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
Force is a concept but sheets or surfaces exist and force is bound to these surfaces in all directions simultaneously, and exhibited through the movement of these surfaces , either by translation, by extension or contraction, or by rotation or some combination of the three. .
Mirror reflection is an imaginary concept but very useful, but physical reflection expresses the result of an interaction/ action between surfaces.
Therebisca fundamental confusion between fluids and liquids! . It arises mainly through a taught disposition to make solid fundamental. In fact invisible fluids are more fundamental than solids by sheer preponderance of being! Thus the notion of an aether is not hypothetical but more certain than solid matter! That anyone can define its ontological properties is a moot point. That surely is mainly hypothesis unless equated with that body of knowledge and expertise we call fluid dynamics.
Mathematics has obscured more of what is known about fluid dynamics than it has revealed because those using its techniques of measurement have been brainwashed to rely on mthe mythical notions of its power, rather than on the power of direct and expert observation!
So a bubble is observed to form as a moving breath of air reacts with a soapy liquid film surface. The forces in the surface exert a reaction pressure on the moving air stopping its motion. Thus the film reaction records a stopping pressure not an internal pressure.
Once the surface is closed, the reaction pressure is bound within the surface. There is very little internal or external moving air to counteract the dynamic surface!
However, the liquid within the film eventually succumbs to its own characteristic contracting behaviour, leaving a fragile soap membrane that isbunablebto sustain the internal force dynamics within the combined superpositional structure of the bubble and the structure ruptures within itself, not due to internal pressure within the bubble!!. Thus the collapse is remarkably spherical and surface bound.
The collapse of the surface generates surface reactions in the internal matter that propagate to provide dramatic displays of initiated motion,( sometimes explosive sometimes a bit of a damp squib!)
The magnetic B field lines are Equipotential surfaces and behave in the same way as a bubble surface in my opinion.
The B field surfaces are Equipotential polarity orientation dynamical structures. The dynamics are expressible in terms of trochoidal vortex behaviour. The particle concept although useful has given way to the wave concept, but with very little common sense understanding, being highly mathematical and depicted misleadingly by the sine "wave ".
Whereas a circle is a non physical concept as is a sphere, nevertheless as reference frames they represent the best foundation for explaining the complex motions we observe and call Trochoids!
A spinning wheel or an axially rotating top or ball are examples of how this dynamic frame can be utilised to explain observed motions. To therefore deny rotational forces that is forces that are depicted by trochoidal lines rather than merely straight tangential lines is to impose our limitations on Natural behaviours and to be constantly wrong footed by simple observations.
Vortices come in all shapes and sizes and a spherical vortex isvasvequally valid as a conical one.
I was unable to give any opinion on this hypothesis/ theory of magnetic reconnection, but I also did not agree with the view of Donakd Scott below
However by now I have an opinion and that is that flawed as it is the field lines and the breaking and reconnection model is a useful but simplistic model
Certainly now the Safire project has reported the plasma " double layer" or surface structures in the anode cathode laboratory set up it is clear that plasma at all energies behaves the same!
The B field surfaces are what are mistakenly called lines, but to call them charged surfaces is semantics! Forces exust in and around these dynamic surfaces and that is what " charge" means in laymans terms.
Like Chlafini oscillations the spherical harmonics do change quite dramatically as frequency inputs change, breaking and reforming new surface configurations and yes releasing tremendous but controlled forces in the process of reconfiguring a new equilibrium.
That one wishes to explain this by magnetic" lines" and the other by Electric plasma discharges is not an issue in my opinion.
But peace may be obtained by admitting the trochoidal surfac action of all forces.
Here is an example of mathmatical obscurantism.
We start with pressure acting on particles. The action is presumably depicted by some kind of pressure gradient of contour lines. Thus the trochoidal pressure surface is obscured by a normal force.
The normal force is now obscured by a supposed particle cloud in which collisions occur.
The collisions are perforce in a spherical patten as no preferred lineal direction can be posited.
Thus the radial velocities are depicted with a. Normal or Boltzman distribution.
Resolving this spherical situation into orthogonal lineal axes gives the impression of a translational velocity ,
From this a probability distribution is derived which reflects the normal statistical distribution of velocities. From this a differential is assumed which identifies where the most likely change in velocity region is.
This is the mean free path region and is a square root value!
The simplicity is to apply Pythagoras to the spherical surface to find where on the diameter or radius the sine and cosine values are at or near their maximum sum!!
However this completely ignores the physical swirling nature of gas flow which is indicative of a trochoidal surface dynamic in which the trochoidal surfaces are pressure surfaces within which the material glow is confined .
Whether a particle or rotational description of the material is used the behaviour of the ensemble demonstrates bounded surface interactions of a vorticular nature.
Ōrsteds philosophical predilection for a trochoidal model has yet to be understood, but it links gas behaviours, magnetic and electric behaviours so called.
However it seems clear that Niels Bohr was the beneficiary of Ōrsteds tireless work in Denmark and that to a great degree the concepts of quantum mechanics are expressions of Ōrsteds philosophy of Nature: that nature is an expression of power coupled with Reason, that is an expressionq of God or Gods Spirit or a Divine reasoned Activity.
The atomists, following Leucippius and Democritus left power in the motility of tiny particles , which following Mrchanical principles Newton established a reasoned framework to philosophie soundly from. It was a mechanical philosophy to which movement Newton undoubtedly belonged, although he firmly expressed the Divine agency behind the machine,
However Ōrsted influenced particularly by Schellings articulation of an active and immanent God saw the observables as direct consisten evidence of Reason, by the lawful nature of the behaviours and Power, by the creative activity of the observables especially as lawfully described in Chemistry.
To say that Kant misconstrued Newtons philosophy is to say that Newtons Alchemy was not promoted as widely as his Dynamics and it is perhaps reasonable to say Newton and Ōrsted would have found much to agree on.
So the curious nature of rotation in Ōrsteds philosophical treatment of magnetic current is not an idea Newton had not prepared for, but rather one Newton had published very little on, and yet his notebooks are full of the fundamental importance of the unit sphere and the unit circle and how to construct measuring schemes for them.
In fact we know that Cotes before he died had resolved the circular notation into the Cotes Euler equation form, which promised to revolutionise the "Law" of gravity!
The role of rotation has a significance beyond spinning billiard balls of whatever viscosity and elasticity: it means that theoretically a surface can be constructed that can carry all the Mechanical actions observable and still be elemental in fluid dynamical situations. .
Although not of his origin, the term fractal coined by Benoit Mandelbrot has enabled a more general fractalists description of matter to be posited. As a theoretical model it is far more general than an atomistic theory and far more in keeping with a natural Phiosophy that sees reason and power behind Natural events.
It is serviceable for both atheist and theist alike and also for agnostic because it ultimately highlights the Psychology of belief. Ōrsted was a big debater against the contemporary notion of Phrenology, whereby external manifestations of inner spiritual activity were looked for on the human body! And as wrong as that idea was it led to expectations of regional functions in the body map of the human, especially the head, which were transferred to the brain as much as anatomy would allow . In fact throughout biology the controlling Hochs gene reflects a biological interpretation for this expectation.
Niels Bohr's acceptance of Probability at the basis of particle expression is in fact a little understood use of the unit circle!, or the rotation of the unit circle. But of course you need to understand the relationship between DeMoivre ,Newton. !and Cotes to appreciate this measurement scheme.
This reassessment makes accessible Kant's main philosophical position in relation to Observables. Ōrsteds experimental guide therefore was to look not for particles like electrons or magnetrons, but forces in space. Consequently his interpretation of the force behaviours around magnets and current guiding wires was that dynmic forces were at work. This relates directly to the idea that a curling or spinning force surrounds a wire under induction. Eds innovation was that 2 such spinning forces counteract / interact with each other as seen in the behaviour of sparks.
The idea of individual north and south magnets ( being not magnets but that which cause magnetic behaviour, substances I have called plasmas/ aethers for the connection to important research in otherwise unrelated fields) is not definitive in claiming magnetrons or electro s as particles exist! Rather the dual behaviours are observable and distinguishable and ought not to be ignored.
Science promptly attempted to define away these 2 observables or duals.
The position is: one may be a reflrction of the same behaviour . However having 2 opposing forces , non reflective avoids the philosophical pro lem of reflection itself! For if no opposing force exists how does reflection occur? Whereas all manner of reflrction, refraction and diffraction may be supported by existence of opposing force particularly if that force is rotational in nature.
Those steeped in atomistic theory merely transfer these properties to the corpuscular body and surface forces without scrutiny!
Thus Kant's dynamism inherently requires lawful actions flowing from interactions of opposite forces .
It was common to think that electric and magnetic behaviours provided o serration of 2 distinct forces , 2 of many distinguishable in nature. However particles with forces bound to their surfaces and bodies were thought to explain these other forces by vibrations and collisions and to a lesser extent rotations. But in fact Kant's argument was simply that corpuscles themselves are not causative, the forces are! Thus we only need forces that appear in space to explain everything. And electricity and magnetism more than fulfill that expectation. In addition since rotation is demonstrable around a site we Neddy only one force rotating clockwise and a second force rotating anticlockwise to explain everything. Ultimately we only need 2 ki ds of force to describe every action and thus electricity and magnetism mus therefore be linked in this way,
Ōrsted set out to demonstrate this link and found it .
The rest of science has had difficulty accepting this Kantian position ever since, citing Newton as an atomiscist . Newton certainly made major use of corpuscular theory, but his principles for Astrologers is more abstract, positing only the need for opposing forces that materialise in space as acting centrally ( centripetal or centrifugal he could not give preeminence to one over the other) and positing motive as the material consequence of such got es on corpuscular bodies. Thus the forces themselves exist in space by divine ordinance in opposing pairs and act by divine ordinance on material bodies in his view. In his Scholium he hints at both electric and magnetic behaviour as evidence of this state of affairs.
Matter is therefore inert, acted upon by forces materialising out of space , even the space within bodies. However he distinctly rejects any occult fluids between particles on his principles. And his work on Fluidd( liquids and gases) as resistive media gives no special fluid action beyond resistance, Thus to posit charge to fluids was unnecessary in his scheme as force was immanent everywhere.
The rise of the fluids as charge instigators that is as instigators of attractive or repulsive forces, was first applied to an inert corpuscle core , then gradually the fluid was dropped in favour of a charged corpuscle. In this way force was no longer immanent, but now bound to the corpuscle either at it's surface or throughout its body.
Faraday and others challenged this view, once again making force immanent, but no longer making the corpuscle inert. This gave rise to the field concept depicted by field lines .
So now a centre for negative charge emanates into space a field that interacts with other such centres and matrial bounding the emanation is deemed to be charged and to provide a surface for mechanical and electrical interactions. Magnetic interactions are curiously deemed to occur in the space around such a boundary if it moves with a moving field centre! This makes the electric field line concept foundational to the explanation.
In so doing the immanent rotational force is obscured by an electric field line force Concept which is patently one view of a complex dynamic behaviour capable of other depictions.
This in essence was the philosophical dispute between Maxwell and Faraday. Maxwell wanted to keep the electric lines of force as the correct depiction, Faraday wanted a far more subtle way of conceiving the sphere of influence
This model of the magnetic field lines of the sun is a depiction .how is it obtained? One way is by spectroscopy . Magnetism tends to spread the spectrum . This spread s measured and then tracked back to here the light is analytically determined to have originated on the sun. Of course thisbis a omputational executed by software.
However it can be cross checked by satellites hich filter the visual image at certain frequencies . This reveals dynmic structures in real time not too dissimilar yo the model .
The computational electronics and software that produces these visualisations has become what we rely on for measurement! . We never know if what is depicted is reality or just advanced computer graphics!
At any rate we are locked into fundamental assumptions about what is bring measured especially those of particle physics
Juno mission is going to be important for the Magnetic Universe community and this is why!!!
The electric wind is non evnt in the electric universe theory, but lo in the old Euopen science establishment the electric field of a planet is well known! Westernneuropeannscience tends to emphasise the magnetic B field lines and forget about the orthogonal electric field lines!
Given these 2 observables where does the very weak force of gravity fit in?
Magnetic gearing by magnetic current !
Really the question is : what inductive power exists in space such that it flows through surfaces into a corporeal body with effective motion as a consequence or mysteriously without apparent surface contact effecting a rotation into alignment and an affinity to combine together as a loop of mutual inductance,
This power induces rotational motion, translation with acceleration . This is Newtons power in space resident also in matter .
Since this power is in space it is a medium of onnection. Relative action betwwen two corporeal bodies is a function of this interweaving power in space . Thus gravity is not an action of one body on another but rather of space on the bodies within it!
And similarly magnetic or rotational behaviour is that induced power expressing its influence according to certain laws/ rules of fractal density and spatil orientation of the same.
Studying this video carefully reveals a lot. What is evident is the induction of the magnetic force as a transient phenomenon in the iron filings. This relates to the hysteresis loop for magnetising and demagnetising materials. What we are observing is dynamic induction and eduction of the magnetic "strength " (H measurement ) in iron filings. Related to this is the magnetic " permeability" of a material. Thus wood shows very little of this induction/ eduction effect and we say wood is non magnetic material. However at high strengths wood becomes magnetic but also its material internal structure ( suppose a standing rotation pattern like a Fourier transform) is also altered and breaks down in internal reduction processes. This is how a microwave oven works .
So magnetic induction is dynamic, and material have a retentive property for the induced magnetic " ability" . Some show a remarkable ability and these we call magnetic materials.
We can observe structural rearrangements caused by this induction /eduction or hysteresis process and the hysteresis curve helps to explain the time delay that leads to dynmic stability. At the edge we see this dynamic stability is found in rotating wave forms in the filings . Primarily these are produced by the rotating stirrer inducing rotation in the filings through the induction/ eduction process. Rotation begets rotation may be understood as a fundamental rule in Nature.
Howrver the changing magnetic ability of individual filings/ crystals / lattice structure both organic and inorganic generate a behaviour we formerly called electrostatic, but now knowing better call electrodynamic!( after Ampère) . We see this in the vector like pointing of the iron filings.
Firstly the filings dynamically arrange themselves into surface structures indicating equipotentiality in the magnetic repulsion ( local effect) between coherently organised magnetic dipoles. These surfaces are the B field surfaces . Then, perpendicular to those B field surfaces an electric( so called) force is generated matching the B field potential . Thus a dielectric material will reveal these changing charge potential, hole a conductor/ inductor will generate a spark( the distinctive marker of so called electric force! ) .
Fine particle of whatever materiality exhibit electrodynamic behaviour as. Volta painstakingly demonstrated. Thus we see some characteristic topology of so called electric charge induction in the iron filing structures.
This is. Clear example of tribomagnetism, that is the varying of a magnetic ability generating both magnetic and so called electrodynamic behaviours.
Firstly on has to rid ones mind of the artificial bar magnet ! Natural magnetism can be described by spots of opposing magnetic behaviours relative to each other not necessarily aligned along a pole!
The pole or bar magnet is effectively imposing a static relationship between two spots of opposing behaviour. Because of this a standing pattern exists between the 2 spots. This standing pattern looks static, but in fact it is dynamically equilibriated! Iron filings indicate not o ly the Equipotential induction surfaces , but also the dynamism that induces motion of the filings into these shells.
The H and B field surfaces are dynamic , but of course our measuring instruments only measure equipotentiality!
Given that the surfaces are dynamic what cn we say about the topology of those surfaces? The general description ought to be trochoidal! This allows us to analytically apply pure rotationl forces in space.
Most of mechanics down plays the existence of trochoidal or rotationl force vectors. These are usually reduced to straight line forces. However the deep misunderstanding of using line segments to describe measuring systems ( man -hand/ measure , themata- systematic / logical = Mathematikos , a systematic or scientific thinker who is skilled in Astrology) and number sequences to count or account for the quantities in those schemes lead many French Mechanics experts to interpret Newton as reductionist. They believed Newton had demonstrated that all can be reduced to straight lines by an infinitesimal Calculus. In addition Leibniz asserted that was the case something Newton was careful never to do! His calculus of Fluxions implies an irreducible dynamic at the base of all mechanistic measuring schemes.
Thus he carefully distinguished between line segments that we may call ordinary or uniformly ruled and those which are trigonometrically ruled, that is trigonometric line segments. Such line segments measure curvature, an irreducible property of arcs and other curved locii!
The point is, classical polymaths applied these differences expertly, but lesser educators taught students o think erroneously about these measuring schemes.
Thus trochoidal forces were understood to exist in the aether/ ether / space-time.
Given such forces we can recover all manner of observed motions. And given such forces we can identify the conic sectional locii and dynamic surfaces as those characterising so called gravity and electrodynamical behaviours. But Magnetic behaviours require the enlarged group of trochoidal locii and surfaces to descibe and measure.
Many physicists are introduced to imaginary magnitudes to describe light nd electromagnetic interactions . Again they are misled by a profound historical confusion among early geometers.
Suffice it to say here that so called imaginary magnitudes are quite simp,y magnitudes of arc! Thus endemic in the mathmatical depiction of dynamic behaviours circular arcs are embedded without understanding by many( Feynman for example!)
Thus trochoidal forces in space induce into corporeal bodies the tendency to rotate or distinctively to move in straight lines between intersecting rotating forces.
One important point to make is rotating forces generate a centre! Thus a centre is a dynamic point that moves and rotates with the rotating forces unless fixed by counter rotating dynamics.
The behaviour of a magnetic system shows this on the sun for example , but even in a bar magnet system the rotating force( called repulsion! ) and the translating orce( called attraction!) are demonstrable. The supposition of an aether plasma allows us to apply fluid dynamic insights to our explanatory model of observed behaviours .
The Phi angle is a measure of the interplanetary magnetic field direction in a plane connecting the sun and earth. It is a way of measuring the tangent to a spiral of magnetic " flux", that is magnetic intensity , as it travels through space to the earth. I say through, but in fact it is with space ejected from the sun as a solar wind by the coronal holes at the suns poles. The direction indicates the interaction of the southern and northern coronal magnetic fields.
These " fields" are dynamic Equipotential surfaces that vary as the sun spins the variation takes time to transfer to the ACE measuring satellite so the posited source of any given dynamic in one of these passing surfaces is configured as a spiral. And the tangent to that spiral gives a measure of the dynamic variation in intensity of the solar wind ejecting from these major coronal holes.at the poles of the sun.
However these major coronal structures are themselves dynamic and thus contribute to the interpretation of this data. For example : if the angle > 270 ° then the northern coronal hole dominates the surfaces.
As a CME travels through the space between the planets, the magnetic surfaces wrapped in that material visibly effects the phi angle measure.
Is there a magnetic rope attaching the sun to the earth? The phi angle shows a consistent magnetic surface connection which we cn interpret as filamentary structures in the solar wind. These structures usually indicate a so called Birkland urgent which is primarily a magnetic phenomenon with "electrical" or spark is plays associated.
http://mysolaralerts.blogspot.co.uk/p/what-is-solar-phi-angle.html
http://www.windows2universe.org/glossary/IMF.html
Is the solar wind carrying the magnetic field?
The idea assumes the solar wind is a dispersed current of ions , nd thusvasva current generates a magnetic field . However the coronal holes indicate the revers. A magnetic structural B file urtounding the sun as in a lodestone model. The poles in that structure are dynamic leading to rotationl changes transmitted through the structure continually . But these magnetic surfaces twist ino filaments as they pass through the underlying magnetic structure .
The electric force effect of the magnetic surfaces then describes the solar wind as matter is transported by these forces both as dispersive blasts and filamentary currents .
Note the filamentary structures are magnetic filaments guiding plasma currents!!
Qqazxxsw
Up until now William S aka Lazarus Plath has not contacted me or responded to queries.
The boxes from the top control: phase ratio( how quickly the circle turns ) frequency ratio( how many times the radius turns relative to the standard clock turn, not shown) amplitude ratio ( diameter of circle with negative diameter possible )
The doodling shows that surfaces are actually generated but only one point is picked out if a trochoidal path is desired.
The trochoidal surfaces show how a dynmic phase ratio can induce contraction followed by expansion.
Negative diameters are often used against one or more positive diameters to obtain strong contined forms for the path, indicating complex surfaces would be bound into stable forms.
All positive diameters produce stable forms which are expansive, that is repulsive . The surfaces represent Equipotential expansive dynamics. The negative diameters mixed with the positive illustrate attractive surfaces ans contractive dynamics.
As incredible as this application is in illustrating trochoidal Dynmics it nevertheless uses rotating radials to calculate the point positions and the vector sums. The frequency controls and the phase controls allow for the dynamic rotation to be implied, but NOT a rotationl force . The constraint on the points being circular ( really n polygonal) does not correct for the lack of arc summation.
Arc summation is unfamiliar to nearly all Mathematicians, but Euler developed a calculus for it, based on reflections. This in fact doubles the expected results and so confuses many . In addition, degrees or radian measures are not arcs on or in the surface so careful accurate obstructions are necessary to get observable outcomes.
The use ofvquatenions does not avoid this issue, agin Quatenions ouble the expected outcome, nd they do not sum arcs , even in the exponential format, where arc measures can be explicitly used. . This is seen in the definition, using cosine and isine, both of which are trigonometric line segment.
Summing arcs may not ake a huge difference in small displacements but in the case of otational forces it acknowledgesbtheirvexistence nd influence on the observes! The xtra twists and turns and vibrations will be entirely due to these arc sums.
Considering the fundamental role of rotational forces leads to the following: 2 classes of forces istinguish themselves, those tht re lineal and those tht are trochoidally rotational, in terms of fluid Dynmics the linel or laminar flow generates boundary velocity changes . These velocity changes are orthogonal to the flow direction. This still represents a change in velocity in this direction and so a force on the laminar flow that is orthogonal
This force is in fact a negative pressure , by which I men the pressure is not in line with the flow and so acts to restrict the flow! But it restricts the flow by narrowing the cross section of the flowy until at the initial pressure! Thus the central cross section flows near the initial pressure ove a lower pressure region. It lows faster as a consequence of the higher inherent pressure. Without boundary conditions limiting the effect of the environmental pressure the laminar low would be broken into droplets by this effect.
This is independent of the surface tension effect on a body of fluid.
We can see the effect as a push/ pull effect on bodies in the stream not moving with the stream this push pull is magnetic attraction orthogonal to the constructive interference of the rotational forces.
The destructive interference of otational forces is not Pelion! It is a trochoidal rotation about an external centre of null action . If not forced into proximity magnets I'll rearrang hmselves by rotting nd then pushing nd pulling together.
The fluid tht is effecting this is a plasma of the materials.
As we know Claes Johnson explains this in detail in his Orkney on the secret of flight! The push/ pull effect of fluid Dynmics requires the lengt separation into vortex flow to void th D'Almbert potential flow problem in the depiction of fluid flow. Thus all observers of venurti flow reported turbulence in the laminar flow, but it took Claes to explain why our differential equations were bing wrongly interpreted! The fluid flow showed hat was happening , but calling it turbulence obscured the vorticular nature of the flow! The low pressure in vorticular flow explains drag caused by higher pressure on surfaces and lift as a ombintion of high pressure nd low pressure creating a punk/ pull force on an eeofoil. This push/ pull force drags the acns together, as well as magnets,,as well as hemicl bonds
On the other hand opposing rotations cause objects to fly apart in rotation
Lionel Dinus work is very important in do far as it suggests that vortices in a surrounding fluid have a strong connection with magnetic behaviour. However Ken Wherlers much more detailed investigations highlight a simple but profound error scientists labour under. Convention dictates that the field lines go in one direction . This depiction obscures what is observable as 2 interacting field line depictions.
All experimental observers see 2 distinct behaviours, but are taught to ignore one as the negative of the other rather than an independent opposite.
Clockwise and CCW confusion further compounds this illusion. When a clock face is viewers CCW is clear but in 3 d space that clock face can face towards or away from the observer . Then a CW Ritation appears as a CCW Ritation regardless of its initial identification.
Both Baru and I and others believe that the screw is the best indicator of Rotation .
Thus we have 2 screws involved with magnetic behaviour , both opposing each other,
If Dinu placed his fans at the centre of each end of his rotators one screwing liquid clockwise into the rotator the other screwing liquid counter clockwise into the rotator then the vortices would interact and pass through via the gap around the edges of the cross sectional ends , the gap that surrounds the fans positioned in the central region.
A similar and perhaps preferable set up is a high pressure hose driving a vortex around the edge of the tubes inwards to avoid any interference by struts ( or some other such minimal arrangement to generate a centred vortex inward .
The resultant exiting vortices are the object of the study