Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Way Electricity Runs In A Wire



  • The Pythagoreans encapsulated a remarkable model of space-time / aether . It was based on a spatial pattern we call a mosaic nowadays but Greeks called them epipedoi or even speripedoi the Pythagoreans gave them a standard name : Arithmoi. They also standardised. Process for forming these mosaics called Euclids algorithm by some. This process was a rhythmical , rhyming flowing song and dance, the child of the Godess Rhea or Hekate. Or the gift of the Musai , whence we derive the word mosaic from the museums or Mousaion which were decorated in this fashion.
    The Stoikeia induces and inducts the student or disciple into this Monas or singular unitary process of thought . It begins a synthesis that is the result of years of Analysis in discourses held by the Pythgorean school.
    The pattern of thought the forms of thought survive until this day and underpin our philosophical apprehension of space- time or the aether.

    The western philosophers lost their way for a time and simplified the notions to a brutal travesty which then attempted to dominate the world of scholasticism. It never had a chance of enduring because it is too naive , too impolitic and too brutish to satisfy that aesthetic aspect of our sensibilities and common sense.

    The Pythagoreans analysed the sphere / spheroid. As a dynamic model of space-time or the aether it is unsurpassed. The sphere when broken or cut from the top down, the outside inwards , which is the meaning of the Greek ana - lysis , fractured into inner speres, straight edges as well as all sorts of curved edges, plane urfaces as well as all sorts of curved surfaces, and analysis of these eventually reduced to the seemeioon. That indicator in space-time and consciousness that has no further parts , thus no further analysis. Unfortunately for some this was identified with the mythical point , whereas it is more n indicator of exhaustion of resources to go further in analysis and a recognition of fractal scale invariance. It is a bit of information which serves to construct every other collection of information we currently have. It fundamentally organises our information and our points of view.

    Again unfortunately in the West we promoted the static over the dynamic in a myth of absolutism. We denied intra dependency and interdependency at all scales as a dynàmic reality . We became horrified by the Fractl " Monsters" this produced and so shied away from the curvilineal Dynamics which was the basis of Pythagorean higher discourse.

    We have in Newton, Leibniz and Descartes , western philosophers who pointed Euler in the direction to lead us out of the Dark Ages of the west into the eastern enlightenment.

    That is not to say that Eastern philosophers had all the answers, but rather to admit eastern philosophy was far in advance of western, at. Point in history when light was ruthlessly extinguished in the west.

    So the abolute space and Time of Newtons opening discourse had o give way to a more subtle space-time dynamic in the west or aether as described in the east.

    To conceive of space-time as a fractalmdistribution of dynamic spheres is to combine the differential geometry of Descartes and Leibniz with the differential dynmical geometry of Newtom . Newton essentially added the property of rotationl motion to all points in his absolute space and hence required absolute time to conceive of this dynamic. In this he ollowed tht Flawed Pythagorean Aristotle, who not completing his induction in the Platonic school set up a rival institution with the backing of the empire to the pythagorean culture that was a growing influence in the west.
    The prime mover discourse of Aristotle underpins all notions of absolute reference frames, whether lineal or curvilineal, whereas Apollonius evinced a relative reference frame appropriate to each fom.

    The 2 ideas were combined to give our far nd locl views of the universe! The problem is and was that we cn know nothing with certainty if it's boundaries are undefined or ill defined. So our knowledge must always consist in myth and fact, both of which we conceive in our human thought processes.

    The fractal distribution of dynamical spheres means we should expect trochoidal forces to dominate our Dynmics , nit straight line ones, and in fact they do.
    No one may justifiably lame Newton for the misunderstanding of his often mystified students! Newtons principles or Astrologers are based firmly on this spheroidal fractal dynamic even if his thoughts were often flawed by Aristotles flawed analysis.

    There are no absolutes except we think them so!

    However, there are practical and pragmatic invarinces, things that do not perceptibly change except for a thousand generations! These we use in synthesising the fractal dismemberment caused by our analysis. The myth of Isis and Osiris informs the structure of the Stoikeia and thus our synthesis of our current knowledge structures.

    The Brachistochrone reveals these dynàmic trochoidal surface forces as fundamental to ny understanding of free space aether or dynamic space-time. The mosaic we build out of these trochoidal surfaces are well illustrated by the pixelated screen you are reading now!

    A dynàmic space-time with rotationl forces does not necessarily have to be chaotic in structure and yet may transmit information we regard as chaotic in our perception. The Dynmics of motion require change, but tht is not necessarily abolute material in abolute space in motion, in fact it is more likely to be variation in intensity/density of a "pixel" that is otherwise non moving in space , but clearly dynamic in space time!!
    Clearly as part of the system we can not take an external view to determine which is more correct, but internally we can make aesthetic choices that give more harmonious results.

    The dynamic trochoidal surface seems to me to be a more harmonious element of a fractal distribution relateable to a dynamic spheroidal fractal distribution in and of space-time or the aether .
    The " wheel works" of Nature

  • I spoke to a washing machine engineer about " electricity" . He was happy to explain that he did not want to go beyond the electron model. And yet when I asked him why a break in a wire stops the flow of electricity he only remarked that a few other things stop it as well. The implication was the faulty or worn out brushes he was replacing, made of carbon lattice not copper wire lattice twisted into wire as well as extruded at high speed and temperature.
    Each electron takes the place of another electron he casually remarked.

    When I asked him about the brushless motors he explained bout a 3 phase motor energising stator driving a passive armature permanently magnetised. No electrons pushing on other electrons were mentioned !

    For technicians it is acceptable to be happy with this eclectic collection of myth and fact called Electromgnetic theory, but for a philosopher it is not, especially if simpler more general ideas: myths and facts , are a better fit.

    The Brachistochrone solution demonstrates that a trochoidal solution is. Better fit to dynamical constraints. It explains why trochoidal rotation is a better description thn wave or even rotational wave, and it explains the single split and double split experiments and why. Probability distribution is a best fit solution .
    Few understand the relation between the unit circle and the probability equations of expectation.
    However we model dynamics the trochoidal surface dynamic represents the best we can do consciously. Between the straight line segment and the circle on that segmnt lie all the topological forms in the plane that we have gained some expertise with. That shapes our ability to describe and depict dynmic motions we observe. The differential dynamic calculus of Newton allows us to use these forms to describe algebraically some of the processes observed and to verify them as factual not merely as anecdotal myth.
    I do not decry such myths because they motivate better schemes of measurement that low us to verify fact of matters from fiction related to those same matters.

    While it is an obvious statement it is necessary in these days of fantasy to remind ourselves that it is acceleration and velocity that determine time . Time is not an absolute but completely dependent on motion of trochoidally dynamic surfaces. Dynamic surfaces change either extensively or intensively or both , it is the rotational cycle of those changes from which we proprioceptively develop the concept of duration . This we have then culturally extended to the concept of time and scientifically/ philosophically to the concept of absolute or universal time. In Einsteins day the universe was barely thought to the size of our Galaxy. In Newtons time it was the size of our solar system . For each of these forms appropriate pragmatic models were formed . We now need to address the apparent infinite size of the universe and develop more appropriate models.

    This is not done by rehashing outdated and obsolete concepts, but by fresh observation and fresh thinking on those observations from the past and present.

    I posit trochoidally dynamic surfaces as fundamental symbols of dynamically observed magnetic behaviour. From these surfaces all else lows like a never ending rippling stream that flows into a ceaseless ocean .
  • edited September 2016
    I really enjoy your posts in all threads. That said, it would be helpful to generalize your ideas into math so that they are applicable to the world. Else, all engineers are left with are models which are pretty much good enough to handle today's design problems. And in reality, philosophers are left with the same models.

    Re: the video demonstrating trichordial motion vs straight line: this is only a special case and does not demonstrate anything novel in a general sense. did I miss the point?
  • ssd510 said:

    I really enjoy your posts in all threads. That said, it would be helpful to generalize your ideas into math so that they are applicable to the world. Else, all engineers are left with are models which are pretty much good enough to handle today's design problems. And in reality, philosophers are left with the same models.

    Re: the video demonstrating trochoidal motion vs straight line: this is only a special case and does not demonstrate anything novel in a general sense. did I miss the point?

    The design of expressions for engineers is a practical expertise I do not claim to have.
    If my ideas are of merit then I would gladly work with an engineer to look at the pragmatic problem of measurement. For examplebthe scheme set up for electrical measurements parallels only some of the factors in Maxwells equations, and Thompsons measurements of mass and electric field intensity had to be normalised to even begin to define an electron unit charge and thus a unit mass and the volume containing that mass.

    The trochoidal arc is a cycloid. The point is the straight line is not the fundamental line to use in dynamic topology

  • The point about simplification of the theory in order to obtain measurements is an interesting one. Of what importance are the variables that have been simplified away?
  • edited September 2016
    ssd510 said:

    The point about simplification of the theory in order to obtain measurements is an interesting one. Of what importance are the variables that have been simplified away?

    I have to explain that prior to the modern reliance on symbols and symbolic logic, ideas were conveyed by rhetorical expressions.
    When you read ancient philosophical texts the descriptions are wordy and prone to fanciful interpretations.the practice of reducing the descriptor of an idea to a single symbol allows specificity . The symbol becomes a handle by which to grasp a specific notion.
    That notion is not variable.
    What is variable, or what is a variable? Well it is certainly not a symbol!!

    Our philosophy is based on physical magnitudes or on internal ideas . Magnitudes distinguish themselves By being extensive or intensive. They have a property of being orientable relative to each other and the observer, whereas ideal magnitudes are absolutely subjective to the specific observer.
    It is these observable magnitudes that show or give sensation of change or variation.

    Newton dealt with one specific kind of magnitude vatiation which he called Fluxion. The general term variable is non specific, and so often ill defined in mathematics. In engineering or mechanics it can not be so, yet frequently it is!
    Newton is called the supreme philosopher of Quantity by Cotes, because he established a space-time fractal,system of quantifiable magnitudes basd on force, acceleration and velocity of a material body with extensive magnitude
    In order for his system to be relevant nd quantifiable he specifically excludes observable but in his time non quantifiable entities like spirits, essences and essential fluids that permeate occultly.
    Thus he excluded magnetism and electricity in his systm sub subsuming them into a general spatially inherent life force called vis viva. Invisible though this was its effects we're visible on quantifiable magnitudes, and thus he endeavoured to make apprehendable that which was invisible and spiritual in origin by a strict adherence to materially quantifiable entities ( magnitudes) and rationally comparable quantities.

    The Pythagorean unit is and always has been a unit of comparison or rather a ratio between 2 magnitudes.

    JJ Thompson thus reduced his work to 2 magnitudes that were quantifiable by some scheme. The electrostatic force and the mass force ( weight) were thought to be independent by all authorities and therefore his schemes were reviewed as sound enough to reveal new quanties of a unitary nature. The process is very simple .
    An apple is not an orange so cannot be quantified. But an apple orange pair is a new quantity against which one can compare other apple orange pairs by counting.
    But if the apples and oranges are of differing size, mass, quality etc the unit obscures this.

    The above example illustrates JJ Thompsons dilemma . He reviewed and revised the only work on Corpuscular theory in the light of his findings, describing the corpuscle as a kind of plumb pudding from which the plumbs could be extracted by the electric force between Anode and Cathode. But he had no directly observable " plum" only a ratio.
    By calling this ratio a new unit he could simplify the calculations of the product of the experiment into a quantity bases on a few directly measurable sub quantities including duration of application of the EMF.

    He was literally suborned into declaring this unit as a new particle called the electron! Other forces wanted it so. What is merely a quantifiable ratio is now firmly ensconced in the minds of physicists of a layman status as a real particle!
    Thompsons corpuscular theory throws doubt on this claim, and do was done away with by Bohr and Rutherford who created a much more alluring image of a corpuscular atom! The planetary model they described had no reality, no quantifiable dimensions or detectable boundary because it is a ratio not a real corpuscle.
    Recently NassimmHaramein has given the most accurate quantification of a proton boundary based on Plancks ratio, again highlighting the ratios used to reify these supposed particles.

    What is missed by these unitary ratios? Only the opportunity to think differently and to propose alternative topologies for the invisible " forces" that are inherent in space-time / aether.

    The measurement of these magnitudes connect us to our everyday observables, including observable ratios. But the quanties used in the ratios have an observable topology or an observable topological effect. It is this effect that is ignored in reifying these perfectly spheroidal particles.
    As Faraday pointed out; is the effect inherent in the
    so called atom or inherent in space itself about any given point? The latter is the most general position in my opinion from which we may synthesise structures based on the discovered invariant ratios themselves relevant to the measuring topology devised .
  • Wow that was great. Thats for writing all of that. I'm not quite sure I understood but would like to. Vis viva is some 'stuff', derived or so from occult philosophy, measured against some other 'stuff' in the form of ratio gives the electron? Sorry if that is way off..

    It is certainly interesting that the SI units are all ratio'd units relative to mass, time, and space. In that way they don't really offer any insight into what mass, time, or space are but do provide ways in which to quantify and manipulate material. But that ability to manipulate hints at the fact that there is truth in those ratios. Thats my intuition anyway.
  • ssd510 said:

    Wow that was great. Thats for writing all of that. I'm not quite sure I understood but would like to. Vis viva is some 'stuff', derived or so from occult philosophy, measured against some other 'stuff' in the form of ratio gives the electron? Sorry if that is way off..

    It is certainly interesting that the SI units are all ratio'd units relative to mass, time, and space. In that way they don't really offer any insight into what mass, time, or space are but do provide ways in which to quantify and manipulate material. But that ability to manipulate hints at the fact that there is truth in those ratios. Thats my intuition anyway.

    Men of faith and spirit have accommodated to our human sensory limitations. We indeed see through a glass darkly! Or as the indiannsages in the Upanishads say : materiality is an illusion. In fact the Proto Indo European root ma* carries this meaning root of measured rather than actual or " real" the normal sense. Again me* is related to ma* so that mano or hand and Metron or measure vessel or form are clearly related by the human activity of interaction through handling.

    Quantity and magnitude are human experiences that philosophers have exposited endlessly, but still are not commonly understood, except intuitively.
    However the illusion we experience or rather i experience, is subjective and unique to me ( ostensibly ). The culture I develop in provides me with tools to communicate with others andbthenneventually to communicate with the internal society that exists within.

    I articulate it in this way in hopes of striking a chord or chiming ith some readers, but I know not everyone will relate to my message or even apprehend my communication.

    That being said, I refer to The Principles for Astrologers, Newtons first of a set of 3 essays, not to promote him over ancient understandings, but ratherbtonmphasise his close adherence to his masters principles! He attempted to faithfully transmit received wisdom

    Inn his scholium Newton explains the role of quantity in extending the senses nd making visible the affect of the invisible. Thus quantities in dynamic flux can excite the mind to an apprehension of the work of invisible deity, or Active Principles.
    Principles themselves when stated are only of benefit when their use reveals a satisfactory explanation in line with a nascent intuition.
    Vis viva has been split into momentum, kinetic energy and even accelerative force fields. Ut DesCartes used it to describe the force that keeps nnacclerating body moving ( momentum change or uniform motion) while a dead force was describing a static equilibrium .
    Newton was well,aware of static equilibria and indeed their almost gometrical representation, but it was his desire to tackles the living force( vis viva) that led him to quantify magnitudes with a property of duration of dynamism something he called Fluxion. Thus dynamic quantity was what he ratioed', not static quantities,

    These dynamic ratios, therefore, reveal behavioural information of dynàmic quantities but not absolute behaviours. Relativity claims no abolute reference frame whereas Newton believed his deity lived in such an absolute reference frame., the identification of invariant ratios gave rise to the notion of a possible absolute reference frame underpinning all observations. In fact what it means logically is that the universe behaves often identically at many scales, that is what we now call scale free behaviour just one aspect of a. Fractal topology for dynamics.

    This fractal topology unfortunately often in the past excluded conic and spiral topologies directly, thus the "imaginary quantities" were mysteriously treated until Euler and Grassmann demonstrated what Newton already knew and taught DeMoivre and Cotes,that circular quantities were fundamental to nature and describing natural behaviours, andbthisvwasnthe meaning of Square root -1. Again this quantity isbabratio of an arc to a radius

  • One of the errors in straight line force thinking is this idea that rotation occurs around a stationary centre! In addition celestial orbits are knon to be elliptical. And an ellipse requires 2 force centres!

    Thus the speed of light delay actually supports the elliptical nature of orbits

  • I have never seen this myth before. However it is not satisfactory in the light of a sound magnetic base.
    The Electric Universe model or myth is very attractive and almost self explanatory. The "electric currents" creates the hot stars that eject hot sparks that form the rocky planets . The planets are in circuits with the sun , the circuits are magnetic loops that like transmission lines transfer current and power to the rocky masses .
    However, already the magnetic field is being used to support a electric current relationship.

    Thus the Magnetic Universe essentially points the way and Ed Leedskalnis PMH points to the magnetic current being the elemental current of a dynamic space-time or aether.

    The meteorite hypothesis denies the magneto chemistry within a magnetic current

  • This derivation follows the vector Algebra of Gibbs and Heaviside supported by Kelvin ..
    The products designed ( dot and cross products) have to be explained . Sir William Rowan Hamilton took the imaginary magnitude as founded by Newton DeMoivre and Cotes and Euler and argued over by the Benoullis.
    The work of Bombelli created a fundamental basis to the mathesis of the imaginaries, named imaginary by DesCartes, but it is Newton who set out the mathesis in its practical use. It was the basis of Newtons " vector" algebra .
    The Fluxion Theory of Hermann Grassmann( Ausdehnungs Größe) explicated the work of Newton to the nth degree, based on the induction process of Newtons fundamental principles.

    Hermanns work was takn forward by many but particularly by Bill Clifford. .he made it clear that which Hamilton Acknowledged : The Fluxion theory of Grassmann is more generl, but the same corpus of ideas as Hamiltons. The product design allows many useful models to be constructed for complex lineal algebras, both arced and straight.

    This Calculus derivation obscures the direct formulaic processes. The exponential formulaic presentation gives a direct set of applicable measurement schemes that can encode Fluxion and fluent changes . These changes enable engineers to design robust mechanisms or calculate complex trochoidal surface forces in fluid dynamic of rigid dynamical( high viscosity dynamics) consistently within the limits of agreed measurements of constant ratios.

    The twistors, therefore are the general olution to all physical situations that are dynamic and measurable in terms of surface interactions.

    The B field surfaces indicating dipole orientation in magnetism are therefore expressible in exponents form. The Equipotential electric surfaces have the same form the phase angle difference is indicative of the gyroscopic principles in arc rotation about a generated centre
  • The method of the previous post is a general scheme of measurement . Amoére demonstrated how to set up a measurement scheme for magnetism .he called it electrodynamics, dynamic electrical current in a circuit associated with magnetic rotation of dipoles. . Inductively hr assumed magnetic particles(,quanta) that were circular currents on a small scale. . This fractal pattern was the limit of human logic based measurement schemes based on observation. Otherwise we must assume an invisible influence we can not know beyond this specific manifestation
  • edited October 2016
    Amazing insights @Jehovajah . Considering your observation based speculation that there is a fractal measurement scheme manifest beyond the capabilities of human logic, if you had to guess, based on your years of extensive research, in agreement that this is a scenario we can not know otherwise, what might be (with your best understanding), the essence of this 'invisible influence'? It must be quite an anomaly if it hasn't surfaced beyond this one particular instance...
  • edited October 2016
    Excuse my typos as my eye sight fails .
    The invisible influence is not anomalous, just beyond our ability to know.
    Many cultures have given it names. Some have given it elaborate structure, and others have simply attested to its oneness.
    Christian theology has depicted it as triune claiming pagan pantheism( Greek ideology) is in error, but in point of fact all agree it is a mystery hidden from us and therefore requiring mere acceptance.
    Unfortunately some have used its existence to establish religions that bind adherents to specified but unjustifiable theologies and ritual practices.
    To be sure there are certain regularities that are usefully incorporated into expertise, but these are observable and inductible, to the limit of logical assay. Beyond that it is a palpable mystery.

    Leaving aside ancient explorations of this ontological experiential philosophy I draw your attention to Ōrsted . The Natural Philosophy to which he subscribed and contributed did not deny ancient wisdom, but rather reformulated it in a western oriented guise, resonant with the general Judaeo Christian Theoophy of his era. Thus this influence was described as Rational, and Omnipotent . For scientific discussions as opposed to theological ones, this was all that was logically required.

    It is a ocumented fact that many fellow natural philosophers had different views and failed to grasp what Örsted perceived by observation : that the fundamental dynamic of these Powers was rotation. In addition many misinterpreted Newton, following Kant in denying the existence of vorticular forces . DesCartes assertion of the same was decried as unfounded because Newton had demonstrated they did not exist, according to Kant.

    However this is a Kantian misreading of Newtons Principles for Astrologers . Hence Newton set out a measuring scheme for measuring these observable phenomena especially rotational dynamics. That he failed to master fluid dynamics is not surprising considering the massive iterative computation required to make viable use of his designed measures.

    The term fractal is a modern one coined by Benoit Mandelbrot for an enduring recognition among experts of the scale invariance of many phenomena . As above so below , and many similar epithets remark on this incredible similarity. Benoit retasked the notion of similarity when he addressed the idea of " almost self similar" . This is the key iterative notion that enables iterative measures to depict natural motions, growths, decays, and dynamics .

    In the forum I go into detail along with others in applying that idea to sculpturing realistic images. But I go further to attempt to apprehend what physical phenomena these wholly mathematical structures may be able to depict.

    However, I avoid the general belief that mathematics is the language of God! I point out that before " Mathematics" there was Rhetoric, and that means a clear graspable explanation of observables for everyone!

    Örsted,Faraday and other Natural Philosophers believed in this type of reasoning for scientific enquiry. However, academic subject boundary wars obscured these reasonable speculations.

    In short the invisible influence is whatever you want it to be essentially, but those of a Natural Philosophical expertise focus on empirically explorable and explainable analogies. Ampère simply scaled down his electrical circuit in size and increased the number and behaviour of them to form an inductible basis for the large scale observable effects. He could do no other considering his technology.

    Today we can observe more, but much which is portrayed as observation is clever Disney-like animation!! This is because we are limited as to what we can observe and the amount of measurement data we can absorb, but our computational devices can deal with the data and present it in desired form.

    And that is the difficulty. We have to specify what the outcome should be before we observe what it actually is. That means we no longer can observe a direct ontological phenomenon, but then Newton pointed out, we never could. In his sense we " see" through the behaviours of our measurements relative to each other rather than by the direct measurement.

    Magnetic behaviour as a philosophical fundamental power we ascribe to Gilbert and a few others, but it is really Örsted who draws attention to the fundamental circularity or rotational nature of the force, I think . Ampère invaluable contribution was to devise a measurement scheme based on a circuit containing measuring instruments. What is forgotten is that these measuring instruments rely on the magnetic behaviour itself!

    Electricity is really and truthfully magneticity in all measurements!
  • We can simply model electricity as trochoidal surfaces that form around an inductible material , rotating with trochoidal dynamics at high frequencies . The inductible material guides the formation of these surfaces through the longitudinal transmission of a magnetic induction pulse., or series of pulses. .

    The frequency range for these pulses is in the radio frequency range.

    Ivor Catt posed 3 questions about this pulse in a circuit. . In his Wakefield experiment result he details how that pulse reciprocates between the inductible wires as an exact detail of a transmission line. , and he shows experimentally how in a capacitor situation that pulse is represented by a voltage step that reciprocates between the open ends of a circuit.

    I have always exposited to him that the voltage difference is the result of two vorticular fields interacting within the same volume as they propagate against each other guided by the wires.

    Now I can say that these vortices are magnetic by definition of trochoidal rotation of an aether/ space-time fluid. . That we measure the perturbation of a magnetic density of Rotation/ precession within a material in the radio frequency range , and it is this reciprocating behaviour we call electric charge. .

    Ed simply avoids the chemical explanation of electricity, because the electron is a fabulous beast created from this radio frequency magnetic behaviour. . But the two individual magnets are explainable as two opposing trochoidal rotational dynamics of the aether/ spacetime.

    The contraction and expansion of these trochoidal dynamics is itself a trochoidal dynamic , and the materiality of aether is a result of patterns of this trochoidal behaviour.

    That being said I may resort to a particle model to explain certain behaviours because the contraction expansion dynàmic does discretise the aether in a volume inna complex fractal pattern.

    Settin magnetic behaviour as our basis is without doubt the soundest move I know of .
Sign In or Register to comment.