#### Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

# A Sound Magnetic Base

• edited January 2015
I meant that if you had the drive, good technical skills, hard physical worker and lots of
extra time - you could build Coral Castle yourself in 10 - 15 years of work. And without
diminishing with Ed's fit. He definitely deserve the recognition. But you don't have to
perform magics in order to accomplish that.

I did not called Ed a loser, yet I think that's how he felt after the girl he loved refused him.
If I'm not wrong he wanted this girl (which became woman) to come and live
with him, which never happened.

I'd better go back to business.
• edited January 2015
If however I use the standard model I get confused, because it is confusing and mathematically obscured! The simplest explanation of curl and div as operators was related to these magnetic structures on the sun, by one professor, and I know Helmholtz felt these mathematical differential equations were a direct mathematical expression of natural dynamic situations.
Now, Jehovajah is headed in a very interesting direction, striking a chord with me and touching a very sensitive nerve in the entire body of physics. Differential operators div and curl are very important mathematical constructs originated in hydrodynamics. The operator div is a relatively simple one with a clear physical meaning of degree of compression (rarefaction) in a medium of substance (modeled as a mathematical continuum) at any particular location in the volume occupied by the substance. The operator curl is more subtle for it has to do with a very subtle notion, which we variously identify with the words: rotation, revolution, spin, curl, vortex, eddy. Not all these words mean the same thing, but they all have some common feature, which is not so easy to identify precisely. That's what the definition of mathematical operator curl is trying to accomplish. But is the mathematical construct curl versatile and robust enough to capture all there is to capture in the concept of rotation?

One way to fully appreciate the subtlety of this concept is to ask oneself a very simple question and try to answer it: Does the moon revolve around its axis?

So, does it or does it not? Let me know what you think.
• edited January 2015
RWG research patterns a magnet , by a capacitance blast!

• edited January 2015
Thanks for the video Jehovaja.
I saw magnetized rings with 4 or more poles a few years ago,
but never seen a magnetized surface like that. It remind some
• edited January 2015
The more I study ken, and that includes learning how he communicates the information to himself so he is self- assured that he is not losing any of his insights, the more I think he is re-Explaining MASER " theory".

But I hasten to add that MASER theory is as presented a very simple and direct model of a complex phenomenon, thus it could have been explained in a more complex way initially were it not for Townsend needing to get a working theory past his colleagues , or lose not only his funding but also his academic reputation!

Ken suffers from polylogia and anxiety, these conditions I am personally aware of so I know something of what he has to do mentally to be sure he is " right" . At the same time he does not simply trust another persons explanation, but must demonstrate it himself. In that mode it is very very hard to recognise that one is speaking "Greek" to every other person on the planet.!

I count myself fortunate that people around me have loved me enough to help me simplify my communication and conversation skills. Nevertheless I have to blog my intense thought trains as " core" dumps to remain a mentally functioning individual, because otherwise I would just " freeze"!

I have to "reboot" regularly and do not expect anyone to fully understand my meanderings! As a fellow sufferer I therefore empathise with Ken and his efforts.

As I often find after thoroughly working some fascinating topic out in my own style, i am not the first to go there and often not the best at communicating what is there with the " mot juste"!
• Barau,
All matters of rotation I refer to Trochoids or as some want to call them roullettes . The apps of Laz Plath are fundamental to my study of rotation .

As you know I have set out some formal definition of the concepts of gyre and screw as putative conventions to CCW and CW.

Rotation is so fundamental that Newton regarded it as an absolute behaviour. This notion he derived from the Greeks, but directly from Galileo in his Dialogo , where a fractal patterning of the known universe is diagrammed based on Circles. Such an astronomical system is classically traced back to Eudoxus, but Ptolemy using Pythagorean notions found that Sumerian records already contained the idea as a sexagesimal system.

We have understood and lost and then rediscovered and finally obscured the notion of Rotation as an astrological community, relying too much on a new breed of Mathmatikos who rejected geometry for Algebra, and failed to do the translation task properly or adequately into an alternative non Pythgorean system .

My research shows that Hamilton and his school of quaternion developers, especially McCullagh developed the Curl notion , and Fitzgerald an ardent Maxwellian made it important to the theory of electromagnetism by supporting McCullaghs work against antagonists like Stokes.

As regards div I do not know that history so well but suspect Gibbs and Heaviside had a hand in popularising that one based on Cliffords work on both Hamiltons and Grasmanns methodologies and doctrine. But we must not forget the impact of Helmholtz and Hertz on the European formulation of the Maxwellian theory.

For at least 2 or 3 decades only a small group of Maxwellians worked on Maxwells theory in Britain and Berlin Ireland , and a war over notation for " vector" as opposed to quaternion quantities was flaming around them in Academic science. Eventually Kelvin and Gibbs won out over Hamilton , making Maxwells major work obscure to most Theoretical physicists on the grounds of notation alone .

It took some time and principally Heaviside to retranslate or redact the essential ideas into a type of Vector notation, while Hertz formulated them into a set of differential equations Helmholtz style. Both Hertz and Heaviside corresponded and eventually brought their individual equation styles into a rough conformity.

After the theory was accepted out of the blue by the rest of the physics community after so long a battle, the equations became subject to many reformulations and in particular the vector product formulation based on an unknown school of notation .

The history of Hydrodynamics may well have played a significant role, but one must acknowledge the ad hoc nature of that history, the cross disciplinary aspect of hydraulics, aerodynamics, hydrodynamic, shipbuilding and model making, fluid mechanics etc involved in developing even a subject boundary for the set of disciplines hydrodynamics now covers. Navier Stokes Equations for example are handled more easily as a notation by these differential operator forms.

With this kind of historical and piecemeal development it is no wonder that Div, Grad and Curl developed a mysticism all of their own, further obscuring the matter at hand.

They formulated the concepts in word labels and then they just argue about the words!

Yes the moon rotates, but what descriptor one uses depends on which reference frame method one uses.
• The principal mystification of the religion of physicists is to read a principle of calculation , a process of assigning a measur as a principle of nature, a revelatory message of the laws of the universe!

Heavisides Maxwellian equations tell us little of the nature of electromagnetism. However Maxwells theoretical exposition and theoretical derivation reveals how one man philosophically observed natural phenomena , what he induced, deduced and adduced, including his adumbration of the equations of measures expected by his reasonings , which measures if tested and found true serve to verify the rest of his reasonings.

However if by some clever rhetoric I manage to convince you that the veracity of my philosophy depends on the sum. 2+ 2, is it then sensible to call my philosophy a law of Nature?

As a computer programming example: if some complex process written as the main{} of a c programm has to return a 1 if it is performed correctly or any thing else if false, can I say that when that main{} returns 1 it is now shown to be a law of. Nature?

My point being that no matter how correct a calculation may be it does not make a theory a full description of nature, or even a reliable one. We induce reliability by experience.
• Jehovajah,

The steadfastness, with which you hold on to your intuition, coupled with your friendly attitude to all researchers, while keeping your eyes and mind open to new ideas, is most admirable.

randomind is also commands respect for his unwillingness to accept anything at face value without subjecting new models to a critical analysis of his inquiring mind. I am eager to hear of any progress he makes in the development of a model encompassing both dynamic and static aspects of electromagnetic phenomena.

The subject matter we are dealing with is of such intricate nature that we cannot afford to discard offhand any honest and concerned effort to make progress towards fuller understanding of it without doing great disservice to ourselves.
• edited January 2015
Yes the moon rotates, but what descriptor one uses depends on which reference frame method one uses.
If we restrict ourselves to the kinematical aspect of the question whether the moon revolves around its axis or not, then the above answer is evidently correct because relativity of motion - all motion, including that of rotation - is a truism. Indeed, from kinematical point of view, the following two statements have the same degree of validity and legitimacy: (a) the sun revolves around the earth; (b) the earth revolves around the sun.

But when we turn to the really important aspect of motion - the dynamics of it - the question whether the moon revolves around its axis or not acquires a whole new dimension and suddenly becomes complicated and very confusing; in fact, so confusing that Tesla felt that the answer should be in the negative, and he took great pains to prove his point:

Famous Scientific Illusions (see section I. The Illusion of the Axial Rotation of the Moon).
The Moon’s Rotation, first addendum to the main paper (published in April, 1919).
The Moon’s Rotation, second addendum to the main paper (published in June, 1919).
Rotation is so fundamental that Newton regarded it as an absolute behaviour
Tesla, evidently, was in agreement with Newton on this point. But is rotation really absolute, and - more fundamentally - what does the statement that rotation is absolute really mean? These are some of the questions Andre Assis tackles in his book Relational Mechanics and Implementation of Mach's Principle with Weber's Gravitational Force, which I have referred to elsewhere.
• edited January 2015
Watch this then kens.

Kens exasperated explanation of the same thing

• The magnetic domain is in other materials besides metals . The rare earths provide the kind of substances that have tribomagnetic properties.

Magnetic bubbles lost out to economic factors, the price of silicon plummeted!
Did magnetic bubbles not exist in silicon?
• edited September 2015
I have listened very carefully to what Ken has to say about gravitation. What he has to say, and especially the way he says it, makes me think that he is on the dangerous path of self-destruction, and I mean that literally: he sounds like someone who is on the verge of psychological breakdown, or heart-attack. He speaks of space like space is a physical reality. Indeed, he talks about properties of space, but properties are attributes of physical reality. Speaking of properties of space does not make sense for the simple reason that space is not a physical reality; space is mere human mental construct, albeit very useful one but nothing else nonetheless. I would refer Ken to Tesla who basically confirms what I have just stated:
I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have no properties. - N. Tesla
This Tesla quote is from Ken's own book by the way, but he does not seem to understand Tesla's take on the notion of space.

Perhaps a bit of humor might help Ken to get off the dangerous track of self-delusion and self-destruction. Ken says that location is the attribute of space and that he creates spaces. That reminded me of couple of fun moments. The first one is from A Mathematical Miscellany by John Littlewood with his inimitable wit:
' X finds gravitational waves in these conditions, but there is a suggestion that there is a mistake in the work.'
' Clearly any mistake generates gravitational waves.' p. 43
The second one is more brutal, but no less hilarious Achmed, the dead terrorist by stand-up comedian Jeff Dunham (burning topic due to the resent, undoubtedly staged and engineered by intelligence agencies, events in France - just as undoubtedly as they have staged and engineered the 9/11 events in New-York City back in 2001).

- What did you guys learn from that?
- Location, location, location.
• edited January 2015
Warning! This video contains bad language and extreme views. Rated at 18+

Thanks Barau.

Ken is a hard listen, and not for the faint at heart.

I do not suppose you know what a Koan is? Assuming you do not it is an ancient disciplinary technique. By disciplinary I mean literally the creation of a disciple.

The justification( if there is one) is that the disciple or devotee seeks out a master, not the other way round. Thus a master can brainwash that devotee any way he chooses. The mythology however is more quaint. The master acts as a conduit for the Muses divine beings with gifts to bestow on human beings. But the humans must be contractually obligated to a particular Muse. Which Muse chooses the Human depends on the way the human performs the Konan.

The Konan is a task chosen and designed by the master to bring the devotee into contact with the Muse for him/ her. The assumption is the master can see the gift buried within the devotee which reveals the Muse that claims that individual.

The scientist of India , the Yoga masters perfected these training and identification techniques. The devotee was given a seemingly crazy task . By sheer bloody minded endurance many found they had an epiphany. This was the sign the master was looking for, not the completion of the task, which can never be completed.

How many biologists have spent their entire careers looking at one tiny patch of land endlessly? This would be a koan that an Indian guru might give to a devotee for example.

Ken is self trained and self taught, as well as probably diagnoseable with Aspbergers syndrome and a few other diagnosable traits, thus we have the conundrum: do we trust the mans words based on his nature and general social acceptability , or do we throw out the baby with the bath water?

In general ad Hominem considerations are debating tactics for swaying crowds. As a Skeptic I prefer to weigh the empirical evidence , and garner some insight on witness experiences. In that regard a persons mental functioning and capacity is important to consider. So I measure his words against conventional usage, special conventional use etc, philosophical or paradigmatic shifts in useage. This gives me some idea of the distortion of an accepted view or indeed the originality in thought and view of the assessed.

Now I do this for my own pragmatic purposes: I have limited time and I want to spend it most productively. In my assessment ken is worth my time and assessment processes because intuitively I sense he is describing concepts I can understand.

The difficulty is the stage at which we interact with him. At the moment he is still processing the mounds of data he has acquired and the foreign to him concepts he has accepted. When he has done this he will produce his own native languaged version instead of this hodge podge of other peoples ideas.

Many of his sources I recognise immediately, and some I have personally researched so I am able to see how he is structuring their ideas( in part) into a synthesised jigsaw of his own.

Did you catch the idea that force is a rotational vector?

Newton of course believed this, and derived it from geometry and especially mechanics. So why did LaPlace, LaGrange , Biot Savot, and to some extent Maxwell adopt the convention force was a rectilinear vector?

I have dealt with this question extensively in my blog.( google jehovajah Shunya field theory) . But I was pleased to find , upon your advice that Örsted maintained this philosophical view and Ampère demonstrated it experimentally and derived mathematical measures for it.

Yet still the weight of convention is force travels in straight lines!

Google jehovajah absolute to see how deep the rabbit hole goes!
• edited January 2015
@Barau_R_Tour
If we restrict ourselves to the kinematical aspect of the question whether the moon revolves around its axis or not, then the above answer is evidently correct because relativity of motion - all motion, including that of rotation - is a truism. Indeed, from kinematical point of view, the following two statements have the same degree of validity and legitimacy: (a) the sun revolves around the earth; (b) the earth revolves around the sun.

Read more: A Sound Magnetic Base - The Atom Discussions on Magnetic Current Research
The specifics of Tesla's explanation are correct in my view.

We are spoon fed simplistic answers , plausible lies to shut up inquiring minds.

I have personally found rotation fascinating, and like Tesla could not believe a washer rotating always facing an external centre is also rotating around its own internal centre. This is what absolute means simplistically: the washer dies not have to rotate around its own " local" centre!.

This is what relativity means: the washer can have a reference frame around the origin of which it rotates independently in a circle to any other point, but it may have more than one point around which it rotates circularly , but gombe lock will not permit more than 2. Any attempt to make a or force a single object outside these constraints results in the object being torn apart by " inertial" forces!

The meaning of Inertial is thus defined by rotational forces! Newton never meant that forces only act in a right or straight line, but rather the act as ordained by God which on a planet surface may seem straight but In the celestial mechanics is clearly conical section curves! Inertia is the conformity to this absolute behaviour around a planetary system even as that planetary system conforms to a heliocentric absolute, and so on!
• edited November 2015
@ Jehovajah
Ken is a hard listen, and not for the faint at heart.
Quite the opposite - I find it great fun to listen to Ken. The more I listen to Ken the more I get convinced though that he is delusional, but that does not prevent me from enjoying his rants. In fact, I find it not only fun to listen to what he has to say, but also useful to do so (не только, но и также - not only, but also - Ken pleasantly surprised me with his knowledge of some nuggets of the Russian language :-))
I do not suppose you know what a Koan is?
You are quite correct there - the concept of Koan is new to me, thanks for sharing it.

I do not wish to get overly mystical here, but I would like you all to take a close look, from multiple points of view, at The Cathedral of Vasily Blazhenny in Red Square, Moscow, Russia:

In particular, pay attention to how the lines on different domes are arranged. The lines on the leftmost dome (the one with blue and white stripes) are arranged to form lobules like those on a watermelon, i.e. they do not curl. The lines on the dome next to it (the one with green and yellow curved stripes) are curling in one direction, namely CCW, if we look from the top of the dome. The lines on the third and the forth domes curl in both directions, like the lines on the face of a sunflower, thereby recalling in one's mind the images of double-helix DNA molecules and the images of magnets seen through the magnetic viewing film, as demonstrated by Ken. The lines on the fifth dome (on the other side of the Cathedral) are wave-like:

It may sound preposterous, but I fancy as if Vasily Blazhenny (Vasily the Blessed) is perplexed as of which model of the natural order of things is more adequate: the first one (simple model based on attraction/repulsion action pattern), or the second one (fluid dynamics model based on unidirectional vortex), or the third and forth ones (double-helix model), or the fifth one (undulation model)?

My fancy seems clearly insane for Vasily Blazhenny could not possibly know of Coulomb and Newton (attraction/repulsion model), or Decartes and Leibniz (eddy/vortex model), or Leedskalnin and, to certain extent, Maxwell (double-helix model), or Huygens and Schrödinger (undulation model). Or does it? Is it so preposterous to conjecture that we, the humans, might "know" on the genetic level a great deal more than we could possibly imagine in our wildest dreams?

I have much more to say about Boyd Bushman, Tesla, and Galileo, so fasten your seat belts and prepare for a wild gyrating blast-off to travel to completely unknown (to contemporary science with its standard model, anyways) dimension - not that of Rod Serling called The Twilight Zone but to the dimension of holistic analysis, to the dimension of mosaic view of the nature (the nature, which is alive - and I mean that literally, not allegorically - in each and every bit of it, and at each and every level of its hierarchical structure), as opposed to the prevailing today kaleidoscopic, patchwork-quilt-like view of nature as heap of dead, flat matter allegedly governed by the so-called second law of thermodynamics.