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
The theoretical model I am proposing is not new.
Faraday believed the sphere of influence around a magnet was a manifestation of some Aetheric vortex behaviours. He however like Ōrsted had a Divine power source to philosophically rely on . However Maxwell was a Mechanical philosopher, so he needed wheels and gears! In point of fact Vortices were well known, documented phenomena in nature. They were poorly understood especially mathematically until Kelvin and Helmholtz. Evenso they made some invalid assumptions or their vortex kinematics . Maxwell only wanted to use them as strain propagators!
Skyrmions are way too Mathematical to be demonstrated in the way you ask. They are simply renamed magnetic domains, which have been experimentally demonstrated and researched, but not at the current scale achievable with modern instruments.
The sizes of these vortex patterns is amply demonstrated by our current sunspot research . All,I have done is restore a common structural magnetic feature to our consciousness .
It has taken a while to be convinced that I am justified in doing so!
The bar magnet therefore has a use only in defining polarity intensity. It does not define magnetism or magnetic behaviour. As Gilbert envisioned Magnetic behaviour exists in organic and inorganic crystalline lattices, and is a triboMagnetic phenomenon !
Essentially this is what Ivor Catt has been attempting to convey for several decades! His electromagnetic theory attempt to use the TEM step wave to design and anlyse circuits.
I differ only in theory. I extend to a longitudinal and rotational as well as a transverse deformation propagation .
Newton et al. As alchemists developed the corpuscular theory based on old philosophical concepts and new microscopic observations in their time!
https://www.facebook.com/SearchingForTheMind/posts/888858941227147
Despite the abundance of fluids ( liquids and gases) we insist on solid being the fundamental state! Consequently we find it hard to grasp how space moves in and through space , and what best models space.
Because fluid exists in many phases, phase boundaries are more complex than the solid /empty space boundary! It is this complex phase boundary where all the interesting phenomena occur, and where fractal topology and fractal geometrical methods become so crucia.
l
A stream or current in a river or a body of water shows how these phase boundaries can occupy minute regions or gigantic regions!
So a wave rolling into the coast on a calm day looks as if it involves the surface layer of the ocean, but in fact a stick in the surface reveals that the surface layer is moving in the opposing direction to the wave! The stick makes its way out to sea until it gets picked up by a more powerful current layer!
So it is with space/ aether. These nano, micro, even femto currents of space exist at phase boundaries and these streams also expand and contract and rotate . These trochoidal motions particularly conical motions represent our best models of natural kinematics.
It turns out that the most important Mathematical equation is the Cotes Euler identity . Strictly it is a set of codes which enable us to describe all trochoidal motions in 3 dimensional space by constructing a system using these as basic elements.
As a model it is useless for prediction! But the more applicable the model the more it enables us to understand what we can't see or directly observe until we have the appropriate technology.
We cannot know what space/ aether is ultimately, but we can know what models are most useful for describing observable behaviours
Thus a substsnce finer than hydrogen Is misleading. But if we share Space and time I or you may point to some region and label that as hydrogen gas, or liquid hydrogen or solid hydrogen or plasmic hydrogen etc. having agreed a label we may together continue to label behaviours . But when we agree a model that represents a system of such labels, and especially a realiseable one that is when we are freed from space and time.
Such models may be fractally simple: space is divided into smaller but complex combinatorial regions. Or they may be fractally complex: space is fractally vibrational at all scales but vibration is thought of as rotational. In one model fine-ness is stressed, in another frequency and amplitude is stressed.
Using the vorticular rotation model at all scales particularly suits a fluid, and such a fluid can be thought of as continuous substance universally everywhere but in varying rotational structures and patterns and thus varying structural densities .
The structural densities may then be counted as a measure of force, energy , and the change or rate of change of these structural densities As measures of viscosity and permeability . This is usually a different layer of interpretation within or upon the model.
The highest level of interpretation placed on models is that of belief! An expert in a model may believe the model is utilitarian. Non experts may believe the model is Truth, rather thn just true, to what ever level of approximation is acceptable .
Here , and elsewhere I have carefully sifted the ruling models in our societies, east and west and drawn my own conclusions about what is true, truer and truest. I have no claim to the Truth .
I do have an opinion about the Truth and that is " the Truth is the biggest Lie!" , but that is just one of my many opinions and I do not indoctrinate you or anyone else with it! Rather hopefully I respect your beliefs and perceptions and indeed learn from them .
The problem for me about books is that they are voluminous! And as soon as I have taken up space in this world, I am entitled to contradict any written statement by dynamic observation of the ' facts' ! So my many words on the Internet are a core dump! If ever you do try to chronologically order them you will find changes and difference even over and above my numerous typos!
I do not care enough to correct many posts unless someone directly contacts me about a point they may feel is valuable to them. Then I am pleased to present a clearer version of a post or to explain my current thinking .
As I get older, my experience is that I find expressive labels that are of greater utility for explanatory purposes. Then my posts become more consistently expressed in these terminologies.
However this is not for me "the Truth" but rather a convenient if not cryptic shorthand for many many analogous expressions. Thus it may be that a statement is perfectly clear to me, but extremely opaque or vague to another or fellow researcher. In that case I regard it as good rhetoric to be able to unpack my meaning in more familiar everyday metaphors, and a measure of my expertise in how effectively I do this! If I can not explain it to a child let us say then I do not really understand it myself!
There are many many things I do not understand or which are a work in progress, but if a fellow researcher or student is happy to engage in conversation and common investigation, then I am happy to correspond as best I can.
I publish openly, because maybe what I publish may be of use to another. Some may acknowledge my contribution some may not, but I have been at this long enough to avoid the conceit of originality!
"There is nothing new under this sun" I find to be very true!
The lines of polarity are in addition conceived as static, even though we know these lines dynamically morph!
The current Soho images of the sun give us our best model of the dynamics around a lodestone. These are universally described as magnetic phenomena. The flares, CME's etc are all compared to electric plasma dynamics. This should give us a clue!
Ampere did his best to call magnetism electro dynamism . Unfortunately those after him retained the electro as a separate force instead of recognising that dynamic magnetic vortices are a great model of electric phenomena in and around a circuit carrying a voltaic continuous discharge.
It was clear to ampere by the nature of his experiments that a dynamic moving magnetic bundle was a intuitive model of the magnetic polarity cycle around a wire. Biot and Savot preferred a rectilinear transverse magnetic "vector" which was physically meaningless but just a theoretical given. Ampère was thinking Fractally!
Ultimately he assumes that magnetic polarity lines is a given, but it is a scale free phenomenon which combines and coheres fractally .
Thus we can never answer what it ultimately is but we can answer how it can be modelled in its behaviour at all scales!
Thus he combined electro behaviour as a fractal complex dynamic of magnetic behaviour indicated by polarity orientation changes!
Lines of Equipotential are lines of equal Magnetic force potential! They measure magnetic firce generated in a circuit at different spatial positions. Thus this is a measure of magnetic force differences in space! Magnetic pressure potential we call Volts!
Thus when electrostatics is taught we need to understand that it is a dynamic magnetic complex rotating deformation which has structural surfaces of equal magneti pressure!
However, for effective engineering purposes we do need to present the combinatorial constraints for materials without assuming we know it all!
Thus tunnelling, hall effects, radio frequencies etc are all part of this same complex fractal model.
Today with computers we can construct a full representation of such a model and examine its limitations as well as what yet lies to be revealed.
Trochoids are the basis of rotation. Here used to describe Fourier transforms. Circular vectors when added at a certain frequency interfere constructively at others destructively . So data is decomposed by these frequencies to form peaks in. A Graph. However rotating magnetic currents form a force direction in space that either repels or attracts by this Interaction .
The frequency of rotation has one hitherto ignored effect with regard to constructive snd destructive interference: procession and recession! In procession the frequencies are such that the maximum interaction occurs at different positions on the circulating path, so as to give the appearance of a propagating maximum. Recession is where the frequencies are such as to give the opting appearance of propagation! Thus without reflection or indeed any external interaction a wave appears to be propagating in opposite directions out of every specified point around the circulation path!
The frequency difference that promotes this appearance will depend on the circumferential path. Thus as the circumference increases, that is as the radial vector perpendicular to the surface increases the frequency difference will increase. Thus for any given amplitude the power will decrease radially . For a high amplitude to extend further into the radial space a greater frequency would be specifically involved for high amplitude rotations . The intensity therefore would be immense and unlikely to be supported by a solid phase viscosity!
Smoke ring collision illustrates rotationl wave interactions that are a model of certain angelic behaviours and agnostic currents .
Just imagine how induction/ conduction in a wire establishes these long lived vortices in the volume around a wire. These would model the magnetic circulation around a wire. These types of vortices can be imagined at hyper velocities/ angular vertical momentum. The frequency of the angular vorticular momentum determining constructive and destructive interactions .
The current Skyrmion model uses a planar circulation for the domain, but these can be Combinatorially combined into these kind of torus ring vortices or other magnetic structures.
Fundamentally Amperes conception of electro dynamism is more in keeping with a vortex model than Biot or Savot's construction
It is extremely important for any theory, worthy of the epithet "scientific", to be physical rather than mathematical. Why? Because theories, firmly grounded in physical reality, can and will lead to new scientific breakthroughs and useful technical inventions, while mathematical theories are useful mostly for wrapping up in neat packages the knowledge already obtained by scientists and practical men who think in physical terms – like Faraday or Tesla, for example – but mathematical theories per se cannot lead to new physical discoveries.
"Non-physicality" of the classical theory of electricity shows up long before we get to the abstract notion of electric current is a slow drift of electrons in a conductor (perhaps, one of the most harmful notions in the entire body of physics): it shows up in electrostatics.
Let's see why. In electrostatics we have the notion of electric field surrounding a point-like electric charge. But what is electric field? Is it some kind of extremely subtle physical reality, or merely a handy mathematical abstraction for making electrical engineering calculations?
Let's assume that electric field is, in fact, some physical reality. Then, it is natural to conclude that the physical reality, which the electric filed stands for, is absent in the particular case of zero electric field. But this leads to violent contradiction with common sense.
Indeed, imagine two thin and large copper discs placed parallel to each other, each charged with the same positive quantity of electricity Q. Now let's try to push the discs toward each other. We are met with resistance – the closer we push them the more resistance you get. Common sense tells us that there is something there, between the plates, thwarting all our attempts to bring them closer. However, according to electrostatics theory, electric field between the two plates is equal to zero in the limit of infinitely large discs, i.e. there is no physical entity at all between the plates.
Thus the conclusion: Electrostatics is a mathematical theory – not a physical one.
Walt Thornhill explaining the EU model. The dynamic magnetic phenomena are still obscured by the term Electric
Then he noticed how the wind seems to tie things into a knot and how it seems to untie knots that seemed very fast. This seems very strange but eventually it leads you to realise when twists and turns in knots and behaves very much like the string.
It takes a while before you realise the string wrapped around a spinning top creates spinning vortex. It takes even longer to realise how this observation reveals something very much unexpected about gassy. When you are talked about gases and fluids you're not taught to think in terms of string. And yet what is lamb in the flow it looks like a bunch of strings streaming out and it is this string like laminate nature of flow that is missed when thinking about the vortex.
To be fair those that study fluid dynamics will consider that string and laminates are not the same thing. And it is true alarm and it does not depict the course of a string. If it depicts anything it's an instantaneous set of points
And yet a streamline is such an intuitive obvious thing but in fluid dynamics streamline is something that is not so obvious.
The test particle in fluid dynamics is a small material point. As such it cannot indicate the streamline If the test particle was replaced by a string unfurled in the flow then the string itself can indicate the streamline.
Considering the string like nature of fluids that is liquids and gases things that we develop a different concept of these States of matter that is different to the Kinetic theory.
Lord Kelvin was justly proud of his kinetic theory but it is time has passed. String theory has attempted to describe the nature of matter and energy by the use of string. But this has become an interminable mess. This is not because the theory is strange or unphysical but because the concept of a street is completely erroneous.
One has to start with a vortex filament before one comes upon the correct conception of the string. Such a vortex filament is a fundamental aspect of magnetic behaviour. It is this vortex filament that Ampere essentially explains in his electrodynamical theory.
A collection of these vortex filaments or strins develop into a powerful twisted rope of magnetic current if they cohere. If they do not cohere then they represent a very "gaseous" state.
http://helicola.com/index.php?p=video
Ginzburg has a favoured topology for these structures, that of a toroid within a pherical boundary. This is a bias toward a particle description of space- time or aether. But in fluid dynamics the material point becomes the fundamental object.
I dispense with the spherical topology and emphasise the string / vorticular filament itself .