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
Nobel prize winners are always a peak into the expertises within the current consensus paradigm.
Is the space of which and in which we move a singular substance?
Theoretically we are unable to answer that question because we make the theoretical assumption that space and matter are distinct.
Several hypothesised properties of Matter that Bose speculated would appear at absolute zero are in fact observable without going o that extreme, we call it fluid Dynamics!
If we start with a perfectly clm pond we can introduce distinct regional behaviours by rotational perturbations of varying frequency amplitude and phase.
The only fundamental assumption we need to make in fluid dynamics is that fluids can support rotational motion of any amplitude, frequency and phase . The rest we observe in particular materials as fluids.
Now let us define aether as such a fluid which is inherently in such a motile condition..
What behaviour would one expe t for rotations ith in a larger rotating ?
A surprising coherency we may call MASING( or even amazing!) at higher frequencies it is called LASING and at even higher frequencies it is called Quasing! ( or Quasar-Ing?)
As old as this topic is it still is not widely known .mconsequently when pundits assert that " wave"motion can not be both longitudinal and transverse it shows a level of observational ignorance.
The importance of this point is in the still taught description of light behaviour. Fresnel, the major progenitor of the mathematical description of the light wave theory insisted light was a transverse wave form only while Young the British protagonist for light as. Wave behaviour insisted the wave form was both transverse and longitudinal.
Today we now accept youngs descriptors to be the case without even understanding what that means !
As Raleigh observed in his notes on Wave mechanics : wave behaviours are more generally described by rotational forms. He was largely ignored except in the radio communities. Even Feynmann struggled to understand how Huygens propagation of light theory could actually be physically manifested.
Rotation in light and all " Electromagnetic" behaviour is obscured by the concepts of polarisation and chirality.
Usually at precisely the moment polarisation is introduced, magnetic behaviour is dropped in favour of so called electric behaviour! Not only is this theoretical simplification an over simplification it is also entirel misleading and obscuring.
The rotation in light is not a consequence of transverse and longitudinal wave motion! Rather wave motion is a consequence of rotational behaviours in space .
All magnetic current consists in these rotational regions within regions at all scales .
Starting with this concept of rotation it is quite easy to understand how regional rotations may BR considered as particulate. Thus at a certain scale and level of observation a particle explanation will be adequate, but not accurate.
However at the quantum level a particle explanation is inappropriate. The fluid dynamical material point is better but does obscure by emphasisng straight line actions ignoring the existence od trochoidal arc line actions.
While it is true that Newton and his peers did show how circular motion can be resolved into 2 or more axial components, it is not true nor the same as saying only straight line behaviours are fundamental in Nature! In fact it would be far more theoretically accommodating to assert only trochoidal arc behaviours are fundamental, for then we can always derive straight line action from any combination or status of trochoidal actions.
Significantly reflection, refraction and diffraction as basic observations of shadows cast in light or images seen in or with the aid of light become necessary consequences.
For light now read magnetism, realising that the main difference is the frequency of rotation . While magnetic behaviour is observational ly filamentary , at radio frequencies and above these filaments are so fine at our scale that we hardly observe them however on the scale of the sun and stars we see these filaments at all scales and at all times
Just think . What patterns do you accept as real? What vortices combine to dynamically express a body, a nerve a brain etc
The so called electrostatic is in fact Tribo magnetic current,
Thessalonians explains how the tribomagnetic current is inducted/ conducted on the surface, but is duped into thinking that AC or DC runs inside the inductor/conductor.
Now noice the similar Tribo magnetic principle in Tesla's design foe a motor generator,
The arrangment of AC coils formally recognises the 2 currents that are involved
The tribomagnetic effect is rotational in all aspects. So the reciprocating energy flow drives or is driven by rotation in the environmental magnetic flux.
Some au be familiar with tribo Electric as term . Both Volta and Örsted and Ampère Accepted an atmospheric explanatory model for the ' cause " of electric current from a cell
We see here how the rolling wave propagation of electromagnetic waves is foster upon students.
The problem is that a wave is not dined, just pointed to.
What is a wave?
Feynman pointed to the difficulty of understandingbHuygns theory, most explanations simply ignore the difficulty, or do not evn see it.
This highly informative series for example illustrates but does not define a wave. It illustrates observations but is not physical in many of its explanations. Thus a combined wave is said to be made up from individual waves that spread in all irections! Note however that only the forward propagation is shown ! It is said to be the infinite um of spreading waves!
This is literally nonsense and non physical as Feynmn points out.
A transverse wave if defined is not allowed a longitudinal component! And similarly a longitudinal wave if defined. Is not allowed a transverse!
Fresnel passionately argued that light is a pure transverse wave . By this he ment a sine wave , because only by a sine wave could he justify his interference pattern.
Young on the other hand argued for a longitudinal component in the light wave. Thus a compression was being called a wave! This is observationslly confusing.
A wave looks like a wave a momnt from side to side, but a compression does not appear to do this.
Slinkys are often used to illustrate wave definitions nd they highlight the physical reality: waves require a coupling between the parts said to be I placed transversely or longitudinally.
In a links the continuous spiral connection is not only obvious but explanatory..Susskind in developing quantum mechanics connects particles by springs .
And yet we persist in asserting particles are independently in motion in space . The o ly time a collision can occur is as particles approach one another , and only then can sping forces be applied, unless the particles are in a lattice.
Newton in demonstrating sound was a pressure undulation showed this elegantly by using humidity. When the pressure increased the humidity precipitated.. Patterns of humidity precipitation were observed. However , harbour waves he described by lineal "vector' -like diagrams indicating dispersion from the small opening. His early thoughts were centred around some kind of centripetal force action , not as Huygens suggested a circular point action that summed to the desired shape.
A circular point action is only one interpretation of a circular dynamic. The otherbisvto admit rotational forces perse . In general such forces would be trochoidal ( Roulettes) .
Now Newtons description does not dispute this assertion. In fact his overall principles allow for it And forvavresolution ofbthesebforcesvinto orthogonally acting forces represent obe by trigonometrically lineal segments. However his process orbpraxisbwasbtonstart ith uniformity and thn by measurement assuming uniformity to discover observable variation.
Huygens guess was too far down the road of this process to be dependable.. In addition there were several problems of propagation which only careful process old reveal explanation to.
When young asserted there must be. Longitudinal component to a light wave, this was only after years of careful consideration and experimentation, especially his split experiments. Fresnel, on the other hand was reliant on purely mathematical definitions.
As Newton found the implicitly of abstracted general mathematical topologies often gave better results than the more omplexity physical models based on observation.
The problem is both created and explained by topological simplifications.
Topological models often display a recognisable form. This form can now be described as an assymptotic or Fractl limit form. That is to say, our perception process associates the observed form to a recognised ideal. This ideal is then " accepted" as th limit of a process of refined measurements. Using this limit form to calculate model results gives good to excellent agreement . However using a much more omplexity description often does not because that description is truncated too early in the limit process!
The Mathematicl framework that deals with these issues is post Newton, Fourier, LaGrange, Fresnel and others. It is highly likely Euler has something to say about these " modern" adaptations.
The rise f so called precision engineering and precise descriptions of nature in fact delayed these applications, because it was believed apNature could be captured by precise measurement. Fractal topology has demonstrated that that is not necessarily the case. Very imprecise measurements when combined in an iterative sequence can actually do better than very precise measurements. Newtons method for extracting roots is a well known case in point.
So the topology of the circle was thought to be too imprecise to describe physical observations of undulatory behaviours, and impossible to be precise about ! Today we know we can calculate Pi to a trillion places!
We have lost our way long before computers came on the scene to help us!
A circle is not just a topological form! It is a dynamical expression of Natural behaviours. But it is an ideal dynamical topology. The general dynamical topology is trchoidal( Roulettes) .
The limit of our power to describe seems to be fractal dynamic topology! . Every ideal point in such a topology is assumed fixed as a prime mover that both attracts and repels( contracts and expands) a superimposed volume of material points that are motile in a constant dynamic.
The behaviour of these material points, sometimes called chaotic, are in fact indicative of trochoidal force paths or pressure impulses.
Material points are always contiguous so that the totality of material points is always coeval with the concept of space. Why material points are extensive is not a question I can answer but I can define them to be such to set out the bounds of any discussion of the subsequent model. Thus many other models are possible and welcomed, but expertise demands a level of utility for artisanal work! ( technology).
I might now call this dynamical topology an aether, and make the appeal to Einsteins detractors, that his Mathematical aether or space- time is the same type of model .
We may now describe a rotational behaviour in this model as. Vorticular or rotational "wave" or undulation.
Huygens wave propagation can now be described as vortex propagations. . The transverse and longitudinal behaviours of " waves" are fully expressible , and the directional propagation of Huygens theory is corrected, .the material points in vorticular flows are governed by the overal vortex flow . When a large vortex meets a mall opening the large vortex breaks up into fractally smaller vortices which pass through the hole whie others are reflected,mrefracted etc,
It is this break up of vortices that Grimalfi named as diffraction. . The diffracted vortices recombine fter the obstruction in the observed patterns at all scales.
It is the rotationl/ trochoidal forces that explain the spreading behaviour behind slts or a slit, or a sharp edge.
In my opinion the word magnetic can be replaced by trochoidal rotation. In fact so can gravity, where the trochoids are particularly conical in form
Arcsels! Awesome
Think magnetic arcsels !
Beats photons every time !
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1606.06863v1.pdf
While it acknowledges the helicity of magnetic behaviour it falls short of vorticular behaviour . It may synthesise to a global vorticularity but the topology should be Fractal to be a realistic representation
We tend to call this polarity. But the polarity is reduced to north and south pole or it is considered as a dipole object, but we forget about the pole!
The pole indicates not only an orientation and thus two opposing directions , it also marks out a filamentary pathway for any supposed moving particle. The filament is remarkably consisten in the iron material, but spreads out vorticularly in air( or a boundary medium)
The PMH shows how this filament can be induced to flow in a circuit of iron.
It turns out on the microscopic scale small domains like rods align, and magnetic vortices described asvskyrmions flow along these domains mediated by domain boundaries.
We see on the sun the large scale possibilities of these filaments and filamentary flows, and the power of these Skyrmion " masses" organised into these filaments.
When these large scale filaments break down they do so explosively, but the small pieces are themselves filamentary in nature.
The nature of these filaments is naturally curved, rotationally dynamic, and joined into large loop or knot structures evident across material boundaries.
That pole is the topology of a filament and naturally seeks to close loops .
Apparently a way to demonstrate human magnetic sensibility has reportedly been found.
The history of magnetic field lines is interesting and instructive .
Note that Descartes had a view that was circulatory and vorticular. This is not discussed as the authors hurry to the modern understanding .
Both Ōrsted and Ampére are given the usual treatment, so that current loops( an induction model) can be replaced by charged particle s moving in loops .
In fact Ampéres idea is close to Descartes in structure but the loops are closed in a circuit in which a source of current is surmised.
Eds idea of vorticular motion is based on direct observation of sparks between current carrying wires, it would seem Descartes mechanical model employs screw and gear action to explain compression and expansion of force at the poles.
So one set of observers noticed the vortex while another set ignored the vortex or downgraded it to theoretical suppositions of dipoles.
Based on a spherical lodestone not a bar magnet
Descartes ideas were the ones to measure up against! Based allegedly on pure reason, we can see how observation is employed to induce certain principles. However these principles are not measured against verifying or vindicating observations repeated in a non biased way( double blind experiments)
There was no " reason" to doubt sound rational thought it was opined. However Newyon believed philosophical thought of his age was suspect, not based on a sound basis! He hoped his ideas of observational induction verified by careful measurements and severally lines of alternative derivations might be a better basis for establishing "Truth" so far as men have a duty to correctly describe Gods flawless creation .
The problem of motion exercised the Greek philosophers and thus Descartes . Push and collision is the only rational explanation they could reduce to. Yet circular motion could not be adequately explained by this reduction. The introduction of the vortex was thus fundamentally necessary and mysterious, and the Archimedian screw a wondrous analogy of the push force apparently pulling.
Newtons attempts to clarify the vortex foundered on the complication of measurement schemes. He could not describe a measurement scheme for a vortex sufficiently accurate enough to explain observed measurements by other methods.
He was forced to leave that resolution to later philosophers, much as Descartes also left certain Geometricalnideas to later generations in his book La Geometrie .
In the meantime simplicity has served us well . Thus the point mass idea has proved extremely useful, just as the Dipole description also has .
But in this age of Quantum weirdness, it is time to sort out the rotation/ vortex description of the observed behaviours in space.
Torque is insufficient to explain rotation, while rotation can easily explain torque and much else besides!
It is important to realise that the circle may be defined by a point called a centre, but that point of all points is non physical and in practice dynmic. We deduce a centre or rather in physical dynamics induce a centre from trochoidal motion. That induced centre is not fixed but motile!
It appears that later Euler demonstrated this to be a mistake by Newton, but Newtonian scholars decried Eulers proof as erroneous!!
The assumption of action at a distance in an empty non viscous or lubricious space was easier to swallow than a fluid dynamical analysis that showed equipotency with regard to rotation.
In point of fact transmission of rotation is observable in a vortex, but in Bewtons cylindrical experiments, that is no boundary as in his bucket experiments, initial conditions were always ignored in an attempt to arrive at steady state measurable dynamics. When this is done the vorticular spiral wave is allowed to reflect from a boundary and create a standing dynmic equilibrium that moves en bloc with the axil cylindrical rotation. In such circumstances a rigid body motion is observed and it is thus assumed that no axial spin has been transmitted.
In fact we know that rigid body's shatter under rotational forces , but again Torque forces obscure the rotational fractal transmission of axial rotation throughout the topology of a spinning disc. By that I mean the idea of torque obscures what is observed and explainble as axial rotation. High speed films of discs hotter ring demonstrate that Euler was correct nd DesCartes made a valid presumption even if it was a lucky guess!
http://eulerarchive.maa.org/
E226 and beyond
Streamline boundary flow in a Newtonian fluid giving rise to a velocity profile is a very special case!! In general vortices are formed by torque mechanisms . However this obscures the fundamental rotational dynamic by labelling it as torque . The differential velocity / acceleration along a radial line to a centre of rotation is a fundamental characteristic of otational