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
Eyes open, no fear .Kerp safe everyone
Weber was sidelined!
Trying to put it all together xx
Sprites explain entanglement and quantum behaviour when viewed in context of fluid dynamic vorticity ie magnetic behaviour!
A low pressure is modelled first.
This is a vorticular region that " screws" relative to its surrounding environment. It does this only if the rotational vortex contains a phase difference within one of its axial rotations. This phase difference allows a material interference pattern to develop that either travels the axis of the vortex or establishes a standing dynamic, either way we have a vorticular " gear" configuration.
The gear now operates as a differential pressure system . High pressure when the phase combines constructively and low when it combines destructively.
Now high pressure is related to the energy density of the volumes. Thus amplitude and frequency of the interference contributes to that evaluation.
Unlike kelvins kinetic theiry of colliding billiard balls , where pressure is in fact exerted at the collision boundary and thus is a combination of the kinetic energy of the so called particle and the surrounding potential energy of the environment , and thus the environment is the " source" of high pressure while the kinetic volume is in fact a low pressure complex, the body pressure within a rotational vortex is variably within the volume!
The pressure being within the vortex volume is how a vortex maintains a regional structure that appears " solid" , rather than gaseous or even liquid. A vortex is a corpuscular system in the direct sense of corpuscle.
It remains simply to apprehend how a screw works relative to a " uniform" environment to grasp that such a vortex is in relative motion to its uniform environment. This motion is thus the source of high pressure and low pressure behaviour of the surrounding environment.
Coherence of such vorticular screws or gears creates a dynamic low pressure high pressure toroid, a donut with a hole in the middle !
LE pressure systems are contained within high pressure surrounding systems only if there is an axial coherence for the screw dynamic. Where there is no coherence then the high pressure collapses the low pressure dynamic by constructive and destructive interference of the phase difference: the surrounding environment absorbs the phase difference.
How so?
The uniform environment was a teaching assumption. In fact the environment is a dynamic collection of such screws fractally distributed. Thus the environmental screws are able to interact by interference with our teaching screw, as described.
Panta Rhei Herakleitos wrote!
This explanation of vortex dynamics decomposes the rotation into consistent cyclic geometries/spaciometries.
Starting with his free app CIRCA downloadable at Tee Roe Koids William S aka Laz Plath owner of qqazxxsw YouTube channel shows how to set the amplitude, the relative Frequency and finally the dynamic phase for a vortex that spins around a point in n planes! ( initially n=3)
Because the viewing screen is 2d the trochoidal paths look flat but in fact the paths are conceptually moving in 3 dimensions
This experimental set up is something that follows on from Eds elegant observational schema.
By repeating Eds experiments with a rotating conductor which has minimal or no vibrational motion we can explore the vorticular assertion Ed makes about the way electricity runs in a wire.
Of course if we take note of Amperes work as well we should expect contraction waves to pass along even a straight copper Inductor/ conductor, and that these would exacerbate vibrations in a rotating system!
The magnetic sphere is clearly dynamic. But as the distance from a " pole" end increases it is clear tht the sphere iscusdions combintoril sum of filamentary rotations .
The dynamic structure ends in equilibrium as the intense " attraction" at the centre of the " pole" results from a pushing reaction on the urface of the ferro fluid ( the commentator remarks on this)
The perfect cone shape indicates a pure conical rotation at rotational velocities too fast to capture . The speed of surface tension effects is unbelievable! It is KNOWN that structures within cells (organelles) move at near hypersonic speeds !
The rNA copying assembly that runs along a DNA structure rotates faster than a jet turbine .
So incredibly we see the rotational and counter rotational behaviours around a pole in this video .
So here Electric is purported to be a fundamental descriptor with magnetism as a consequence . This is one philosophical interpretation of the data.
However it founders on the notion of an electron and the notions of current as electron drift at various velocities.
Whilst magnetic reconnection is logically unsound being a before and after description of a dynamic equilibrium change, the fact that is a magnetic behaviour is cleatly Obvious!
The polarity orientation lines are not physical but they are not simply mental aids. They are Equipotential surfaces as Maxwell described them. They are surfaces where the "Measured" " pressure" is equal . What is this pressure? It is that pressure between two magnetic behaviours in either a coil or coil and penny magnet assembly!!
Whatever we currently call electrical is measured by a magnetic behaviour! .
So it seems to me that to assert an electric foundation for our theoretical basis is counter productive and even counter intuitive .
Intuitively astronomers have come up with thst" dumb" idea of magnetic reconnection. Those who do not use intuition are fried by the fact that it is so popular when it is " clearly" so illogical. That is because it is so intuitive ! We can display and measure the change in magnetic polarity orientation . We can not display an electron or an electrostatic field or an electric field without a magnetic measuring system.
Of course basic electrostatics presents the gold leaf measure as a means of displaying electric field strengths and electric charge densities, but of course such a sensor is not capable of measuring in a dynamic system, that is why it is a static measure.
In my thread charging a Leyden Jar by a magnet , I provide evidence as scant as it is, that a magnet by tribomagnetic effects can indeed induce a charge in a Leyden jar.
It is not that this is considered impossible, it is rather that there are more effective ways of charging a Leyden jar than by magnetic perturbation, in yje lab setting. This has led to blind sighted ness as all these effective ways were defined as electrical in a prior age, when Electra meant a form of magnetism!
Gilbert in De Magneto distinguished the 2 magnetic behaviours but clearly hypothesised they were the same " kind" of phenomna . The electron notion was a mathematical model which was attached to JJ Thomponsvrather careful measurements, over and above his own corpuscular theory of his measured results .
Theoretically there was a fundamental aspect begging to be put in place and realised: it was the complexity of trochoidal rotationl dynamics in a fluid medium.
The fluids were always posited to be appended to some material old , but Thompson considered that the material was not solid but fluid in its entirety. Thus the small particles were " Evaporated" off a corpuscular region. .
Nuclear physicists decided that that could not best describe the diffraction pattern origin and replaced it with the Planetary solar system model.. This allowed so called empty space to be the fabric of the universe rather than a motile aether which being fluid we were not able to apprehend.
Now we can! Now we can test all fluid dynamic models of everything from the solar system down to the quantum level by computer simulation .
The result is fluid dynamics wins out, but no one wants to know that they need to paradigm shift to a fluid dynamical model , and in doing so things like rotation be ome fundamentally crucial to an accurate description of o servile behaviours.
I have been enjoying this discussion for some time.
Your inclusion of gyre structures has reminded me of a scientific paper on the same subject. The scientific world reacted negatively to this gentleman's paper but I believe that you may find some interest in it.
"Theory of the Origin, Evolution, and Nature of Life"
Erik D. Andrulis
http://www.mdpi.com/2075-1729/2/1/1
Here is a little sample of his gyre concept of life:
"In the theory proposed herein, I use the heterodox yet simple gyre—a spiral, vortex, whorl, or similar circular pattern—as a core model for understanding life. Because many elements of the gyre model (gyromodel) are alien, I introduce neologisms and important terms in bold italics to identify them; a theoretical lexicon is presented in Table 1. The central idea of this theory is that all physical reality, stretching from the so-called inanimate into the animate realm and from micro- to meso- to macrocosmic scales, can be interpreted and modeled as manifestations of a single geometric entity, the gyre. This entity is attractive because it has life-like characteristics, undergoes morphogenesis, and is responsive to environmental conditions. The gyromodel depicts the spatiotemporal behavior and properties of elementary particles, celestial bodies, atoms, chemicals, molecules, and systems as quantized packets of information, energy, and/or matter that oscillate between excited and ground states around a singularity. The singularity, in turn, modulates these states by alternating attractive and repulsive forces. The singularity itself is modeled as a gyre, thus evincing a thermodynamic, fractal, and nested organization of the gyromodel. In fitting the scientific evidence from quantum gravity to cell division, this theory arrives at an understanding of life that questions traditional beliefs and definitions."
Onkel_Ken
Thank you fir the link and the quote.
Yes I find this set of assertions very sensible and intriguing.
However I make an ontological distinction: what exists I can only know . And what I know I can Not adequately describe symbolically. Therefore I can only attempt to persuade others that I do know by demonstrating a model with some utility to others. Should my model and its attendant expertise of use allow others to build some technological wonder or some technological mundanity with equal ease then others may apprehend that I indeed know something .
Unfortunately having others come to that conclusion does not validate what I know, but only the effectiveness of my model!
What exists I do not claim I can know in entirety or even that what I know is an accurate impression, but if I can only live my life by it it suffices me as serviceable for my survival. However despite this potential others may take " agin" me and so end my chances of survival!
But if the model arises again or persists with similar or greater utility that indeed may be sufficient reason to conclude that some of us do know in part something of what does exist at least in the time frames at which the model arises.
I am not attempting to explain all of life by my research and meditations, but am focused on the fundamental thought patterns that may be most useful to develop expertise In in order to describe most if not all fundamental and observable behaviours at all scales .
While the words vortex, gyre, rotation roulette and trochoidal rotation may be used by me the fundamental concept is I'll defined unless we can agree on a dynamic expression of it.
I place Qqazxxsw' s trochoid apps in that position.
It is unfortunate that he won't communicate with me on his programming designs , but I suspect the fundamental elements he uses are exponential functions implemented in some programming language . If so he is already at a level of symbolism that will lose well over 97% of any audience!!
His work can be presented as circle combinatorial summations but then so can Lie Algebras !!
Suffice it to say that Newton intuited that rotation was the fundamental notion that needed to be at the basis of all our Metaphyics, but even he found it difficult to apply accurately to observable situations. He found that a gross approximation served him better than the more complex and in many senses truer rotational model.
Today's omputational devices and display systems mean we can overcome the difficulties Newton encountered, but we do need a Newton not an Einstein to continue his work.
I do not belittle Einstein, but I do think he went down the wrong path . The geodesic surfaces he worked on are not flexible enough because they exist independent of the expert. Newton as an expert designed surfaces as needed! They were not reality or fixed by fiat, but explanatory models created to fit a purpose and replaced by improved or more utilitarian ones. He could do so because for all philosophers of his time there was a creator and it was not them, nor even Nature! Thus man was l ly playing with pebbles on the beach, an idea it turns out that did not originate with Newton.
Thanks for the response!
I have reread all 26 pages of your entries twice now as well as watching many of the videos that you have enclosed in your comments.
I have also stopped by your Wordpress site and read many of the articles you have written there! Just amazed at your ability to assess and put into understandable English the many diverse concepts have you have explored.
Like yourself I have followed Eric Dollard for sometime. I have kept up on his web site as well as Energetic Forum. By the way, on a Japanese scientist's web page I found a nice 300+ page summation of some of Eric's works.
KazumotoIguchi Research Laboratory
"True" Electromagnetism of Nikola Tesla
Eric P. Dollard
http://www.stannet.ne.jp/kazumoto/dollardEm-v2.pdf
Thankyou for the link.
I am humbled .
If anything that I have channeled has made sense to another I feel that I have been privileged to be given insight that is useful if not important.
I recognise that certain relationships are divinely ordered, by which I mean a part of the fabric of the structure of the universe. So for Newton it was DeMoivre and fleetingly Cotes . These 3 best express the insights of each other, though of course primacy is given to Newton. And in a kind of inverse relationship Hooke must be included.
It may be that you and I may strike up such a correspondence .