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
Were there any illustrations, other than these, inside the books published when Leedskalnin was still alive and, therefore, came straight from him?
Even in the Primer field a static field shape is depicted, and thence forward little dipole chunks are depicted whiz zing all over the place!
Ed states that his reduction of magnetic substance ( Gilbertian theory) has individual magnets in a dynamic swirling relationship they can not I divide ally move, they need each other to move,
Thus what looks static is in his theory a dynamic equilibrium of individual magnetic atoms.
Now I use atom in its Greek sense of indivisible, and thus individual to itself.
The dynamic equilibrium model is one Ōrsted subscribed to as a pronent of Natural philosophical powers and Reason in Nature . At its heart this is not a Mechanical Philosophy, and was at odds with his coeval peers, who frankly could not grasp his vision of the curvilineal dynamic he held in mind.
Why do I think so? Two things. First: he never said - as far as I know - anything that would indicate otherwise. He never mentions the fractal nature of the structure of matter. One could object to that and say: How could Ed speak of fractals when the very notion of fractal was invented by Mandelbrot long after Ed was gone. Not so. Mandelbrot coined the word "fractal", but the notion existed long before Mandelbrot was born. Numerous thinkers in the past (at least as far back as Anaxagoras) understood, more or less clearly, that the universe must necessarily be fractal by its nature. One of those thinkers was Boscovich. His magnum opus "A Theory of Natural Philosophy" (published first in 1763, https://archive.org/details/theoryofnaturalp00boscrich ) was, allegedly, some sort of a bible to Nikola Tesla. However, there is no evidence that Boscovich understood clearly the pivotal role that rotational motion plays in dynamical structure of the universe (like Tesla did, for example). Boscovich’s way of thinking was restricted and handicapped by the framework of attraction/repulsion paradigm, but he developed quite clear conceptual understanding of the notion we call fractal today, as evidenced by the following quote:
… In such a case, if a number of points are assembled between any pair of asymptotes, or between any number of pairs you please, correctly arranged, there can, so to speak, arise from them any number of universes, each of them being similar to the other, or dissimilar, according as the arcs EF . . . . N, E'F' .... N' are similar to one another, or dissimilar; & this too in such a way that no one of them has any communication with any other, since indeed no point can possibly move out of the space included between these two arcs, one repulsive & the other attractive ; & such that all the universes of smaller dimensions taken together would act merely as a single point compared with the next greater universe, which would consist of little point-masses, so to speak, of the same kind compared with itself, that is to say, every dimension of each of them, compared with that universe & with respect to the distances to which each can attain within it, would be practically nothing.
From this it would also follow that any one of these universes would not be appreciably influenced in any way by the motions & forces of that greater universe; but in any given time, however great, the whole inferior universe would experience forces, from any point of matter placed without itself, that approach as near as possible to equal & parallel forces; these therefore would have no influence on its relative internal state. pp. 139.
My second reason for thinking that Ed's understanding of dynamicity of magnetism was limited is that he speaks of "atoms" of magnetism. As soon as one subscribes to "inherently indivisible atoms", one is doomed to end up - sooner or later - in a static paradigm.
I for one believe that Peregrinus was in the right: magnetic monopoles (South and North individual magnets, in Ed's parlance, which possess independent existence) is a proposition that ultimately leads to a dead end.
Cold Fusion Lives On
I cannot tell whether Mills’s theory is correct or not - I have never heard of this theory before. However, I have no doubt in my mind that cold fusion is something that can be - and will be - achieved in not so distant future; perhaps, even in our lifetime.
Think of it this way. Can the chemical energy be harnessed by way of burning chemicals? Yes, and we do it every day - we burn oil, gas, coal, firewood just for that purpose. That's a hot way of getting chemical energy. Can we do it in cold way, i.e. can we get chemical energy without burning the chemicals? Yes, we can, and we do it every time when we get into our cars and start the engine - that's what car batteries are designed for - to get chemical energy in the form of electricity without burning anything but, instead, by taking apart chemical elements in cold fashion and releasing the magnetic energy locked in them, i.e. without raising the temperature of the chemicals which are taken apart.
Can we get the magnetic energy locked in the nuclear of an atom by "burning the atom"? Yes, and we do it every day in nuclear submarines, Nimitz-class nuclear aircraft carriers, and nuclear power plants all over the world. Can we do it in a cold way, i.e. can we get the magnetic energy locked in the nuclear of the atom without burning the atom. No, we can't ... not yet. But there is no reason why it cannot be done, and it will be done.
There should be no doubt about that.
P.S. You might want to take a look at this too: New magnetic field theory gets us closer to nuclear fusion
The fractal topology to which you eloquently refer is of ancient awareness. Mandelbot himself researched in ancient Greek writings to refine his ideas, which are mainly procedural in the light of computational capability.
When first I began this 13 + year quest, it was with a flood, an outpouring of relentless mathematical insights at the foundational level inspired by a revival of interest in Fractals, a remembrance of being completely befuddled by Benoits illustrated book on Fractal geometry, several years earlier. Then I was privileged to become a member of Fractafirums.com at a time when the push for the Mandrlbulb gathered momentum. That was a rush and a ride I am still proud to be associated with .
That was when I was finally able to work my way out of the dead boney cage of mathematics I was sealed in and imprisoned.
After many adventures I finally came to Grassmann and to NJ Wildberger , Rodin and through Haramein to RWG research and Ed.
Basically, the foundations of our understanding is my interest. I am happy to dedicate my life to reworking those foundations as best I can.
Over the years I have come to realise that the very academic discipline I was inculcated in was flawed!
I deem myself fortunate to be able to associate in a forum with like minded researchers of all persuasions and all articulations.
I do not debate, as I am here to share and learn. I try to be attentive to what others say, and to contribute not destroy a persons train of thought. I do not always agree or understand and am not always intuitively curious about Eds Code for instance, and so I watch from the sidelines in those instances.
Sometimes it all comes together and I grow out of my ignorance or misunderstanding . Sometimes someone asks me to explain and that clarifies both our thinking!
So fractals are an inherently dynamic Spaciometry . I coined that word for myself to avoid mental entanglements. Later, when I really grasped what topology refers to I preferentially used the word topology .
I still find it hard to communicate the basic dichotomy of consciousness, the Shunya field theory was a stab at that, but essentially the dynamics of the circle are a Skesis or a sketch of the form/ idea in Socratic Platonic terms.
Now, at my age I appreciate the Indian and Chinese Japanese philosophical musings and structurings of our or my experiential continuum
If I was asked to sketch a self aware form I would draw a circle . Of course it is dead, ontologically, but what I represent by it is very much alive and kicking. Fractal topology therefore for me is inherently alive aware and dynamically kicking butt!
Maybe Ed did not think in those exact terms , and fell into the thought form of a dynamic particle like Lucretius and Democritus, but that has to be countered by his dynamic understanding of his empirical researches.
For me fluid dynamics is sufficient. The aether is ultimately unknowable, but yet it is ontologically necessary and perceivable as Something. The Vedas go into this in detail, Hegel tackles this in detail . It is the limit of our ability to know, and the foundation of ll the forms both dynamic and static we claim to know.
But what do I know really?
I am privileged to have found some good companions to bandy words with about this experience of life and hopefully to inspire some of the more pragmatic individuls to develop new and better technologies in harmony with empirical nature not fighting against It.
Our nano technology can build fractal devices that harmonise with our Fractal "reality" understanding . They will do well to reflect the Shunyasutras, the curvilineal forms of our imaginations
For me, the sun is my prime lodestone exemplar. Here the dynamic nature of magnetic behaviour is amply demonstrated, and in particular the dynamics of pole formation..
Here I see the dynamics of the trochoidal surfaces fractally entraining into plasma embodiments while tracing out trochoidal locii in space..
The frequency of these rotating surfaces of pressure potentials ( which characterise into force directions on measurement) we perceive as light or indeed as any signal on the electro magneto spectrum.
So what we call poles dynamically form entrained in these " loops" as they' enter and exit a surface .
While a particle model is not reality it gives a good explanation of pole dynamics, while a dipole explanation requires additional interaction to negate the dipole activity not required.
If a rotational surface model is used the pole unmistakable are formed as per the dynamic characterisation of that volume .
It is horses for courses, a saying which means pick the best model or the job in hand.