Magnetic bubbles as particles or corpuscular entities with gyre is not a new idea. We cn find Descartes description of a magnet structure in the literature. However the reifiction of these structures at many scales is hard to find except in ideas posited by alternative philosophers.

Here, the explosive and viscous ature go these bubbles on a large scale called a cme is recorded by NASA. In a bar magnet the bubble effect is hardly noticeable because of the low mplitude and frequency of the event. However the materialisation of these bubbles is as interactive interference of rotational dynamics in the aether surrounding a polarity.

To describe the gyre for such free standing phenomena I use 3 orthogonal planes ith a gyre ABCDEA and a gyre DBE in the 3rd plane. . Correspondingly ACBEDA with EBD as the gyre in the 3rd plane . This structure maintains distinction between a north polarity magnetic bubble and a south one no matter what orientation they interact in. Two of the gyres will sum, the third will subtract, leading to a clear resultant distinguished by phase, which I might define as as polarised . This is regardless of the orientation of the materiality through which and from which the magnetic bubbles are propagating.

But because this was a naive approach I did not allow for frequncy and amplitude dynamics or for parallel transport. . I certainly did not conceive of trochoidal surface dynamics. . Nevertheless the fractal generator app did all this , and it has taken me until now to apprehend this. http://www.fractalforums.com/complex-numbers/polynomial-rotations/

The tables show the patterning. Later I understood a group table could found the Newtonian Triples which are nearer to these rotational dynamics for magnetic " bubbles" or north south polarity bubbles.

This is not to say bubbles or individual north and south magnets are reality, but rather to say that rotational dynamics through interference interactions at an impedance boundary define bubble like regions which expand or contract in a magnetic filamentary behaviour. Agin, just marvel at what forms these spatial rotationl dynamics can take as bubbles and filaments . I might add that delayed causality of force action plays an element in the actual behaviour. So the Trochoids are induction patterns. With the force interaction resultant being a quarter phase along the resultant pattern. Clearly forr high frequencies the induction and force resultant appear maximally in close spatial proximity and in the same direction in a parallel plane with the relaxation reaction occurring at 3/4 turn in a parallel plane in the opposite direction.

The gyroscopic causality tends to either stabilise or ultimately distort materiality in space to catastrophic failure, if rigid, or morphing bubble forms if fluid. This is why I eventually decided on the explosive implosive un attached bubble metaphor over the hair- like depiction of force / induction lines. The trochoidal lines in these videos are resultant induction lines. The regions they mark out are the magnetic presdure bubbles and trochoidally dynamic surfaces.

Then of course we must incorporate strange attractor behaviour into the dynamics of these bubble collections to appreciate how a vibrating mode can flip aperiodically into a complex conjugate modality. Panta Rhei , and the magnetic charge we call electrification relies on this complex conjugate morphing, especially in surface interactions with fine materiality . We call it frictional charging but the complex conjugate dynamics deals with a rotationa description of the effect.

This explanation relies on the so called sine wave and so does not clarify otational dynamics involved in polarisation of magnetic patterning. The notion of scattering and diffuse intensity by scattering something Ryleigh made some headway with , is a consequence of diffraction at a reflective but rough surface .

The reflection, refraction dispersion and diffraction of a rotational dynamic are involved in scattering at a surface.

The reasons that support magnetic behaviour as a sounder basis than electricity are numerous. The Curie point for example appears to destroy magnetic attraction in ferrous materials and yet polarity appears clearly in sunspots- on a high temperature sun, like a lodestone. . The magnetic patterning of polarity is frequency , phase and impedance dependent, heat pressure ( ie entropy as dynamic specific heat dependendent. See previous posts on thermodynamics to understand how "chaos " is a misleading scientific paradigm!)

Then as no less than Ed Leedskalnin and indeed no greater than Tesla pointed out, natural " electric current" is alternating! . Current theories of plasma flows would have us believe electric current in space or Birkland currents are Direct currents or transmission line currents.

A transmission line carrirs no current, Ivor Catt has gone into this in detail. The dielectric around transmission lines carry a TEM step wave of a magnetic nd electric component in his theory, , and this wave reciprocates guided by the transmission lines, at given voltage ( amplitude) measures.

Of course I have explained my standpoint vis a vis Ivor's, but I acknowledge the key role in my understanding Ivor has contributed., and especially the experimental data.

So nu current, no electron flow , leaving? A dynamically varying magnetic behavioural pattern in which alternating polarity is transmitted through the space medium , at varying frequencies and phases, one band of which we identify as electric.

The same thing happens in a wire as in space, where a magnetic filament acts asvacwve guide like a copper conductor/ inductor.

Warning! This highly abstract presentation y hurt your brain!

Howeve, these forms and transformations can be applied to rotationl dynamics and Trochoidal surface dynamics. .

I caution the reader against thinking this is a true revelation of reality. It s a model that has to be tuned to observation and then evaluated as to it's utility both in descripttion and prediction of outcomes. Usually this involves defining metric units to make sense of any kinematic behaviour, and geometrical patterning.

So close and yet so far! Of course it all sounds reasonable until you ask what is charge! ?

The electrical circuit with its battery capacitor resistor conductor and inductor hides the dual layer/ double layer dynamics that exist in a rotational spaciometry. The invention and definition of the electron obscured these rope like plasma links that stretch between condensed materiality through a fluid and extremely less dense materiality. It is these rope like Plasmas that are the basis of the electron idea. . But it was Einsteins explanation of the photo electric effect using the idea of an electron/ massless electron(photon) duality , that actually stopped the research on the magnetic alternative , the magnetron and diverted young physicists to labs where the money for research into electrons was plentiful.

His argument was also used to browbeat staunch natural philosophers who knew everything in science theory is only a model into "confessing" the reality of the electron, despite it's theoretical problems! JJ Thomson was " bought" off with blandishments an his protests swept under the carpet . Theoretical physics now claimed a new electric reality!!

Ed belonged to the old but now thought obsolete school of thought based on agnetic principles set out bynSir William Gilbert. The idea of a "Courante" seems to be down to Ampère because until his groundbreaking work mysterious fluids as atmospheres in dynamic motion were assumed around and in materiality. It was Boscovich who gave theoretical and geometrical credence to these dynamic atmospheres and Volta who attempted to explain their working in materiality giving rise to electric conduction. But his theory relying on Bosvovich was ignored for Galvanos chemical explanation with later modification to Faradays ionic hypothesis . But Faraday believed in Bosvovich analysis so reification of ions into particles was not his idea, nor was the electron

In fact neither was it Maxwells idea to reify a particle of the type we now call,an electron, his idea was a fluid dynamic entity we can call a stable vortex. This is a rotational fluid dynamic which he interpreted differently to Faraday who was not happy at the mechanical explanation of the force/ stress behaviour in space as Maxwell framed it. he preferred o start with some divine invisible manifesting power that arranged force ve tors curvilineally about points in space as Bsovich theorised.

In this regard Örsted and other natural philosophers were ignored as being not understandable or utilitarian, particles were easier to grasp and work with technically and chemically. The discovery of stable vortices in fluids was thus beyond most theorists ability to comprehend and thus to associate to magnetism . But the clues are there, and we in this generation, despite the awesome technical,achievement based on the particle idea, have no just cause to ignore a more fundamental,magnetic rotationl model. In the " light" of that observation we may understand Fardys discovery that a dynamic magnetic field generates an electric signal. It is the fundamental,magnetic dynamic patterning that establishes vorticular filaments around which magnetic vortices intertwine at a frequency we define as electric.

It is a magnetic universe as sir Robert Boyle dared to hypothesise.

Just note how the magnetic field is symbolised. The symbol does not change so no indication of what is going on is depicted, The symbol is applied at approximately 90° to each other in both cases. Sliding down the outside or the pole sliding by the magnet have similar effects. Now place the magnet in a copper coil , the same thing is happening but the coil now guides the result along its geometry in a way a pole cannot be seen to do.

We assume a current, naturally, but we call it electric. Logically we hold call it magnetic as it is generated by a moving magnet, whichever orientation it moves in. North south polarity does not matter except on the resultant measurement. An ammeter swings one way or the other indicating polarity reversal but not necessarily current reversal.

Ampère noted that in dynamic situations a magnetic polarity is established at different levels of circuit complexity. In a paramagnetic material the resultant is completely different. The magnet is attracted to the material and does not move at all! The diamagnetic nature of copper means that the magnet is repelled from the material and consequently it's progress through a diamagnetic material is hindered .

Why is diamagnetism evident only in dynamic situations? Because as ampêre note it is electro( magneto) dynamic situations not static ones that demonstrate the effect. Thus a dynamic pressure appearing indicates a rotational force field is evident and rotation will clearly not fall in a straight line . The ferromagnetic response is so big that the force vectors are huge and the pressure pushes the magnet and material together immediately. .

The magnetic current in a copper conductor should be diamagnetic while in a ferromagnetic material like iron it should be ferromagnetic and huge. I suspect the work required to turn a ferromagnetic winding would be prohibitive. For aluminium windings http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=202807

Faradays lines of force ( tubes of force )

Faradys rules

The explanation here relies on negative charge, but since that is undefined it may as well be defined as north polarity ! . Then if a north polarity moves in a north polarity field it will experience a force of repulsion. . But because the interaction is trochoidal the resultant effect will be 90° out of phase due to gyroscopic causality.

We posit that a magnetic current is a resultant of trochoidally dy amic north and south polarities. ( I divi dual north and south magnets!) and these interact with any additional external polarities to produce a combined interference effect dominated by the nearest external polarity.

Rotating that polarity makes no difference u der my hypothesis that the magnetic resultant is a explosive implosive resultant of the interaction forming a dynamic magnetic bubble or bubble pattern

In the electrolysis bath the chlorine polarity is attracted to the cathode and the sodium to the anode. But the sodium further interacts with the water to remove the sodium back into solution releasing the hydrogen instead. . Hydrogen is thus deemed more active than sodium in a chemical reaction .

We could look at the electrolysis bath as a condensed fluid in which the magnetic guided vortex drives the elements into different concentrations resulting in the gases being preferentially released from the condensed fluid by gas pressure dynamics.

The electron explanation, though utilitarian is not the only explanatory model.

In this light Faradays tubes of force as electrostatic filaments are also interpretable as hydraulic filaments in a pressure model . This however is unsuitable for what is observed at visible frequencies as well as in iron filing Chladni experiments to be a dynamic equilibriation .

The combining of electrostatics and magneto statics into Elrctromagnetics was more to save academic tenures than to rethink the subject area! For amoère clearly posited an electro/ maagneto dy amic basis to the more general philosophy of Gilbert.

Steady magnetic field no magnetic current detectable in a transformer loop ! Because a magnetic current is a progression of induction . Once induction is complete equilibrium is reached.

What does a battery store? A depleting induction potential . That induction potential dep,Estes at a steady rate if change and we call that a current. In the same way a capacitor stores an I ducked state at a steady rate. When it reaches break down point, the dielectric allows leakage of that inducing potential as a coherent MASING process that blasts a circuit with changing magnetic potential., that is a magnetic current. That blast is detectable not only by an ammeter or galvanometer but also by a coiled loop some distance away - a radio emission!

There is a logical problem with ancient mechanical principles. The fundamental principle as Newton expressed it is motion in a uniform manner but in a right line. . Now a Rectilineal line is clearly distinguished in Greek, and a tight line presumably translates the Greek " good" in eugrammaton . A good line describes not only a Rectilineal one but alo a circular arc. Thus newtons first law means uniform motion in a Rectilineal manner and or in a circular arc manner.

The second law is also deficiently interpreted in that it is usually considered to apply in a Rectilineal line , ignoring rotational forces! Newton of course did not ignore rotational motion, and in fact bridges the explanation of the second law to the third law with a discussion of the spinning top model. This was then related to celestial motions in orbits in which the natural motion was deemed to be circular or curvilineal. The exact geometry was determined by trial and error by Copernicus and Tychi Brae.

The composition of displacements enabled Newton and his peers to define a physical action as an intensive magnitude: velocity and from that acceleration and from that an undefined magnitude which permitted conscious control of acceleration .

Newton provided decomposition tools which enabled rotational motion to be depicted in a similar formula to Rectilineal motion. In his day centrifugal motion was explored by Huygens, and the spinning top was explored by Newton as an example of centripetal motion. The unexplained cause was why did the top not split into parts that flew off in all directions?

He looked for the answer Alchemically, an active principle which might explain gravity. No one knows if he found it, but clearly magnetic and electric behaviour were in his mind as discussed in his Scholium. Also Sir Robert Boyle wrote several pamphlets outlining the hypothetical role f magnetism in Astrological motions. LeSage however attempted to explain gravity by a collision paradigm, which was hugely followed in his day but ultimately set aside for the more elegant formulae Newton had derived .

Newton considered all manner of motions and particularly ina fluid as acresistive medium. The math proved too hard to solve in any accurate way in his day and fluid dynamics had to wait until computational methods developed using very fast computers made numerical solutions and finite element solutions possible .

Nobody revisited LeSages work in this light in any mainstream way, nor did they revisit Newtons as source. Instead they went after Einsteins revision of Newtonian mechanics. The circular geometry was extended to hyperbolic geometry and displacement rules derived from that geometry.

The result of changing the underpinning geometry is more complex formulae, as well as a more imaginative conception of " space"! It became popular to ask if space was curved!?

In fact Einstein was specifically defining 4 dimensional space, but who knew what that was? Nowadays space-time is openly discussed as an entity and as a dynamic entity. But nobody really thinks of it as a theoretical model! It is deemed to be realty.

What physicists do not know is that mathematicians have egg on their faces! They thought they had discovered a NonEuclidean Geometry only to discover by the time of Gauss that it was in fact spherical geometry and spherical trigonometry in different symbolic clothes!

They don't tell you that, they just quietly moved away from trumpeting the topic. A realistic and useful treatment can be found in Norman Wildbergers universal hyperbolic geometry playlist.

Spherical trigonometry enabled Newton to decompose rotational displacement int lineal displacement summed by the Pythagorean rule, Later the Grassmanns developed an algebra/ symbolic arithmetic that summed displacements directly and helped to cut through the mathematical details to give a consistent geometrical insight. It was this insight that later reshaped the expression of physical and mechanical principles in symbolic notation and lead to both Einsteins version of a Tensor calculus developed by Levi and Ricci on Grassmann principles, and the Quantum Mechanics of Dirac again based on Grassmann rotational principles.

We can therefore sidestep the mathematical machinery and look directly at spherical rotation as a physical motion. We need to be clear centrifugal/ centripetal displacements are the same thing and we require a reactive displacement which I will call centri-plosive to balance the dynamic equilibrium we observe in rotational systems.

Thus we have a collapsing ( centrifugal/ centripetal) force balanced by an expanding( centri plosive) displacement to model circular displacement using sine and Cosine ratios..

I have posited in an earlier post that rotational motion should be the default motion, making energy measures a function of circle curvature. The straighter or more Rectilineal a motion is the greater it's rest and kinetic energy can be conceived to be. An object that is relatively motionless. With no rotation is conceived of as being in rotational dynamic equilibrium. The true or absolute energy stored in that equilibrium is only revealed once it is disturbed!

I return then to Newtons conception of inertia. Disturbing an equilibrium requires a transfer of energy, and this is what we perceive not only as inertia but also as the manifestation of pressure both active and reactive, and in common parlance as force.

Boscovich theory of force reflects the observation that it always tends to some equilibrial null situation by damped or assymptotic oscillation .

Our chaos theory additionally draws attention to the unpredictable nature of any equilibrium, be it ever so long in a given state!

It is therefore of some comfort to us mentally that we can deduce laws of some mean regularity based on rotational behaviours , but also a warning against arrogant complacency and impertinent extension of local deductions to universal principles .

The connection between electrolytic solutions and Plasmas is obscured by definitions that refer to high energy states, or extremes of change of phase. However since Volta and possibly Gilbert the magnetic atmosphere of materiality has been observed and pondered.

We of course term an atmosphere as a field of influence, and mathematically as a field of scalar measurements associated yo each reference point in the field, or a field of vector displacements or potential vector displacements associated to each regeference point.

Faraday, credited with making the concept of a field of influence palpable by his invention of tubes of electrostatic force, which Maxwell interpreted as lines of magnetic force stabilised by vortices, and others went yet further to interpret as abstract lines of vectors or equipotential, imagined this influence as a natural power that manifested in space around and within materiality in line with Boscovichs theory of force and i's application to an atomic or spherical point source or central aspect of this influence.

Thus Faraday could metaphorically refer to the hydraulic pressure effect associated with his conception of a tube of force . The term electrostatic was really mechanically meaningless to Faraday, who referred to pressure and force as fundamental expressions of power.

We have not really moved beyond these fundamentals of pressure and force, inertia , viscosity, momentum, relaxation , capacity, impedance etc. we have merely defined them more obscurely in many instances.

So an electrolytic solution clearly demonstrates hydraulic and pressure behaviours under the influence of a magnetic field. To assume a static magnetic field is as useful as assuming a static electric field! Neither address the clear dynamic consequences of interactions between various materialitirs in various phase and compound and solution states. Fluid dynamics offers a set of principles that seek to combine all these phenomena in a dynamic model , and consequently includes electrolytic solutions and Plasmas in the same model. Vortices, filaments and plumes are not only observed in fluid dynamics, but constitute the fundamental "stable" structures in the subject.

It should therefore come to be expected that trichoidal dynamic patterns will be observed as manifestations of this dynamical model, in agreement with observations.

The astonishing complexity of these patterns is evn more astonishg e When one learns the relatively straightforward ratios that generate some of them.

What this means is the parephanalia of advanced mathematics obscures what may be imply observed and appreciated by ratio comparisons..

Rotational dynamics is amenable to natural number ratios nd sequences in a way straight line dynamics is not.

The study of electrolytes and Plasmas reveal an abundance of simple ratios easily observable. . The power behind them is no less mysterious, but at least we avoid the mistake of absolute knowledge of it and content ourselves with collections of interesting tidbits that consistently reference technical phenomena we need to build our electronic machines.

Tying down the notion of sign and making it subordinate to signed rotation. . This then impacts on the notion of area as being cyclically oriented by definition. A detail that did not oncerned the Bbylonians nd Greeks because they did not have the integer number system . The integer number system, when introduced by the number line concept introduces logical difficulties because rotation is ignored! This is why we end up with the square root of -1!! .

The square root of any magnitude is referring yo a rotation within a cyclical structure . The Stoikeia book 3 proposition 35 illustrates this. . The rotation of the segment to orm a rectangle produce rectangles that are mirror images of each other . These can be distinguished by sign which corresponds to a definition of positive or negative rotation. . This impacts on lineal orientation in a reference frame. Of course negative direction or orientation is a convention , not a reality, and we often confuse the meanings of the negative sign in any terminology .

As far as we know matter and pace while malleable are not destroyed by deformation, and indeed tend to return to optimal equilibrium forms. , but we also observe irreversible changes in form associated with a phenomenon we call energy radiation either in or out( implosive or explosive) so our higher principle is energy is not destroyed even if matter is irreversibly transformed. .

The notion of increasing disorder does not allow the universe to do work to reconstruct itself in whole or in part! , which is clearly visible amongst the many behaviours of magnetism

## Comments

Magnetic bubbles as particles or corpuscular entities with gyre is not a new idea. We cn find Descartes description of a magnet structure in the literature. However the reifiction of these structures at many scales is hard to find except in ideas posited by alternative philosophers.

Here, the explosive and viscous ature go these bubbles on a large scale called a cme is recorded by NASA.

In a bar magnet the bubble effect is hardly noticeable because of the low mplitude and frequency of the event.

However the materialisation of these bubbles is as interactive interference of rotational dynamics in the aether surrounding a polarity.

To describe the gyre for such free standing phenomena I use 3 orthogonal planes ith a gyre ABCDEA and a gyre DBE in the 3rd plane. . Correspondingly ACBEDA with EBD as the gyre in the 3rd plane .

This structure maintains distinction between a north polarity magnetic bubble and a south one no matter what orientation they interact in. Two of the gyres will sum, the third will subtract, leading to a clear resultant distinguished by phase, which I might define as as polarised . This is regardless of the orientation of the materiality through which and from which the magnetic bubbles are propagating.

http://www.fractalforums.com/complex-numbers/polynomial-rotations/msg65623/

But because this was a naive approach I did not allow for frequncy and amplitude dynamics or for parallel transport. . I certainly did not conceive of trochoidal surface dynamics. . Nevertheless the fractal generator app did all this , and it has taken me until now to apprehend this.

http://www.fractalforums.com/complex-numbers/polynomial-rotations/

The tables show the patterning. Later I understood a group table could found the Newtonian Triples which are nearer to these rotational dynamics for magnetic " bubbles" or north south polarity bubbles.

This is not to say bubbles or individual north and south magnets are reality, but rather to say that rotational dynamics through interference interactions at an impedance boundary define bubble like regions which expand or contract in a magnetic filamentary behaviour.

Agin, just marvel at what forms these spatial rotationl dynamics can take as bubbles and filaments .

I might add that delayed causality of force action plays an element in the actual behaviour. So the Trochoids are induction patterns. With the force interaction resultant being a quarter phase along the resultant pattern. Clearly forr high frequencies the induction and force resultant appear maximally in close spatial proximity and in the same direction in a parallel plane with the relaxation reaction occurring at 3/4 turn in a parallel plane in the opposite direction.

The gyroscopic causality tends to either stabilise or ultimately distort materiality in space to catastrophic failure, if rigid, or morphing bubble forms if fluid. This is why I eventually decided on the explosive implosive un attached bubble metaphor over the hair- like depiction of force / induction lines.

The trochoidal lines in these videos are resultant induction lines. The regions they mark out are the magnetic presdure bubbles and trochoidally dynamic surfaces.

Then of course we must incorporate strange attractor behaviour into the dynamics of these bubble collections to appreciate how a vibrating mode can flip aperiodically into a complex conjugate modality.

Panta Rhei , and the magnetic charge we call electrification relies on this complex conjugate morphing, especially in surface interactions with fine materiality . We call it frictional charging but the complex conjugate dynamics deals with a rotationa description of the effect.

So close! But my device won't let me access the forum as yet!

If anyone can contact him for me I would be grateful xxx

This explanation relies on the so called sine wave and so does not clarify otational dynamics involved in polarisation of magnetic patterning.

The notion of scattering and diffuse intensity by scattering something Ryleigh made some headway with , is a consequence of diffraction at a reflective but rough surface .

The reflection, refraction dispersion and diffraction of a rotational dynamic are involved in scattering at a surface.

Then as no less than Ed Leedskalnin and indeed no greater than Tesla pointed out, natural " electric current" is alternating! . Current theories of plasma flows would have us believe electric current in space or Birkland currents are Direct currents or transmission line currents.

A transmission line carrirs no current, Ivor Catt has gone into this in detail. The dielectric around transmission lines carry a TEM step wave of a magnetic nd electric component in his theory, , and this wave reciprocates guided by the transmission lines, at given voltage ( amplitude) measures.

Of course I have explained my standpoint vis a vis Ivor's, but I acknowledge the key role in my understanding Ivor has contributed., and especially the experimental data.

So nu current, no electron flow , leaving? A dynamically varying magnetic behavioural pattern in which alternating polarity is transmitted through the space medium , at varying frequencies and phases, one band of which we identify as electric.

The same thing happens in a wire as in space, where a magnetic filament acts asvacwve guide like a copper conductor/ inductor.

Nuff said!!! Xxx

Warning! This highly abstract presentation y hurt your brain!

Howeve, these forms and transformations can be applied to rotationl dynamics and Trochoidal surface dynamics. .

I caution the reader against thinking this is a true revelation of reality. It s a model that has to be tuned to observation and then evaluated as to it's utility both in descripttion and prediction of outcomes. Usually this involves defining metric units to make sense of any kinematic behaviour, and geometrical patterning.

The moon affecting the global temperature( hest pressure).

The gravitational / magnetic behavioural pull or push moves surface oceans to warm colder places.

So close and yet so far!

Of course it all sounds reasonable until you ask what is charge! ?

The electrical circuit with its battery capacitor resistor conductor and inductor hides the dual layer/ double layer dynamics that exist in a rotational spaciometry. The invention and definition of the electron obscured these rope like plasma links that stretch between condensed materiality through a fluid and extremely less dense materiality.

It is these rope like Plasmas that are the basis of the electron idea. . But it was Einsteins explanation of the photo electric effect using the idea of an electron/ massless electron(photon) duality , that actually stopped the research on the magnetic alternative , the magnetron and diverted young physicists to labs where the money for research into electrons was plentiful.

His argument was also used to browbeat staunch natural philosophers who knew everything in science theory is only a model into "confessing" the reality of the electron, despite it's theoretical problems!

JJ Thomson was " bought" off with blandishments an his protests swept under the carpet . Theoretical physics now claimed a new electric reality!!

Ed belonged to the old but now thought obsolete school of thought based on agnetic principles set out bynSir William Gilbert.

The idea of a "Courante" seems to be down to Ampère because until his groundbreaking work mysterious fluids as atmospheres in dynamic motion were assumed around and in materiality. It was Boscovich who gave theoretical and geometrical credence to these dynamic atmospheres and Volta who attempted to explain their working in materiality giving rise to electric conduction. But his theory relying on Bosvovich was ignored for Galvanos chemical explanation with later modification to Faradays ionic hypothesis .

But Faraday believed in Bosvovich analysis so reification of ions into particles was not his idea, nor was the electron

In fact neither was it Maxwells idea to reify a particle of the type we now call,an electron, his idea was a fluid dynamic entity we can call a stable vortex. This is a rotational fluid dynamic which he interpreted differently to Faraday who was not happy at the mechanical explanation of the force/ stress behaviour in space as Maxwell framed it. he preferred o start with some divine invisible manifesting power that arranged force ve tors curvilineally about points in space as Bsovich theorised.

In this regard Örsted and other natural philosophers were ignored as being not understandable or utilitarian, particles were easier to grasp and work with technically and chemically. The discovery of stable vortices in fluids was thus beyond most theorists ability to comprehend and thus to associate to magnetism .

But the clues are there, and we in this generation, despite the awesome technical,achievement based on the particle idea, have no just cause to ignore a more fundamental,magnetic rotationl model.

In the " light" of that observation we may understand Fardys discovery that a dynamic magnetic field generates an electric signal. It is the fundamental,magnetic dynamic patterning that establishes vorticular filaments around which magnetic vortices intertwine at a frequency we define as electric.

It is a magnetic universe as sir Robert Boyle dared to hypothesise.

Just note how the magnetic field is symbolised. The symbol does not change so no indication of what is going on is depicted,

The symbol is applied at approximately 90° to each other in both cases. Sliding down the outside or the pole sliding by the magnet have similar effects.

Now place the magnet in a copper coil , the same thing is happening but the coil now guides the result along its geometry in a way a pole cannot be seen to do.

We assume a current, naturally, but we call it electric. Logically we hold call it magnetic as it is generated by a moving magnet, whichever orientation it moves in. North south polarity does not matter except on the resultant measurement. An ammeter swings one way or the other indicating polarity reversal but not necessarily current reversal.

Ampère noted that in dynamic situations a magnetic polarity is established at different levels of circuit complexity. In a paramagnetic material the resultant is completely different. The magnet is attracted to the material and does not move at all! The diamagnetic nature of copper means that the magnet is repelled from the material and consequently it's progress through a diamagnetic material is hindered .

Why is diamagnetism evident only in dynamic situations? Because as ampêre note it is electro( magneto) dynamic situations not static ones that demonstrate the effect. Thus a dynamic pressure appearing indicates a rotational force field is evident and rotation will clearly not fall in a straight line . The ferromagnetic response is so big that the force vectors are huge and the pressure pushes the magnet and material together immediately. .

The magnetic current in a copper conductor should be diamagnetic while in a ferromagnetic material like iron it should be ferromagnetic and huge. I suspect the work required to turn a ferromagnetic winding would be prohibitive.

For aluminium windings

http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=202807

Faradays lines of force ( tubes of force )

Faradys rules

The explanation here relies on negative charge, but since that is undefined it may as well be defined as north polarity ! . Then if a north polarity moves in a north polarity field it will experience a force of repulsion. . But because the interaction is trochoidal the resultant effect will be 90° out of phase due to gyroscopic causality.

We posit that a magnetic current is a resultant of trochoidally dy amic north and south polarities. ( I divi dual north and south magnets!) and these interact with any additional external polarities to produce a combined interference effect dominated by the nearest external polarity.

Rotating that polarity makes no difference u der my hypothesis that the magnetic resultant is a explosive implosive resultant of the interaction forming a dynamic magnetic bubble or bubble pattern

In the electrolysis bath the chlorine polarity is attracted to the cathode and the sodium to the anode. But the sodium further interacts with the water to remove the sodium back into solution releasing the hydrogen instead. . Hydrogen is thus deemed more active than sodium in a chemical reaction .

We could look at the electrolysis bath as a condensed fluid in which the magnetic guided vortex drives the elements into different concentrations resulting in the gases being preferentially released from the condensed fluid by gas pressure dynamics.

The electron explanation, though utilitarian is not the only explanatory model.

In this light Faradays tubes of force as electrostatic filaments are also interpretable as hydraulic filaments in a pressure model . This however is unsuitable for what is observed at visible frequencies as well as in iron filing Chladni experiments to be a dynamic equilibriation .

The combining of electrostatics and magneto statics into Elrctromagnetics was more to save academic tenures than to rethink the subject area! For amoère clearly posited an electro/ maagneto dy amic basis to the more general philosophy of Gilbert.

Steady magnetic field no magnetic current detectable in a transformer loop ! Because a magnetic current is a progression of induction . Once induction is complete equilibrium is reached.

What does a battery store? A depleting induction potential . That induction potential dep,Estes at a steady rate if change and we call that a current.

In the same way a capacitor stores an I ducked state at a steady rate. When it reaches break down point, the dielectric allows leakage of that inducing potential as a coherent MASING process that blasts a circuit with changing magnetic potential., that is a magnetic current. That blast is detectable not only by an ammeter or galvanometer but also by a coiled loop some distance away - a radio emission!

A good line describes not only a Rectilineal one but alo a circular arc.

Thus newtons first law means uniform motion in a Rectilineal manner and or in a circular arc manner.

The second law is also deficiently interpreted in that it is usually considered to apply in a Rectilineal line , ignoring rotational forces!

Newton of course did not ignore rotational motion, and in fact bridges the explanation of the second law to the third law with a discussion of the spinning top model. This was then related to celestial motions in orbits in which the natural motion was deemed to be circular or curvilineal. The exact geometry was determined by trial and error by Copernicus and Tychi Brae.

The composition of displacements enabled Newton and his peers to define a physical action as an intensive magnitude: velocity and from that acceleration and from that an undefined magnitude which permitted conscious control of acceleration .

Newton provided decomposition tools which enabled rotational motion to be depicted in a similar formula to Rectilineal motion.

In his day centrifugal motion was explored by Huygens, and the spinning top was explored by Newton as an example of centripetal motion. The unexplained cause was why did the top not split into parts that flew off in all directions?

He looked for the answer Alchemically, an active principle which might explain gravity.

No one knows if he found it, but clearly magnetic and electric behaviour were in his mind as discussed in his Scholium. Also Sir Robert Boyle wrote several pamphlets outlining the hypothetical role f magnetism in Astrological motions.

LeSage however attempted to explain gravity by a collision paradigm, which was hugely followed in his day but ultimately set aside for the more elegant formulae Newton had derived .

Newton considered all manner of motions and particularly ina fluid as acresistive medium. The math proved too hard to solve in any accurate way in his day and fluid dynamics had to wait until computational methods developed using very fast computers made numerical solutions and finite element solutions possible .

Nobody revisited LeSages work in this light in any mainstream way, nor did they revisit Newtons as source. Instead they went after Einsteins revision of Newtonian mechanics. The circular geometry was extended to hyperbolic geometry and displacement rules derived from that geometry.

The result of changing the underpinning geometry is more complex formulae, as well as a more imaginative conception of " space"! It became popular to ask if space was curved!?

In fact Einstein was specifically defining 4 dimensional space, but who knew what that was?

Nowadays space-time is openly discussed as an entity and as a dynamic entity. But nobody really thinks of it as a theoretical model! It is deemed to be realty.

What physicists do not know is that mathematicians have egg on their faces! They thought they had discovered a NonEuclidean Geometry only to discover by the time of Gauss that it was in fact spherical geometry and spherical trigonometry in different symbolic clothes!

They don't tell you that, they just quietly moved away from trumpeting the topic.

A realistic and useful treatment can be found in Norman Wildbergers universal hyperbolic geometry playlist.

Spherical trigonometry enabled Newton to decompose rotational displacement int lineal displacement summed by the Pythagorean rule,

Later the Grassmanns developed an algebra/ symbolic arithmetic that summed displacements directly and helped to cut through the mathematical details to give a consistent geometrical insight. It was this insight that later reshaped the expression of physical and mechanical principles in symbolic notation and lead to both Einsteins version of a Tensor calculus developed by Levi and Ricci on Grassmann principles, and the Quantum Mechanics of Dirac again based on Grassmann rotational principles.

We can therefore sidestep the mathematical machinery and look directly at spherical rotation as a physical motion.

We need to be clear centrifugal/ centripetal displacements are the same thing and we require a reactive displacement which I will call centri-plosive to balance the dynamic equilibrium we observe in rotational systems.

Thus we have a collapsing ( centrifugal/ centripetal) force balanced by an expanding( centri plosive) displacement to model circular displacement using sine and Cosine ratios..

I have posited in an earlier post that rotational motion should be the default motion, making energy measures a function of circle curvature. The straighter or more Rectilineal a motion is the greater it's rest and kinetic energy can be conceived to be. An object that is relatively motionless. With no rotation is conceived of as being in rotational dynamic equilibrium. The true or absolute energy stored in that equilibrium is only revealed once it is disturbed!

I return then to Newtons conception of inertia. Disturbing an equilibrium requires a transfer of energy, and this is what we perceive not only as inertia but also as the manifestation of pressure both active and reactive, and in common parlance as force.

Boscovich theory of force reflects the observation that it always tends to some equilibrial null situation by damped or assymptotic oscillation .

Our chaos theory additionally draws attention to the unpredictable nature of any equilibrium, be it ever so long in a given state!

It is therefore of some comfort to us mentally that we can deduce laws of some mean regularity based on rotational behaviours , but also a warning against arrogant complacency and impertinent extension of local deductions to universal principles .

Part 1 -

Part 2 -

We of course term an atmosphere as a field of influence, and mathematically as a field of scalar measurements associated yo each reference point in the field, or a field of vector displacements or potential vector displacements associated to each regeference point.

Faraday, credited with making the concept of a field of influence palpable by his invention of tubes of electrostatic force, which Maxwell interpreted as lines of magnetic force stabilised by vortices, and others went yet further to interpret as abstract lines of vectors or equipotential, imagined this influence as a natural power that manifested in space around and within materiality in line with Boscovichs theory of force and i's application to an atomic or spherical point source or central aspect of this influence.

Thus Faraday could metaphorically refer to the hydraulic pressure effect associated with his conception of a tube of force . The term electrostatic was really mechanically meaningless to Faraday, who referred to pressure and force as fundamental expressions of power.

We have not really moved beyond these fundamentals of pressure and force, inertia , viscosity, momentum, relaxation , capacity, impedance etc. we have merely defined them more obscurely in many instances.

So an electrolytic solution clearly demonstrates hydraulic and pressure behaviours under the influence of a magnetic field. To assume a static magnetic field is as useful as assuming a static electric field! Neither address the clear dynamic consequences of interactions between various materialitirs in various phase and compound and solution states.

Fluid dynamics offers a set of principles that seek to combine all these phenomena in a dynamic model , and consequently includes electrolytic solutions and Plasmas in the same model.

Vortices, filaments and plumes are not only observed in fluid dynamics, but constitute the fundamental "stable" structures in the subject.

It should therefore come to be expected that trichoidal dynamic patterns will be observed as manifestations of this dynamical model, in agreement with observations.

The astonishing complexity of these patterns is evn more astonishg e

When one learns the relatively straightforward ratios that generate some of them.

What this means is the parephanalia of advanced mathematics obscures what may be imply observed and appreciated by ratio comparisons..

Rotational dynamics is amenable to natural number ratios nd sequences in a way straight line dynamics is not.

The study of electrolytes and Plasmas reveal an abundance of simple ratios easily observable. . The power behind them is no less mysterious, but at least we avoid the mistake of absolute knowledge of it and content ourselves with collections of interesting tidbits that consistently reference technical phenomena we need to build our electronic machines.

Tying down the notion of sign and making it subordinate to signed rotation. . This then impacts on the notion of area as being cyclically oriented by definition. A detail that did not oncerned the Bbylonians nd Greeks because they did not have the integer number system . The integer number system, when introduced by the number line concept introduces logical difficulties because rotation is ignored! This is why we end up with the square root of -1!! .

The square root of any magnitude is referring yo a rotation within a cyclical structure . The Stoikeia book 3 proposition 35 illustrates this. . The rotation of the segment to orm a rectangle produce rectangles that are mirror images of each other . These can be distinguished by sign which corresponds to a definition of positive or negative rotation. . This impacts on lineal orientation in a reference frame.

Of course negative direction or orientation is a convention , not a reality, and we often confuse the meanings of the negative sign in any terminology .

As far as we know matter and pace while malleable are not destroyed by deformation, and indeed tend to return to optimal equilibrium forms. , but we also observe irreversible changes in form associated with a phenomenon we call energy radiation either in or out( implosive or explosive) so our higher principle is energy is not destroyed even if matter is irreversibly transformed. .

The notion of increasing disorder does not allow the universe to do work to reconstruct itself in whole or in part! , which is clearly visible amongst the many behaviours of magnetism