#### Howdy, Stranger!

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

# A Sound Magnetic Base

• edited April 2015
Now imagine two equal, flat, and solid discs each with a radius R and height h, R >> h, in other words, something like a pair of hockey pucks. One disk is moving with an arbitrary translational velocity V1 and spinning with an angular velocity Ω1; the axis of rotation is perpendicular to the plane of the disc and passing through its center. The same goes for the second disc, only with different rates of translational and rotational motion: V2 and Ω2, respectively.

What will happen if the discs collide? Obviously, that depends very much on various properties of the material of which the discs are made as well as on the parameters specified above. If the order of magnitude of translational and rotational motions are about dozens of MPS and dozens of RPS, nothing much will happen – they will just bounce off each other and fly away with somewhat altered parameters of motion, or – provided the material of the discs is fragile enough (think glass) – the disc(s) might break up in two or more pieces.

But let V1 = -V2, Ω1 = - Ω2, and, in addition, let the magnitudes of these parameters be extremely high; in particular, the spin velocity is so high that the discs would disintegrate if we were to increase it a bit more. Try to imagine now what would happen after the collision. Depending on the ratio V1/Ω1, many different and interesting things might happen. Remember that V1 is very high, and if Ω1 is still much higher, i.e. if V1/Ω1 is approaching zero, the discs cannot bounce off each other so easily – they will grind each other to the dust with sound waves going outward, and dust particles (think radiation) flying in all directions from the point of collision!

That’s what “annihilation of matter and antimatter” is in the language comprehensible to the proverbial bar tender and the six year old kid.
• Precisely!

Well put and illustrated.

Bravo!
• edited November 2015
To echo Newton, all that is nothing but little toys. The name of the real game is Life. And life, as everything else in the vast universe, is fractal in nature, and as such, it confirms to the principle of scale invariance. Individual human is life, human society is life, the Earth itself is breathing and living organism, nay the entire universe is life. Life is eternal and it exists on each and every level of the fractal structure of the universe.

The most important thing a person can think of is the attitude he or she adopts towards the fascinating gift given to all of us - that of life.

Cattle die, and kinsmen die, and so must one die oneself.
But there is one thing I know which never dies,
And that is the fame of a dead man’s deeds.

No one understood that better and acted upon that understanding more sternly than Dr. William Pierce – the source of inexhaustible inspiration for me since the very moment I stumbled accidentally upon his Thoughts on Accepting Responsibility many years ago.

After obtaining a copy of Maxwell’s treatise in 1873, Heaviside recalled: “I browsed through it and I was astonished! I read the preface and the last chapter, and several bits here and there; I saw that it was great, greater and greatest… I was determined to master the book and set to work.”

That describes precisely how I have felt upon discovering Dr. William Pierce’s ADV broadcasts on the Internet.
• There are a few simple observations one must be aware of when using a circular disc. Such a disc is a pragmatic ideal arising from our inability to address the complexity of fractal products. Rather than engaging the rotational dynamic as it is we accept the symmetry of a fixed central rotation or an axial rotation.

We go further and idolise it as perfection, seeing no flaw in its " perfect" symmetry. By this means many come to regard the physical world as an imperfect shadow of a perfect reality.
However , Herakleitos is renowned for his phrase " Panta Rhei". In this regard I suggest that the vortex structure as an enfolding and unfolding shell should be the object of our idolatry , and the model of our physical dynamic of rotation.

But you will then realise there is not just one physical form of " reality" , nor just one expression of dynamic action. Being able to embrace all these differences and varieties and see how they are all fundamentally related , all from the same descriptive stock helps one to avoid the roadblocks that arise from a narrow view of acceptable models of physical reality.

So then a rotating pair of cams is a better example than a rotating pair of discs , a better metaphor for the physically distinct behaviours observed. In general , rotation is trochoidal, and about a centre not an axis. We do not understand rotation in this general way, but that is no reason why we should not begin to do so.

We as humans are naturally bi partisan. But nature is not. If I seek to understand some of Natures behaviours I may have to let go of narrow and specific ways of thought. At least Grassmann expressed this dialectic conundrum in his pursuit of a better understanding of physical kinematics.
• edited January 2015
Numerous thinkers in the past understood, more or less clearly, that the universe must necessarily be fractal by the very nature of it. One of those thinkers was Boscovich, whose A Theory of Natural Philosophy, first published in 1763, was allegedly sort of a Bible to Nikola Tesla.

However, I could not find any evidence that Boscovich clearly understood the pivotal role that rotational motion plays in dynamical structure of the universe like Tesla himself, for example, did; his way of thinking was restricted and handicapped by the framework of attraction/repulsion paradigm. But Boscovich developed quite clear conceptual understanding of the notion we call today fractal, as evidenced by the following passage from his magnum opus:
... 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.

P. 139
• edited January 2015
In general, rotation is trochoidal, and about a centre not an axis. We do not understand rotation in this general way, but that is no reason why we should not begin to do so.
This is an interesting thought. The mathematical definition of rotation about an axis is, in the final analysis, hinged to the notion of rigid body. But (a) there is no such thing as absolutely rigid body; (b) it is hard to imagine a "particle" that is inherently incapable of being spun, no matter how small, or big it is; (c) we can easily picture in our minds a whirl of gas, i.e. a rotation that does not require rigidity at all!

How to define the notion of rotation in precise mathematical terms without assuming rigidity at some finite, albeit very small, scale? That's a million dollar question!

It is amazing, how far back in history the notion of fractality can be tracked, along with the perception that rotational motion (whirl) cannot be reduced in general to translational motion: THE CONCEPT OF FRACTAL COSMOS: I. ANAXAGORAS' COSMOLOGY.

Nevertheless, that is exactly how rotational motion is treated in hydrodynamics since the days of Helmholtz, as well as in electrodynamics since the days of Maxwell: rotation is introduced as a derivative of translational motion (see the definition of mathematical operator called curl, or elsewhere rot)! It seems to me that this folly, which has been consolidated and perpetuated by the notion of material point (capable of translational motion, but does not swirl!), goes all the way back to Newton.
• edited September 2014
Dirac!

While this is not fundamental to a sound magnetic base it is historically relevant as to how magnetism was buried under deep mathematics and why. It is to be noted that Dirac does not promote wooly thinking, but he was subject to peer pressure which shaped his research and thinking and what he could publish. But in his public address he is as revolutionary and non conformist as he can be?
Branimir Vasilic site.
• Dr. Ing Konstantin Meyl

• edited January 2015
By the way, the guy on the cover of Meyl's book "Self-consistent Electrodynamics" is Ruggero Giuseppe Boscovich

It is interesting to note also that Gennady Nikolaev published the same results Meyl is talking about back in 1997 in the book Непротиворечивая Электродинамика. Теории, Эксперименты, Парадоксы, the title of which in English translation, Trouble-Free Electrodynamics. Theories, Experiments, Paradoxes, sounds eerily similar to the title of Meyl's book.

Unfortunately, Nikolaev's books have not been translated to English yet. There is only one English text by Nikolaev I am aware of: New Concepts of the Physical World.
• edited November 2015
Ah! Do we really need to dig in Dirac, Bohr, entanglement, quantum teleportation, parallel universes, and all the rest of the Copenhagen interpretation garbage? Even Erwin Madelung’s interpretation of wave function Ψ as mass density ρ=m|Ψ|^2 makes more sense than Copenhagen’s ‘elementary’ particle that allegedly is present everywhere and nowhere until we observe it. Can you picture in your mind something that is present everywhere and nowhere at the same time? If you can't, you are OK, you are a sane person, and there is nothing wrong with being sane.

For those of you who wish to free your minds from the hallucinating state of consciousness induced by Copenhagen haze of mysticism, here are some pills that proved to be, at least in my case, very helpful:

(1) Clearing Up Mysteries – The Original Goal (a sample passage follows);

... Paul Dirac, who was also living here in St. John's College at the time when he and Harold Jeffreys were doing their most important work side by side, seems never to have realized what Jeffreys had to offer him: probability theory as the vehicle for expressing epistemological notions quantitatively. It appears to us that, had either Bohr or Dirac understood the work of Jeffreys, the recent history of theoretical physics might have been very different. They would have had the language and technical apparatus with which Bohr's ideas could be stated and worked out precisely without mysticism. Had they done this, and explained clearly the distinction between the ontological and epistemological levels, Einstein would have understood it and accepted it at once.

(2) Physics of ‘Random Experiments’ (in particular, see section titled But What About Quantum Theory?)
• edited September 2014
@Barau_R_Tour

If any others are following along I feel they will experience a thorough brain rinsing which may help them to think independently about these issues. To them I say it is worth the effort to read the links provided by Barau!

The most famous gobble de gook is that of entangled photons. Apparently the spin is undecided until the observer looks. Then the other immediately settles its spin in the " opposite " direction. Granted that " spin" does not mean actual spin it is still part of the definition of entanglement that 2 photons share this property. That makes it almost inevitable that they must be contra to each other if they are linked by being formed in the same production process.

Einsteins jibe about left and right handed gloves illustrates the deception clearly, but we are asked to believe in " spooky" action at a distance!
• edited November 2015
Look, it is not complicated. Imagine an urn with 9 white balls and 1 black ball. Pick up one ball from the urn, but don't show me the ball you picked. What is the color of that ball? I don't know what the color of that ball is, but there is no confusion in my mind about that: it has certain color, I simply do not know for sure what color it is. However, I do not fall into Copenhagen mysticism and say something idiotic like: that ball has white and black colors simultaneously, the mixture of the two colors being described by a wave function; and when you show me the ball, its wave function 'collapses'. That's sheer insanity!

At the same time, I can tell with great confidence that if we repeat this experiment many times the white ball will show up, with great accuracy, 9 times out of 10. That's all there is to it. We cannot predict things with more accuracy than the information at hand allows us to.
• edited January 2015
The most famous gobbledygook is that of entangled photons. Apparently the spin is undecided until the observer looks. Then the other immediately settles its spin in the "opposite" direction. Granted that "spin" does not mean actual spin it is still part of the definition of entanglement that 2 photons share this property. That makes it almost inevitable that they must be contra to each other if they are linked by being formed in the same production process.

Einsteins jibe about left and right handed gloves illustrates the deception clearly, but we are asked to believe in "spooky" action at a distance!
This is, in essence, what Jaynes is talking about in his recollections Disturbing the Memory when he says: "... perhaps what is traveling faster than light and backward in time is not a physical causal influence, but only a logical inference."
• I am sure we could point out the many failures, wrong turns and cynical manipulations that occur everyday in academia , that most human of endeavours to produce and control knowledge and thought for power and financial motives. But that cathartic release does not take us forward!

Keeping it in mind however helps me not to accept anyone's word as " Truth " : not even my own discoveries and epiphanies!

Steps forward for me start with the vortex or spiral. I used to equate rotation with the circle, but not any longer. There is a more general concept which underlies the circle concept. It is apprehended through the exploration of the trochoid.

http://trochoid.blogspot.co.uk/

Laz Plath is also qqazxxsw on YouTube . He is a programmer who will not correspond with me , but I feel he has a genius about rotation, and Grassmann and Hamiltonian algebras.
I meditate on his work often.

As you explore his site, be sure to download and use his 3 apps.
• edited September 2014
Some other mind expanding rotations.

http://www.howeart.net/

H