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
Does it help?
Not really, but it does show that Ampère not Biot or Savot had the consistent inductive basis correct, validating Ōrsteds insight.
He states, "As a consequence of the Rowland effect in a rotating conductor, the motion of electrons can not be the cause of magnetic fields and the intrinsic magnetic field of electrons is not a dipole but have a rotational structure".
Mr. de Climont presents the verification for this alternative view of electron magnetic field topology in the performance of this experiment (also available at http://editionsassailly.com/assailly_english.htm):
Français: https://youtu.be/fcZHGNBRxws
Deutsch: https://youtu.be/ziR30kAWm5o
Pdf reports also in Fr, En, De are available here: http://editionsassailly.com/report_rotation.htm
Ed proposed that the soundest fundamental observable was the magnetic current.
Ed does not show the iron filing pattern in his work. His work is based on the behaviour of fish line magnets within the earths magnetic current and a magnetic current in an appropriately positioned inductor/ conductor . There do not appear to be any figures or diagrams in his booklet.
Eds descriptors are therefore word labels to be attached to observable behaviours or he relies on the common concept of magnetic influence on iron filings.
The field concept is a modern concept derived from Faradays notion ofbSpheres of influence. These spheres of influence he characterised From the observable iron filing patterns. In his correspondence with Maxwell they eventually parted on the physical interpretation of these patterns. Maxwell wanted them to be Tubes of elastic and Hydraulic " force" , but Faraday wanted a more metaphysical descriptor, a kind of manifestation of a mystical power .
It is hard to get the mechanical mind to let go of any formal Mechanicl analogy especially if that Analogy appears to give insight. But Faraday in all conscience did not know what was the structural foundations of this behaviour and could not therefore limit his meditation to Maxwells Mechanical philosophy!
Faradays spheres of influence were mystical, but no less mysterious than the vectors that the algebraists of the Imaginary Magnitudes . So despite not being able to agree on a physicl/ Mechanical model mathematicians came to agree on a particular formula as representing a Potential for the force at every point. That is : given a point in space relative to some source centre a formula gave the measurable force on a given quantity called charge.
The topology of the scatter of points in a region with the associated potential at each point in the region became labelled a Field.
A field is a purely mathematical descriptor, but it was interpreted or attached to Faradays image of iron filing patterns. It was then generalised by Einstein into an amorphous " something", and now has bern reified As a physical entity! For most modern scientists this mystical mythical concept is now a " scientific Fact" .
However we now have many other observable behaviours of the same influence around magnets etc and these can now infom a better physical/ Mechanical model and guide any mystical insights in conceiving what is being observed. Whether the current Field potential combinatorial structure needs new nomenclature is a philosophical point that has to be addressed by philosophers. Experimental scientists can only devise schemes of measurement for calculations that must give consistent results.
For me the mathematical model must admit rotational measures, and conceptually I conceive of a continuous, continually motile fluid capable of sustaining vorticular rotations as the minimal basis for developing explanatory models of observable behaviour.
In response to ssd510's question while in perspective to Jehovajah's comments, Mr. de Climont suggests we see the dissident list of many theories the internet provides on the subject of what is a magnetic field?. Take your pick, he implied, because he too has 'no idea'.
One more! I like the idea of 'aether' condensing in matter. This does make for a neat explanation of the spirals we see in solar systems and galaxies. I'm not sure that it resolves the stability issue though... A fluid flowing into a cosmic sink would drag other cosmic bodies with it (I guess...?).
While we can Not say how deep we may zoom into such a structure in our experimental set ups our theoretical fractal topologies allow "infinite" zooming.
The model thought of this way allows larger structures to be constituted by smaller ones but not through utter banal uniformity. At some Chosen scale these larger structures are clearly Distinct, even though the medium in which they exist is continuous, and perforce they are constituted from this continuos fundamental fluid medium
We can then demonstrate the compression and expansion of these larger scale structures along with the constructive and destructive results of superposition .
The point is: only a trochoidally rotational model can deliver all the observed behaviours and more besides.
The important warning that must be stressed is : it is not reality, but an extremely complex model that can be constrained to model observed phenomena. Reality may be much simpler!
So your point about sink holes and sources could be explained by a point superposition at the centre of the apparent vortices that builds to an extremely large frequency with an immensely extensive coherency of phase over a relatively small amplitude .
(For me amplitude relates to the diameter of a vortex. Traditionally amplitude is a measure of power while frequency is wavelengths poor cousin! However in a vortex frequency is clearly where the power lies. So a superposition of phase of vortices will add to an acceleration of rotation or more power. This results in the vortex stability growing to immense proportions. It is exactly as if a fluid becomes a rigid resistant structure. Such a structure clearly carries a huge dynamic force/impact or impulse .
It is clear that phase or phase angle is a measure of superposition and coherency for combinatorial structures of vortices. In addition combining vortices is equivalent to combining "mass" so that some same frequency vortices may not combine by frequency acceleration but rather by rotational structural symmetry around a common centre)
And of course, if this is repeated at all scales then the amplitude becomes a scale measure and we sees phenomenon called a cosmic jet at one scale and a maser/ laser beam at human scale.
The surrounding" material" is not dragged into a "sink hole" but rather contributes its amplitude , frequency and phase to a combined phenomenon.. Then at some stage the superposition separates and the contributors are reconstituted in an almost similar pattern ready for the next periodic event.
Because the circle is an ideal we should not expect exact periodicity, but in fact aperiodicity in these phenomena at all scales.
As an observed reference: we commonly see magnetic structures on the sun which hold a vortex form many times the diameter of the earth . Thus a uniform phenomena locally on the earth may in fact be only a small section of a much greater dynamic on the scale of the sun. This is why Gravity is not necessarily a universal force , but a local effect of a much larger fractal dynamic . For me Magnetic behaviour is the soundest basis for modelling all these things, providing " magnetic' is a label for "rotational", which till now I have found much evidence to suggest it is .
This demonstration requires explanation . However the author chooses to go down a thermodynamic route and to use torque. The presence of sparks and heat are his o ly presented evidential base.
There is an entirely magnetic behaviour explanation which accounts for all obserrations .