Howdy, Stranger!

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

A sound basis to Rotational Dynamics



  • edited March 2017

    Can a fluid medium support light waves? The answer is yes because the viscosity of a fluid is proportional to the frequency of the impinging pressure variation. In essence light and other frequencies are so high that a fluid behaves like a high Reynolds number material, that is as if it were a solid.

    But as ion engines show the resultant force on a solid material is small and curvilineal , so the material vibrates more than it translates! However the explosive pressure is paired with an implosive pressure in the shady side. So an object may move in a way dependent on the frequency

    Frequency is a factor in the propulsive effect of pressure due to the balance between explosive and implosive pressures and the resultant curvilineal force effects
  • The vacuum as an implosive pressure is perhaps the hardest concept to grasp, because it is confused with the idea of Nothing.
    Philosophically we can not perceive "nothing" or even apprehend nothingness. Thus we are hardwire to perceive something. The gauge theory attempts to accommodate that notion in all our measurements. If a law applies universally it must not be relative to a specific reference frame or gauge.

    The same condition applies to pressure. Implosive pressure is not measured against an ideal vacuum, but against a gauge set as zero, this zero is an equilibrium reference.

    Bearing this in mind we may approach the electromagnetic aether as a dynamic pressure aether within which explosive and implosive pressures are nude mic and summativrly.

    The consequence of these interactions are curvilineal force lines that import rotation into the medium at all levels and scales, and frequencies.

    Light was conceived as a pulse in this medium or p,enum by DesCartes, that pulse was tin to be. Corpuscle by Newtion while Grimaldi took it to be a wave and his influence guided Huygens . However it was not until Fresnel and Arago andcYoung that this idea was taken seriously due to the mathematical depiction . However Fresnel insisted on a purely transverse Wave, Young wanted a longitudinal component to be included.

    Pressure requires a pair of components as a basis to describe its propagation.

    We know from Bernoulli that pressure in a moving fluid is directionally variable, but in a stationary(?) fluid it is in every direction. However we know it varies ith density not just height and it tends to be a surface measurable effect, within a cut I lineal or trochoidal surface.

    Light therefore in my opinion as complex as it is by frequency has a longitudinal component as well as a transverse one, but that longitudinal o e is also oscillatory, making a spherical pressure pulse or rather a spheroidal pressure pulse a useful depiction of a light " wave" propagation, where the pulse is oscillatory rather than translators.

    The pressure in these pulses will vary with frequency and amplitude. The viscosity of the medium will characterise the rate of transmission of these pulses. And that will effect the frequency of the material with regard to absorption and emission within the visible spectrum
  • We are taught that a direct current from a voltaic cell has no frequency, but we are taught a lot of assumptions.
    a direct current is made from a generator by using a filter, that only passes the first half or the second half of the cycle or cycles in an n-phased system, but it took Ivor Catts Wakefield experiments and question s called the Catt Qurstions to open our eyes to the reciprocating TEM step wave in a capacitative circuit.

    The reciprocation takes place at such a frequency that it appears to build the voltage in the capacitor itself, this is a MASING frequency. Then when the amplitude reaches the level where the cspacitor material can no longer reflect the reciprocating TEM step wave the capacitor discharges in a burst of differing frequencies dependent on the breakdown profile of the cspacitor material and it's relaxation time to return to its initial reflective state.

    There is no current in a wire , but rather a magnetic current called a TEM step weave by Catt, that reciprocates about the wave guides we call wire conductors . The interaction between the explosive and implosive pressures within a " chemical" affinity reaction have been demonstrated to exist in precise measurements of reactions that are cyclical in nature as they tend toward an equilibrium outcome. These produce the natural curvilineal force lines we associate with a magnetic current guided by a wire. In a reciprocating action at some unquantified frequency, but certainly an n-phase generation of current , where n is very large and proportional to Avogadros number N, and the power output increases rather like the Logarithm of it as the chemical reaction product concentration increases., and the battery life as the inverse of the product concentration.

  • Does light travel in straight lines?
    Rather is it not the case that a straight line is the direction of an orientation toward the centre of a sphere or a circle?
    This straight line is important enough to be called the diameter, the "through measure", and in old German the "Messer" . The Halb Messer is descriptive of the Bogen, the arc of a circle, from whence the English Bow is derived, and like arrow is light shot into our eyes by this bow?
    Truly, the very special nature of a straight line means nothing without its accomnying circle or sphere, for a straight line has no presence or form without its accompanying circle.
    It is the circle that is the matrix of all plane forms , as the sphere is of all polyhedral forms, it is by these ideals that we measure rationally the Cosmos, and b these ratios the mechanics of it and th dynamics of it.

    And so is light like an arrow or corpuscle shot Ito our eye from a point or is it the circle itself that is drawn around that point?

    Ŵho would guess that that point would not only shoot out an arrow of light, but also draw in any number of material bodies toward a common absolute destination?

    And that is why the bookmDe Magneta is so historically significant , because the virticity or power of the sphere was a mystery to be unravelled, and Bacon believed the rational approach was best suited to the task .

    Such a rationality was of ancient Sumetian origin, even possibly Draviin or Harrapian, which is to say that Egypt , Sumer, India , and the Mexican peninsula testify to civilisations whose rational approach is evidenced by the architecture they left behind, even more than the literature and writings they established in libraries.

    Mechanics made enduring stone structures of Astrological significance , but the construction of those structures reveals the expertise they had in the powers of this cosmos.

  • This insightful video reveals how we lost contact with basic knowledge about magnetic behaviour due to secrecy during the war and economic and trade protection and marketing. In the mix personal ambition queered the pitch!

    The work regarding the traitor was done previously by Volta . Of course this was called by ater academicians the triboelectric effect. Vola too found that a little water improved the gain!
    But it was not until Bose, Lodge and the early radio pioneers that diodes( or dual mode) materials and junctions became obviously important.

    The thin cats whisker of a conductor/ inductor revealed the swirling dynamic magnetic behaviour near the surface of materiality.
    Bose and Lodge even used the iron filing method of controlling the supposed flow of electric current. Clearly the magnetic behaviour of the current enable filings to pass current more efficiently the stronger the current and the alignment with an external field.

    So the electric field hypothesis based on electrostatics was already known to be problematic in circuit device design, or battery design.
    Volta declared the 3 requirements for a good cell: 2 items of differing materiality( preferably metals) and moisture. The professorate at the time rejected his atmospheric explanatory theory in favour of a chemical affinity model. But Faraday introduced the concept of ions within the fluid interface to explain the transport of materiality between the electrodes.

    The move away from these models to general fields was prompted by the definition of the electron : a ratio between the gravitational field and the electric field effects on a mass . This was normalised and made into a quantum called later an electron.

    This process of normalising ratios of so called field effects is the basis of quantum mechanical measurements. The Bohr magnetron is such a quantised ratio .

    At some stage fields became refined as material objects not just regions of influence. They thus replaced ions and electrons as causative and lead to the idealisation of interaction between bodies of material.

    What was found was that fields did not work! , e en at the close range of semiconductor material junctions they did not work . So some surface barrier was assumed . This barrier idea was washed away by an accidental introduction of water! As Volta had found 3 materials are necessary for a good electrical effect!

    The explanation of holes and electrons is just a reworking of Faradays ion model.

    Of course, ions wandering through solid objects seemed a bit bizarre, but in fact electro s and holes wandering is more bizarre. The ions in this electron/ hole model, remain fixed in a lattice and only the electons move.

    All well and good except electrons do not move at the speed of light!
    The problem was addressed by Heaviside in the Telegrahy age, and Heavisde redacted Maxwells equations , as did Hertz to get a handle on it. They both dropped the vector for magnetic potential and just went with the free electric vector J and the materially guided electric vector or so called current.I. But Maxwell had introduced a vector D for the so called dilacement current to account for how electricity travelled IN a wire across a spark gap, a condenser gap a break in the continuous circuit. It was this idea that an electric field was equivalent to Amperes currents in a gap that seized the imagination.
    However it was a mistake.

    Ivor Catt in the 1960's onwards drew attention to this mistake and finally published in 2013 the Wakefield experiment. In this he demonstrated a reciprocating stp wave within a capacitative medium.thus it was not a field effect but an Elrctromagnetic step wave effect. The same wave in free space was called a current in the wire !

    There was no current in a wire just a dynamic wave guided by materiality, the same dynamic atmospheres of Volta.

    Ivor is a semiconductor device engineer, and a careful man, so I do not think he went far enough publicly. However he was castigated for the careful steps he has published so I do not decry the work he has done, but uphold it.

    The TEM step wave is antiquated in the sense that it has no longitudinal component and no chirality. Because he relies on existing solid electrical measurements he is bound by them to certain onclusions. But once the main idea that there is no current in a wire is accepted, then other fields of enquiry like waveguides radio , microwave and light transmissions can then inform the development of his ideas, and simplify calculations. FirrestvBishop has attempted to work through the onsequences of Ivor's ideas.

    So if there is no current in a wire, what are these so called electrons? And what are they doing?

    The answer I say is found in Plasma physics in part, but wholly in magnetic behaviour where that is a label for trochoidally dynamic surfaces. We might characterise them in 2d by Skymions but that is a magnetic vortex model in its infancy and there are 3 component dimensions to account for position and many more to account for frequency required.

    But Skymions, like ions wander about in materiality .

    The vacuum valve or tube is the next clue modelled but misrepresented by a bunch of monkeys!

  • Frequency and amplitude is varied by this naughty boy .

    Http ://
    Remove the space and paste in browser

    The free electric current that Scott mentions is assumed to be there, whereas what we can actually measure is a magnetic dynamic and a magnetic current in Smoeres original sense of running flux of magnetic loops on the surface of a material . It was a fellow researcher who suggested currents internal to a wire., a thing difficult to conceive at the time in a solid. It was Amperes experiments with liquid mercury that suggested a surface current initially. lord Kelvins A vector either as a scalar field( region) or a vector field( region of vector quantities) was used to calculate the B shells of a magnetic field. Thus a magnetic force was used to determine equipotential surfaces , such surfaces are rotationa ly dynamic with curvilineal force lines. It turns out that those curvilineal force lines are equivalent to electric force when resolved orthogonal to the B surface .

    As classical as that is, Maxwell did not include frequency or amplitude in his equations, these turn up in the allowed solutions.
    For a very long time these were viewed as Fourier or Bezier solutions approximating smooth B field surfaces , not dynamic surface solutions per se.

    Magnetic potential was, is and is still the best foundation for our scientific models of behaviours and motions.

  • Schaubergers theory

  • This easy to follow tear down of a plasma ball reveals that the streamers or filaments are produced in the environs of a radio frequency oscillation.

    There is only one capacitance effect, that is the storage of charge in a Leyden jar behaviour. So these streamers are indicative of what is going on in a capacitor and a battery.

    The fact that we do not see this rotating dynamic behaviour is due to the frequency at which it occurs in these systems, and the characteristics of the media used.

    The oscillating driving force comes from the dynamics between the active surfaces in a battery or Leyden jar and the interface. This we have considered to be chemical affinity , but we can model it as a varying magnetic fild effect
  • It occurs to me, by examination of the working of a step up/ down transformer that volts are a measure of magnetic pressure around a coil or equivalent resistance to magnetic current., or rather the trochoidally dynamic rotation about a wave guiding material. .
    An ammeter responds to that pressure if resistance is low, but for high resistance an ammeter gives a low reading. .

    The very term resistance means a low ammeter reading!

    A flow is used to explain a low ammeter reading by means of a low flow or a trickle. This is conceived as a movement of charge.

    Charge is what is conceived of as stored in a Leyden jar. A resistance maintains the capacity of the storage medium, so a resistor is a comparable storage medium for this supposed charge. The induction of charge is compared to the conduction of charge by Ohms law. . The magnetic potential within a material is measured by its susceptibility measure, this becomes huge in ferromagnetic materials and is then called the permeability because it is an integer scalar multiplier of the background field Measurement.
    Not a lot of magnetic potential is found in copper but it is a good conductor and wave guide of a magnetic curren. A huge amount of magnetic potential is found in ferromagnetic materials and they are super inductors and good conductors. Resistors are super inductors but poor conductors magnetic susceptibility appears low.

    However all that changes when frequency and amplitude are allowed to be co analysed.
    The frequency range of materials bears on the charge characteristics of of the material. So called poor conductors often conduct magnetic current at high frequencies. This highlights that induction/ conduction is a resonance measure of materiality in its relation to magnetic potential stored and called charge in a Leyden jar.

    When that frequency in the jar resonates with a material it induces very quickly. When it does not the frequency is reflected back and forth in storage mode, called capacitance, or the Leyden jar is called a capacitor.
    The pressure in the jar is measured by the ammeter made with a resonant material. This distribution of pressure by induction in a resonant material generates curvilineal force lines about the resonant conductor, especially if the conductor/ inductor is diamagnetic.

    In ferromagnetic materials the resonance often leads to higher saturation but greater heat/ vibration issues, but the materials help boost or amplify a waning "direct current" presdure like a vacuum tube amplifier does to the signal. It takes in fresh magnetic potential from the environmental magnetic field, and from any battery stored potential or from any transformer amplification of the pressure as magnetic potential.

    A high reading on an ammeter signifies a high relative pressure and thus a high frequency and amplitude. While the frequency ay not be in the radio or visible range, the high amplitude as pressure is equally dangerous in materials.

    In all,of this I have not even touched on the viscosity and relaxation times of materials undergoing this frequency amplitude stress of induction/ conduction under magnetic behaviour .
    The concept of charge obscures all this in its relation to magnetic pressure called voltage.
  • Jehovajah said:

    The vacuum as an implosive pressure is perhaps the hardest concept to grasp, because it is confused with the idea of Nothing.

    I see it the other way around: The matter as an implosive pressure is perhaps the hardest concept to grasp, because it is confused with the idea of something that is fundamentally different from the aether.

    Matter - as I see it - is nothing but a vortex in the aether medium. The more vigorous the vortex is, and the more aether material is involved in the complicated pattern of spinning, the more "ponderable matter" we get.

    Think of a twister in the atmosphere. Does the twister spread out (as one would expect because of the centrifugal forces), or does it do the opposite - squeeze itself into a tighter and tighter twisted rope? In fact, it squeezes itself (or rather the squeezing is done by the pressure in the surrounding air) so hard that an ice is occasionally observed forming in the core of the twister, which is probably the result of pressure drop in the core of the twister (a.k.a. "ponderable matter") accompanied by a corresponding temperature drop!

    That's why I believe: It is the ponderable matter (rather than the vacuum, a.k.a. aether) that should be associated with the implosive pressure.

  • edited March 2017
    Jehovajah said:

    We are taught that a direct current from a voltaic cell has no frequency, but we are taught a lot of assumptions.

    Yes, we are taught a lot of nonsense regarding steady voltaic currents. We are told by R. Feynman, for example, that in the case of steady currents, the four Maxwell equations split into two completely independent pairs of equations - one pair describing a pure electrostatic field, and the other - a pure static magnetic field. In other words, according to Feynman there is no electric field outside a resistive wire carrying a steady current. So what drives the current then? Feynman has an answer for us: there is an electric field inside the wire, and that's what drives the current in the wire.

    And how exactly does that electric field inside the wire arise? Feynman has nothing to say about that, while Weber (long before Maxwell came into scene with his equations) presented a mechanism (a very convincing one, in my view) for the driving force behind the steady voltaic currents.

    Check it out for yourself:

  • edited March 2017
    @Barau_R_Tour ,
    My god how I have missed your critique ! Welcome back my friend ! Xxx
    I have tried, limply I admit, to find a good source on Webers wok so thanks for the link. In my opinion Weber was sidelined as Einsteins words became more popular!
  • Fascinating detail in assisis work , just what I like .
    Fechtners hypothesis is like Faradays ionic theory for hydrolysis, so careful experimental evidence for stationary positive charge and moving electrons is suspect if it is only confirmed by mathematical concurrence!

    We tend to think of solids dissolving in liquids or liquids penetrating solids, but equally we can consider low frequencies as dissolving in higher frequencies or higher frequencies penetrating lower frequencies!

    Thus the analogy of charge is frequency in my opinion. I have sketched out some of the ideas around this model of material behaviour of explosive and implosive pressure dynamics. In a magnetic medium or an aether that behaves with trochoidally dynamic surfaces of equipotency
  • edited March 2017
    It occurred to me that as the force to mass ratio exhibited in a gravitational free fall experiment is considered here on earth as a constant acceleration, that is theoretically a proportion with acceleration measures, that by analogy the Boscovich force model allows us to consider the electric charge, or so called electrostatic charge force to mass ratio also as an acceleration constant!

    Theoretically the proportion of electric motive force or electromagnetic force or electronic motive force etc in ratio with the mass moved from anode to cathode TO the acceleration of that mass over the Crookes tube distance should be considered a constant .

    In fact that constant can more accurately be determined at places like the LHRC ,

    Given that constant of acceleration, to quantise it as an electron charge leads to obvious problems.
    Consider for example earth's gravity as the quantum " graviton", then larger planets and galaxies consist in greater gravitons! This hardly makes observational sense, and yet we apply this kind of thought pattern to the so called atomic worlds.

    Boscovich's theory of forces makes more sense at that scale of materiality, as Faraday and possibly Tesla concluded.
    Bohrs magnetron makes more sense than the electron particle model, and that is quantised.
    In addition, the constancy of this accelerative proportion is really in question when one views the corona of the sun, where huge magnetic structures dwarf our planet ! Within those structures it would seem that the force/ mass ration was constant in every location on planet earth! But in fact we know that magnetic force changes dramatically and curvilineally

    Many of these Van Allen belt structures have been sculpted by using Terry Gintz Quasz fractal generator and appropriate analogous "gravitational/ electric force" motion formulae. "

    See my gallery at

  • Let's think differently .
    How can a solid be formed from trochoidally dynamic surfaces?
    How can so called particles move together?

    What is the binding and loosing force?
Sign In or Register to comment.