looping dynamic .

    Our best model for reference of these structures is the MULTI looping vortices ib fluid dynamics. Here we can see the complex motions of test particles as they swirl in a vortex or complex of vortices, and define polarity in terms of the structural form of these vortices.

    Why is this not the common view? Smoke, mirrors and secret schools have used these understandings to ensure financial patronage over the millennia, but vorticular theory was in vogue in DesCartes lifetime. It was extinguished, revived and extinguished again by whoever was in power to determine such things .
    Does it help technology?
    No ànd yes . No because technology requires the lowest common denominator for engineers to securely build their structures. Yes because all guild masters eventually come to this understanding andvusebit to guide innovation. But such competent artisans are few and far between!
    Today computers actually can express these paradigms , but we still require competent guild masters to interpret and apply the results and direct programming implementations!

    I am afraid, the next big solar flare will wipe away all that effort to express this vorticular fluid paradigm!
    Back to the drawing board at that time I am afraid!
  • The Fleming rules , orthogonal actions etc are only rules of thumb! Theoreticians always work with the conical systems which are neatly expressible by orthogonal axes.
    The problem was not orthogonality but a lack of understanding in the west of ancient vorticular and spheroidal wisdoms .
    Many might falsely attempt to blame Newton, but in fact Newton is faithful to the Masters. It is the academic pressure of the French Ecole that is the root cause. Most of the revolutionaries were anti God and thus refused that part of Natural philosophy that precisely deals with vorticity, spheroidal and fractal behaviours .
    LaGrange in particular spent many years debating with Euler about the foundations for Mechanics. He was of the opinion that a potential symbolic equation was sufficient ( thus no god required) but Euler was of the opinion that Newton had provided the soundest basis for mechanical dynamics( therefore full of gods splendour!) . At the last it was LaGrange who was won over to the mystery of the basis of Mechanical and fluid dynamics! That is not a proof of God , just a recognition of the limits of Mans mathematical descriptors or algebraic expressions!
    The flaw was simple: Lagrange believed in straight lines as expressing fundamental laws of nature ! Newtonndid not!
    What Newton believed is best described as general trochoidal lines of action, the simplest of which IS: the circle!!
    We derive from the spheres in space the plane circle and from the plane circle all straight lines ! Thus which lines are good are in fact trochoidal ones which include straight and conical lines ( a straight line is also a conical line which in that case tends to be a dual line in the surface of a given dual cone!

    What I am saying is that mathematicians have forgotten their Astrologer roots and so lost the ancient perspective of the snake and the magic ring!
  • Uniformity is another reference frame device. It's deep roots derive from Atusyotelian Metaphysics: the so calle Prime Mover that moves all things but it itself is not moved or moving. This is the origin of Galileos absolute systems expressed as a circular fractal in the Dialogo!
    Newton definitely based his absolute spheroidal systems on Galileos description of the Jovian system and his meditations on what the consequences of his observations might be! Uniform fractals have long been a Pythagorean school Staple called Arithmoi. We might call them Mosaics made with uniform tiles!
    It iscavreference frame against which we actually notice non uniformity by careful observation . Careful observation feeds into careful analysis and synthesis which inductively feeds into theoretical hypothesises which homely further careful observations confirm or deny!
    But of course theoreticians are human and biological and therefore want to dominate rather than humbly submit! Therein lies all our problems! The biological necessity of dominance is countered by the biological necessity of symbiosis which in turn includes antibiosis to stabilise the system. Applied to models of phenomena: some will dominate in symbiosis with others but some will die out or be removed to maintain the symbiosis but all contribute to the living dynamic which is involved with paradigm shift!
    Fractal distributions are built on fractally boring uniformity !

  • Fluid dynamics . Vortices that reach out or explode out from the sun produce powerful weather vortices on earth .

  • Tin An shows the tell tale signature of rotation: a sine wave form! Of course if you don't know what to look for you will make upmal sorts of explanations!
    For example he thinks his shaky hand is causing the variations in the ignal. In fact that is evidence of the filamentary nature of a magnetic vortex: vortices within a arger vortex .
    Voltage is a "Pressure" measure ,
  • Would you then describe a typical Kansas tornado as a filamentary vortex?
  • edited May 2016

    A typical Kansas Tornado ? Lol!
    Not sure what that is, but I did a post on tornados a while ago and they are not simple structures. They contain counter rotating bands of " atmospheric air" in which the rotation is not just about a vertical axis! For example the down blast of upper atmospheric air is countered by an upward blast of lower atmospheric air. This is a kind of horizontal Vortex within the commonly seen tornadic vortex .
    As a vortex appears to spin in toward a central eye wall we often neglect the outward spin from the descending colder air . These higher pressure regions are sheet like in spatial distribution! So they are easily ignored in the larger low pressure air masses moving toward the eye wall centre and upwards .
    @Magnetic_Universe
  • Blake makes one misleading assertion : magnetic current is not vorticular along a conducting wire!
    It is not necessary to consider the vorticity around a conductor/ inductor to make a solenoid or describe a solenoid, but you so miss a level of detail when it comes to understanding quantum phenomena .
  • edited May 2016
    Jehovajah said:

    Blake makes one misleading assertion : magnetic current is not vorticular along a conducting wire!

    Would you mind pointing out where Blake makes this assertion?

    Here's Ed's take on the matter:
    When the individual North and South pole magnets are running through a wire lengthwise they are running in slant and whirling around while running ahead, You can see the slant by watching the sparks when you are putting together and pulling away soft iron wire ends which are connected to the battery by their other ends.

    Having found the cure for Perpendicularitis, Blake suggests his 'Bangled Tokamak' produces results:




  • jehovajah. The point is that not only are the so called magnetic lines of force insufficiently described, but they don't exist at all and shouldn't be represented.
    The correct direction of magnetism is the logical foundation stone which permeates and rectifies all electromagnetism.
    There is a very logical reason why magnets communicate. The age of their communication via supernatural quantum spells is thankfully facing extinction.
    After accepting new magnetism we can confidently go forward to find logical non-supernatural reasons for electrostatic attraction which replace the ridiculous idea that charges communicate via photon machine guns.
    The idea that strong forces interact by playing pion yoyo is another absurd no-brainer with its head in the guillotine of logic.

  • edited May 2016
    @Magnetic_Universe
    Around 0:41 into the first video .
    The wind of current is not described fully here but the implication is the dipole orientation information which is what the lines record is not useful information about the magnetic behaviour.
    For me the polarity orientation data helps to support a rotational vortex structure around the wire.
    The initial establishment of this structure is precisely what Ivor Catt explores and provides experimental data to make interpretation from
    Yes a " wind" initially travels along the wire but it is vorticular in nature not a so called " wind stream" in my opinion
  • If one holds that the magnetism is vorticle about a conductor then one holds that an event in one direction causes an event perpendicular to it, which is physically impossible. Moreover one holds that an event in one direction (a current) encountering a event perpendicular to it (magnetism) cause an event (force and motion) perpendicular to both. This is doubley impossible and absurdly totally illogical.
    When science drops this flat earth stuff the highway to a logical multidimensional universe opens.
  • Yet this is exactly how Leedskalnin teaches us to make magnets:

    Break two pieces of the steel fishing line one inch long, put each piece by middle across the copper wire, one on top of the copper wire and the other under, hold with your fingers, now touch the negative terminal with the loose clip, hold until the copper wire gets hot. Take them off, now you have two magnets, hang them up by middle in fine thread. The upper magnet will hang the way it is now, but the one below will turn around. Break five inches long piece of the fishing line, put the middle of the wire across and on top of the copper wire, touch the battery, hold until the copper wire gets hot, dip the middle of the wire in iron filings, then you will see how long a magnet can be made with this equipment.
  • Informative video. I am glad to join this forum. I am share my knowledge.
    Lines of force originated by Michael Faraday. It is a line used to indicate the direction of a field, especially an electric or magnetic field.
  • If one holds that the magnetism is vorticle about a conductor then one holds that an event in one direction causes an event perpendicular to it, which is physically impossible. Moreover one holds that an event in one direction (a current) encountering a event perpendicular to it (magnetism) cause an event (force and motion) perpendicular to both. This is doubley impossible and absurdly totally illogical.
    When science drops this flat earth stuff the highway to a logical multidimensional universe opens.

    What one " holds" and what one observes may not agree! What is possible and what is impossible is not logically determinable , because logic applies to logos, that is words or descriptors . Descriptors are subservient to observable behaviours.
    Rotation is a behaviour that has curved causality . This is the importance of Ōrsteds interpretation of the results of his and Amperes empirical results.
    We have been taught that the straight line is the " principle" of action. It is not. It is a principle of Mechanics . The principles help us to develop practical models
Sign In or Register to comment.