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
Imagine these laminar flows to be magnetic polarity lines. Because they are dynamic they can be considered to flow: hence magnetic flux lines.
Note how the cortex flow moves unstable along the cylindrical object, and review the elegant separation vortices as radio frequency transmission " shadows".
Thus an antenna demonstrates all these features, as does a wire moving in a " magnetic field" or plasma vortex flow in a PMH.
Ampere when he said electrodynamic was not speaking about electricity producing magnetism. He was speaking about dynamism producing electricity. Like most of his peers he believed that magnetism was static.
In everybody's experience until then electricity was produced by dynamic action rubbing friction and rotation. Therefore electro dynamic was meant to convey that electricity is produced by Dynamic. In amperes consideration the rotating magnetic field was creating the electricity.
However Ampere would not subscribe to the fact that a rotating magnetic field is creating electricity but it was certainly associated with the creation of electricity so it was the dynamism that was creating the activity and therefore he called his new field of study electro dynamics.
Very subtly today we understand the term electrodynamics and to mean that electricity produces magnetism this is the total opposite of what Ampere meant . I am per meant that dynamism was producing electricity. And in his particular study who was studying the magnetic dynamism. He proceeded faraday by a few weeks or months but in a much fuller sense than Faraday he understood that the magnetic change was creating the electric charge moving in the circuit wire . The Voltaic cell was new and still not understood to produce a current, but rather a spark like fire! It was similar to the electrophorus " charged " spark.
The prejudice against a vortex description was based on the divide between the church and natural philosophers! Descartes was a conformist to clerical theology in that regard, nevertheless he was still a very scientific observer and powerful inductive thinker, as was Ørsted.
http://www.ampere.cnrs.fr/parcourspedagogique/zoom/courant/electrodynamique/index-en.php
Newton a question question is why does the spinning top not fall to pieces?
Newtons first law is commonly mistakenly taken as expressing that every force acts in a straight line. Whereas more careful reading explains that at one level force appear to act in a straight line but when you get to the level of the celestial sphere force appears to act in a cyclical nature
Therefore his first law is talking about a relativistic point of view of continued motion of objects his second law which talks about the pressure as the force which generates acceleration acting in this relativistic view and his third law which talks about the more complex interactions as a whole appearing to oppose each other dynamically all form a stepping stone trail to his conception of the circular motion of celestial bodies
These propositions are in fact principles which he has derived from observation based on the work of Galileo and his work that theDialogo.
This step-by-step approach was meant to result in tackling the vortex description of motion in space is proposed byDescartes however Newton found that what experimentation he was able to do with a spinning top of the spinning buckeand spinning cylinders was not able to resolve the actual measured results . In particular he could not account for the spinlock of planets as a movement groundwater. This was resolved later when fluid mechanics did the experimentation with better equipment and better experimental setups. However Newtons students, especially Kant were left with the opinion that the vortex description was not as accurate as his simplified point mass action.It must never be forgotten that Newton actually was expecting a vortex description of motion and his derivation of the centripetal force and is acceptance of the centrifugal force was part of his whole method of describing the kind of circular or conical motions that were observed
The vortex description offers many comprehensive benefits: it describes the action of all forces at all scales; it is a dynamic description therefore one expects dynmic effects and anormales; and rotation provides the sound basis needed for frequency and amplitude descriptions of flud material.
The conception of energy( originally living or dynamic force) has a ready mechanism for storage and release in a vortex structure . It is a sound basis for magnetic, thermal, sonic and electrical and mechanical behaviours.
One principle that we may like to adopt is that space is a dynamic fluid which is theoretically represented by spce-time or alternatively an aether . The dynamism of space is recorded in video like frames or holographic frames. Thus at least a space - time description is required. Hence Hamiltons Quaternions were so eagerly welcomed by Maxwell.
However reactionary forces: lord Kelvin in particular undermined their use as mystical nonsense! Alice in wonderland Mathematics , as Lewis. Carrol satirised it.
Today we use Grassmanns Conception of extensive and intensive magnitudes to encode physical kinematics , but with very little understanding of what the Grassmanns were proposing in general. A few experts use the method, but few can explain the system even as clearly as Hermann Grasmann did .
Another principle should be that where force or energy is intensified space- time expands, and where it is diminished space time contracts. These are crudely the attractive and repulsive "forces" observed in dynamic situations.
The vortex, for me, that is in my opinion, offers me the most comprhrnsive Model for explaining, or describing observable phenomena. But what a vortex is conceived to be is as fundmental as its combinatorial use in modelling phenomena.
A vortex as a dyanmic rotational feature in a fluid space-time/ aether is the general idea. For each particular case the definition of that specific vortex or the characterisation of it can be encoded in frequency, amplitude and energy magnitude. Evenso, the specifics of each trochoidal path at each scale is descriptively beyond us!
However, inductive descriptions, and thus fractal topological Dynamics gives us a synoptic view of very complex patterning outcome.
Truth in this scenario becomes those invariant descriptions or expressions that faithfully encode the observable outcomes of an iterative/ recursive/ cyclically dynamic process.
If you look closely at the particles in the video you may see the trochoidal paths traversed by individual grains. Very much in the spirit of individual north or south magnets .
Particles, corpuscles are one pproimation to sterility. Thr material point in fluid dynamics is another, and plasma vortices is my preferred generating model.
Now before vortices were better understood the logical connection between ferro Magnetim and Electra magnetism, observed and posited by Gilbert could not be understood dynamically. So seperate forces were invoked. The nomenclature that goes with those models still persist today and are believed to describe actual invisible entities rather than observable behaviours.
The so called flame plasma of ions is an observation of the similarity of a spark to a Flame. The incredible vortex dynamics in a capacitive space shows the dynamic reciprocation inside a capacitor and hence inside a battery cell in my opinion.
plasma vortices inside and outside materials are a viable model for observable behaviours.
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/
Ivor and I do not agree on interpretation of the results , but I agree on his evidence being valid and groundbreaking .
Electrostatics is a misnomer, just as current in a wire is a fundamental misdirection . Ivor uses Classical ideas to describe his findings, I use fundamental observation inductively applied . We observe a polarity change that encircles a wire. We observe it is dynamic .i induce a vorticular flux dynamic that is perhaps the definition of an aether vortex
One of the boldest statements about Comet 67p was the absence of a magnetic field. And yet excess "electrons" we're detected close to the surface as it rushed through the plasma environment we call space.
Thus either moving electrons do not generate a magnetic field or our measurements are biased and our conclusions twisted away from a magnetic explanation. After all electromagnetism is supposed to exhibit magnetic behaviour!
Warfare gets funded: free energy for the masses does not.