The law of Squares represented in the video about John Searle represent the Fourier transform coefficients for a particular wave form on the rings.

There is no doubt that Searle discovered the correct structure for the decomposition of this rotating energy into frequency amplitude plots on the ring structures. The magnetic patterns are impress able ie imprintable onto the ring structures, but it requires a material like the rare earths to hold them stable.

I have already mentioned the difference between copper iron and aluminium. These rare earth metals are on the borders of the whole rare earth elements Neidinium is in the centre. The property of the material that makes magnetic imprinting possible is the formation of magnetic vortex domains. In copper these domains are too fluid to hold structure. Thus almost immediately long vorticular twists form throughout copper wiring, and more especially if the wire is twisted during manufacture.

Within iron the crystalline structure supports magnetic Omanis. Within the guild of magnetic engineers this information is known and studied, unfortunately they fell victim to the electron ideology and despite having ample evidence of the domains and pictures of domain morphology they are unable to recognise the domain as vorticular.

Vortices take many shapes. In space where plasma is at its most fluid domains are spherical. In dense matter domains are necessarily squashed into multilateral multihedrsl forms.. Nevertheless they are still vorticular but clearly with a very complex gyre system.

Since the time of Gilbert it has been known how to develop and strengthen the magnetic power of these domains in ion. A process of paramagnetism is set out in the papers of the royal society detailing how to make ferromagnet of great power, equalling or surpassing that of the then lodestone standard, which was a multi " polar" crystal.

The belief in "electric driven" magnetism has lead to the magnet imprinting process being made more" efficient" using electromagnetic induction. However if you understand as I do that this so called electri current is really a rotating magnetic vortex in copper you can relate back directly to the old paramagnetic methods directly.

It is well known that to create a strong bar magnet the paramagnetic induction must be smooth and continuous. Ed gives some direct instruction in making magnets. However the magnets produced by not following this instruction are known to be multipolar. These multipolar magnets are discounted as " spoilt"!

Magnetic imprinting is being done by companies today who want to build powerful magnets in rare earth materials. What pattern of imprinting works best is perhaps an industrial secret, but what Searle has stated is the pattern on rings is given by his law of squares. These patterns naturally form a varying rotational power in the vortex around the rings. This is best described by the Fourier transform of the magnetic domin structures in the rings of rare earth materials.

By placing cylindrical coils or magnets in these field , once magnetised they I'll self rotate.. Today their are many magnetically driven motor generators that function very powerfully and demonstrably. Do they repeat the Searle Effect? Ostensibly yes, but the difference is in the design and engineering .

While this seems to be a diversion from the topic heading, I think it is still relevant as a working model of vortices around axes of rotation where the axis represents the wire and the it or represents the vortex.

Vortex Based Maths and it's influence on wave Mrchanics etc.

I have left it in link form to relieve pressure on older machines .

We now can sensibly explain the behaviours of these structures using magnetic current. The Moulo 9 mathematics means we fo not need to over complicate the dynamics and symmetries of the sphere. This modulo 9 group is a ring and forms a quotient operator acting on the 3 dimensional space we inhabit. It records and imposes simple vibrational patterns on this space at frequencies that are also harmonic to 9 and geometrically harmonic to 9 .

You seem to have penchant for fancy mathematics and fascination with rotational/circular motion. I would like to offer you a mathematical challenge - a practice used to be common among the famous geometricians in the glory days of Bernoulli's. Here it is.

Click the geometrical sketch below to enlarge it. The lower cylinder, A, is at rest. The cylinders immediately above it, B and D, are rolling around the cylinder A with no slippage: the center of each of the two rolling cylinders is rotating around the center of the resting cylinder with a constant angular velocity ω. The uppermost cylinder, C, is rolling between the cylinders B and D immediately below it, without slippage as well.

The radii of cylinders are given as shown on the sketch. Find the value of what is known in mathematics as the curl for every point on each of the three moving cylinders B, C and D.

First you need to decide whether the described combination of rotational motions is indeed feasible. Then you need to see whether I have given you enough information to come up with a unique solution. In particular, is the solution of the problem invariant of the unspecified angle between the lines AB and AD?

Can the way electricity runs in a wire be understood from the vantage point of Maxwell's equations? Is purely mechanical interpretation of Maxwell's equations feasible? If yes, what is the mechanical meaning of the electrical field E and that of the magnetic field B? If no, why not? Why are so many contradictions in classical electrodynamics? These are important and difficult questions.

What is known as Maxwell's equations today is actually Heaviside's interpretation of the original equations of Maxwell or, shall we say, a stump produced by Heaviside's operation on a living body. Let us take a closer look at this stump and do some elementary counting. Here is what is called Maxwell's equations:

where E is the electric field, B is the magnetic field, J is the current density, ρ is the charge density, ε0 is the permittivity of free space, µ0 is the permeability of free space.

How many equations do we have here? Two scalar equations and two vector equations, i.e. we have 2 + 2x3 = 8 equations altogether. And how many unknowns do we have? Three vectors (E, B, J) and one scalar (ρ), i.e. we have 3x3 + 1 = 10 unknowns altogether. But the number of equations should match the number of unknowns in a correctly stated mathematical problem. Something is obviously missing here for 8 ≠ 10!

To close Maxwell's equations up, perhaps we should append them with the generalized version of Ohm's law due to Kirchhoff:

J = σ E, where σ is a material dependent parameter called the conductivity.

But that does not save us from mathematical inconsistency. Indeed, we have now 11 equations and 10 unknowns, still 11 ≠ 10!

What about Lorentz force law? Can it extricate us from the mathematical mess introduced by Heaviside into Maxwell's electrodynamics? Let us see. Here is Lorentz force law:

F = q(E + v x B)

Charge q and its velocity v do not constitute new unknowns for they are linked to the charge distribution ρ and the current density J: q is a charge in a unit of volume, while qv = J. So, we simply introduced one more ad-hoc vector equation for the unknown vector of force F. The math inconsistency problem didn't go away!

Heaviside's stump is like an onion: the more you peel it off the more it stinks.

@Barau_R_Tour I will decline for now your invite, or at least delay consideration until I have time to . In any case I do not see the relevance to the topic of the thread and would ask if we might communicate by email when I have time.

Indeed rotation is fundamental to revising the understanding of " the theory of Electromagnetism" , but it is even more fundamental for establishing subjective processing , within our brains, and within our unconscious proprioception of space . I express this insight hopefully none mathematically, because I am aware that mathematics is irrelevant. The empirical evidence and observation does not require it, only other humans do, and not the majority of them either!

My current thoughts in regard to this thread have focused on the " battery" ie the Leyden jar/ capacitor or the cell. What actually happens when a " short circuit" is engineered?

Rubbing 2 sticks together gives us a clue: the rotation generates intense rotation and that grows exponentially until the plasmas stream out taking with them bits of the dielectric and or conductor/ inductor. We call this fire and it generates heat and light.

Putting a loadin a circuit spreads this rotation out along the wire into devices engineered to generate heat and light. From this "magnetic" or rotational current .

For better observation, I've used aluminum C channel to demonstrate the effect, or two side by side pieces of aluminum bar stock 1.5"W x 2'L:

Two high speed spinning aluminum or copper disks will levitate a magnet with amazing stability. You can flick the magnet off it's axis and it will instantly reorient while in that levitated state. A gentleman named Andy Alcon from Texas patented the device nearly 25 years ago. He incorporated the concept into a sort of maglev style trolley system that has yet to be realized. About ten years ago he sent me videos demonstrating the effects. The videos timed out after a few days and I can't seem to find any demos on the net. http://www.google.com/patents/US5319336

While Barau_R_Tours challenge is a pleasant " model" of rotational geometries around a "wire " and is potentially a step in an analytical direction , I think it detracts from the accessibility of this thread if it is answered here!

Your response is the kind of engineering detail which though technical is still graspable where the mathematics surely would not be.

I have mentioned before the relevance of Arago's disc in revealing the dynamic nature of "Magnetic" flux , and Barau gave us some fabulous insight into,Örsteds concepts of a rotational flux around a wire. The ideas are the same, and in fact consistent with observable behaviours in fluids. Where we have been duped is by the commercial aspirations of a few who wanted to control this natural resource everywhere around us and keep us ignorant of how to use it.

Heavisides redaction of Maxwell into 5 fundamental relations the fifth being the telegraph equation does not exhaust the theoretical musings of Axwell, or even his metaphysical ones. At the same time Faraday was suspicious of any mathematical formulation. Academia and Mechanicl technological engineering are unwilling bedfellows!

My stance is that the artisans, enthusiasts and engineers know more than any mathematical equation or formulation about what is really going on. Well at least as far as we can sensibly know.

My claim is that if we ditch the mathematics and look at the empirical data and experiments we can form a common sense consensus. What is more today we have technology that enables us to enhance our sensible appreciation: microscopes, videos tele visual transformers that are now known to be reliable. We can see to resolutions unheard of in Arago's time, we can resolve to measurements inconceivable by Fresnrl and Rayleigh, and we can transmit signals by deformations of space only barely conceived by Fouier.

These men wreathed their insights in mathmatical Jargon , but it is the engineers who built the technologies who really know what is going on!

When a radio ham says that n antennae is picking up energy from the surrounding space, he does not just confirm Tesla and Gilbert and other early pioneers he confirms Volta's opinion over that of Galvano's. Yet at these crucial moments a committee of men have decided to adopt a different view or none other reason than Humn frailty, backslapping and advantage!

The Magnetic Universe stands in contrast to the Electric universe. The electric universe is forging a new paradigm, But it is still in my opinion the wrong basis. The sound basis would be magnetism, as Ed Says , and from that I would only differ in describing magnetism as a rotational dynamic of space.

Indeed, this thread is probably not the best place to discuss the mathematical details of the model of electric current I have conceived recently, which I was trying to illustrate in maths language. I am working on a video with the purpose of presenting the model in a format more suitable for this forum.

However, I am not so sure about the validity of the following statement:

At the same time Faraday was suspicious of any mathematical formulation

I do not have the quotes handy at the moment, but, as far as I recall, Faraday longed for his ideas to be expressed in precise mathematical terms by someone who was capable of doing just that. And Maxwell turned out to be precisely that kind of person. In fact, Maxwell saw Faraday's methods as mathematical in essence:

It is by the use of analogies of this kind that I have attempted to bring before the mind, in a convenient and manageable form, those mathematical ideas which are necessary to the study of the phenomena of electricity. The methods are generally those suggested by the processes of reasoning which are found in the researches of Faraday, and which, though they have been interpreted mathematically by Prof. Thomson and others, are very generally supposed to be of an indefinite and unmathematical character, when compared with those employed by the professed mathematicians. By the method which I adopt, I hope to render it evident that I am not attempting to establish any physical theory of a science in which I have hardly made a single experiment, and that the limit of my design is to shew how, by a strict application of the ideas and methods of Faraday, the connexion of the very different orders of phenomena which he has discovered may be clearly placed before the mathematical mind. I shall therefore avoid as much as I can the introduction of anything which does not serve as a direct illustration of Faraday's methods, or of the mathematical deductions which may be made from them. In treating the simpler parts of the subject I shall use Faraday's mathematical methods as well as his ideas. When the complexity of the subject requires it, I shall use analytical notation, still confining myself to the development of ideas originated by the same philosopher.

On Faraday's Lines of Force

See more interesting quotes from Maxwell on Faraday here:

As it is pertinent, many men admit to changing the conceptions of others to thir own, either to promote their work or to improve that of others, but some do not or cannot because they are unaware that they have done so.

Maxwells lines of force as he conceived it was heavily based on fluid dynamics. However his concept of lines or vortices of force was based on inaccurate observation nd the primitive work of Navier and Stokes. The work of Helmholtz on vortex structure was not sufficiently distinct to alter his opinion and consequently his analogy of a comet tail is only partially correct. As you see in the diagram he does not admit a now wave , which old have bern sensible, let alone the true magnetic bubble we have learned exists in the solar wind!.

In contrast Faraday intuitively imagines that the space around an object acts upon it so as to impart energy of motion. While this is by no means the full opinion of Heaviside it is close enough to say that Heavisides redaction also removed concepts implanted by Maxwell that were contrary to Faradays empirical evidence.

Heavisides redaction barely acceded to Maxwells input, but rather names other greats whose ideas maxwell relied on. In any case it seems that Heaviside Hertz and Faraday and Örsteds were of a different philoshical opinion to faraday., whose only saving concept was the implicit fluid dynmic framework in which he sought to construct his theory.

The Maxwellians as they were called, we're inspired by his theoretical structure, but we're forced to make many modifications and adjustments to bring the theory into serviceable use.mkeybto this process was Fitzgeralds use of MacCullaghs " curl" concept, which attempted to derive all action from a potential that was rotational.

The concept of the curl is one of many possible rotations, but few realise that it is only a " token" of rotation. The advent of of rotational matrices dealt more directly with rotation, but the curl process was based on the quaternion Algrbra and thus gave clear clean results, especially by hand. The Curl still maintains its place in many formulations despite its odd behaviour..

With regard to your mathematical idea, either simply open a new thread on it or I will be willing to discuss it by email.

ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqgWrTJtQnk You have to view this on desk top. Restore h at beginning to locate.

The principle of electromagnetic induction generates magnetic current, rather than an electric current. When a galvonometer( a compass) Is deflected the vortex interacts with the magnet . When the vortex interacts with a copper wire the vortex establishes on the wire, but reflection creates a null vortex, that is the vortex superposed on itself by reflection and destructively interferes. This is not the same as saying there is no vortex around the induced wire.

Superposition of vortices or vorticular waves is rarely discussed but it occurs all the time in cymatic patterns in fluid materials.

When induction stops so does conduction of the magnetic vortex . The decaying vortex clearly decays in the opposite direction to the conduction of the induced vortex. The question is why does this disturbance have this flow pattern? It is experimentally measured by Ivor Catt in his Wakefield experiments.

The triboelectric scale reveals the nature of the division in magnetism. This scale simply shows the relative "magnetising " properties that materials have on each other by Tribology, the study of how surfaces rub on each other to what effect. And here's the " rub" ! Rubbing is a cyclical motion, that is rotational. We know it has an immediate effect , but only in these days of material sciences has that effect begun to be. Plated under the heading of Tribology. She'd loads of human and experimental and empirical and anecdotal data exists, and yet we are steered toward just 2 or 3 effects of the simple action of cyclical surface interaction : so called, friction, electrostatics and Magnetostatics!

There is a fundamental error in this point of view and that is the medieval and modern western view that these effects are individual unrelated resident powers. Even the ancient myths record that these powers were united in one super entity which or who could transform into any at will!

The triboelectric scale is hardly matched by a tribomagnetic scale. This is because of an academic bias toward electric and electronic description. Yet the great works of Gilbert and now my research shows Faraday did not obscure empirical data behind mind numbing symbolic arithmetics, the resemblance, or the interdependence or the identity of the tribological effects ON Electra and on Magnes were suspected, experimentally hinted at but certainly believed as a basis of scientific conjecture or religious faith by these paramount researchers into the phenomena.

I was writing an additional note about Gilbert, Faraday , JJ Thompson, Lamara Hamiltonian mathematician who along with Tait developed the "slip knot" theory called an Electron and Lorentz who developed a magnetic rotational theory called the Electron . Thompson discovered and uncovered a constant relationship between 2 forces: the electro motive force and the force of gravity. Both these forces are constructs from empirical data regarding matter, but the underlying comparison is between Maxwell and Newtons conceptions of force. These concepts are similar by Coulombs formulation, and this is the heart of the Matter. In the end Maxwells structuring of Faradays empirical data lead Thompson to make this comparison.

However the comparison should have been between Faradays electromotive force , which he always and ever proclaimed as a magnetic kind of Energy and Newtons concept of energy, which is force producted with the displacement by that force. The constant then would simply have been "mass" per unit area or a kind of density pressure.

Thompson considered this in the light of Samuel Earnshaws decisive " mathematical" proof that like charges can never form a stable agglomeration and realised he had to place this constant in the heart of a counterbalancing quantity. In his rewriting of the corpuscular theory of his day, according to his light and data he posited a sticky or magnetic fluid mass in which these quantities existed together, only separating when sufficient electromotive force overcame their equilibrium status of attraction. In that case their natural repulsion would cause them to fly away as as Earnshaw described. This knotty and interdependent ratio of quantities had no name until Lamar and others urged Electron upon him, both to evidence their mathematical and theoretical position based on Quaternion analysis, and the magnetic rotational theory of Lorentz which also had the same name the electron.

The electron thus isnot nor never was a particle. It is a constant relationship between what was then thought to be 2 different elemental orces of nature the EMF being principally the force of Magnetism( more properly distinguished as Magneto Motive Force).

We do not need to continue these confusions in our modern age, but of course human failings and commercial interests will prevail! NB! I am reminded not to use Newtons name so glibly, for as is always the case what Newton preaches and what his so called students teach are 2 almost entirely different conceptions!

The original note was lost to the aether, unless you can recover it from the saved drafts Martin?

## Comments

There is no doubt that Searle discovered the correct structure for the decomposition of this rotating energy into frequency amplitude plots on the ring structures. The magnetic patterns are impress able ie imprintable onto the ring structures, but it requires a material like the rare earths to hold them stable.

I have already mentioned the difference between copper iron and aluminium. These rare earth metals are on the borders of the whole rare earth elements Neidinium is in the centre. The property of the material that makes magnetic imprinting possible is the formation of magnetic vortex domains.

In copper these domains are too fluid to hold structure. Thus almost immediately long vorticular twists form throughout copper wiring, and more especially if the wire is twisted during manufacture.

Within iron the crystalline structure supports magnetic Omanis. Within the guild of magnetic engineers this information is known and studied, unfortunately they fell victim to the electron ideology and despite having ample evidence of the domains and pictures of domain morphology they are unable to recognise the domain as vorticular.

Vortices take many shapes. In space where plasma is at its most fluid domains are spherical. In dense matter domains are necessarily squashed into multilateral multihedrsl forms.. Nevertheless they are still vorticular but clearly with a very complex gyre system.

Since the time of Gilbert it has been known how to develop and strengthen the magnetic power of these domains in ion. A process of paramagnetism is set out in the papers of the royal society detailing how to make ferromagnet of great power, equalling or surpassing that of the then lodestone standard, which was a multi " polar" crystal.

The belief in "electric driven" magnetism has lead to the magnet imprinting process being made more" efficient" using electromagnetic induction. However if you understand as I do that this so called electri current is really a rotating magnetic vortex in copper you can relate back directly to the old paramagnetic methods directly.

It is well known that to create a strong bar magnet the paramagnetic induction must be smooth and continuous. Ed gives some direct instruction in making magnets. However the magnets produced by not following this instruction are known to be multipolar. These multipolar magnets are discounted as " spoilt"!

Magnetic imprinting is being done by companies today who want to build powerful magnets in rare earth materials. What pattern of imprinting works best is perhaps an industrial secret, but what Searle has stated is the pattern on rings is given by his law of squares. These patterns naturally form a varying rotational power in the vortex around the rings. This is best described by the Fourier transform of the magnetic domin structures in the rings of rare earth materials.

By placing cylindrical coils or magnets in these field , once magnetised they I'll self rotate.. Today their are many magnetically driven motor generators that function very powerfully and demonstrably. Do they repeat the Searle Effect? Ostensibly yes, but the difference is in the design and engineering .

While this seems to be a diversion from the topic heading, I think it is still relevant as a working model of vortices around axes of rotation where the axis represents the wire and the it or represents the vortex.

I have left it in link form to relieve pressure on older machines .

We now can sensibly explain the behaviours of these structures using magnetic current. The Moulo 9 mathematics means we fo not need to over complicate the dynamics and symmetries of the sphere. This modulo 9 group is a ring and forms a quotient operator acting on the 3 dimensional space we inhabit. It records and imposes simple vibrational patterns on this space at frequencies that are also harmonic to 9 and geometrically harmonic to 9 .

You seem to have penchant for fancy mathematics and fascination with rotational/circular motion. I would like to offer you a mathematical challenge - a practice used to be common among the famous geometricians in the glory days of Bernoulli's. Here it is.

Click the geometrical sketch below to enlarge it. The lower cylinder,

, is at rest. The cylinders immediately above it,AandB, are rolling around the cylinderDwith no slippage: the center of each of the two rolling cylinders is rotating around the center of the resting cylinder with a constant angular velocityA. The uppermost cylinder,ω, is rolling between the cylindersCandBimmediately below it, without slippage as well.DThe radii of cylinders are given as shown on the sketch. Find the value of what is known in mathematics as the

for every point on each of the three moving cylinderscurl,BandC.DFirst you need to decide whether the described combination of rotational motions is indeed feasible. Then you need to see whether I have given you enough information to come up with a unique solution. In particular, is the solution of the problem invariant of the unspecified angle between the lines

andAB?ADGood luck.

and that of the magnetic fieldE? If no, why not? Why are so many contradictions in classical electrodynamics? These are important and difficult questions.BWhat is known as Maxwell's equations today is actually Heaviside's interpretation of the original equations of Maxwell or, shall we say, a stump produced by Heaviside's operation on a living body. Let us take a closer look at this stump and do some elementary counting. Here is what is called Maxwell's equations:

div(

E) = ρ/ε0curl(

E) = - ∂B/∂tdiv(

B) = 0curl(

B) = µ0(J+ ε0 ∂E/∂t)where

Eis the electric field,Bis the magnetic field,Jis the current density,ρis the charge density,ε0is the permittivity of free space,µ0is the permeability of free space.How many equations do we have here? Two scalar equations and two vector equations, i.e. we have 2 + 2x3 = 8 equations altogether. And how many unknowns do we have? Three vectors (

E,B,J) and one scalar (ρ), i.e. we have 3x3 + 1 = 10 unknowns altogether. But the number of equations should match the number of unknowns in a correctly stated mathematical problem. Something is obviously missing here for 8 ≠ 10!To close Maxwell's equations up, perhaps we should append them with the generalized version of Ohm's law due to Kirchhoff:

J= σE,where

σis a material dependent parameter called the conductivity.But that does not save us from mathematical inconsistency. Indeed, we have now 11 equations and 10 unknowns, still 11 ≠ 10!

What about Lorentz force law? Can it extricate us from the mathematical mess introduced by Heaviside into Maxwell's electrodynamics? Let us see. Here is Lorentz force law:

F= q(E+vxB)Charge

qand its velocityvdo not constitute new unknowns for they are linked to the charge distribution ρ and the current densityJ:qis a charge in a unit of volume, while qv=J. So, we simply introduced one moread-hocvector equation for the unknown vector of forceF. The math inconsistency problem didn't go away!Heaviside's stump is like an onion: the more you peel it off the more it stinks.

I will decline for now your invite, or at least delay consideration until I have time to .

In any case I do not see the relevance to the topic of the thread and would ask if we might communicate by email when I have time.

Indeed rotation is fundamental to revising the understanding of " the theory of Electromagnetism" , but it is even more fundamental for establishing subjective processing , within our brains, and within our unconscious proprioception of space . I express this insight hopefully none mathematically, because I am aware that mathematics is irrelevant. The empirical evidence and observation does not require it, only other humans do, and not the majority of them either!

My current thoughts in regard to this thread have focused on the " battery" ie the Leyden jar/ capacitor or the cell. What actually happens when a " short circuit" is engineered?

Rubbing 2 sticks together gives us a clue: the rotation generates intense rotation and that grows exponentially until the plasmas stream out taking with them bits of the dielectric and or conductor/ inductor. We call this fire and it generates heat and light.

Putting a loadin a circuit spreads this rotation out along the wire into devices engineered to generate heat and light. From this "magnetic" or rotational current .

For better observation, I've used aluminum C channel to demonstrate the effect, or two side by side pieces of aluminum bar stock 1.5"W x 2'L:

Two high speed spinning aluminum or copper disks will levitate a magnet with amazing stability. You can flick the magnet off it's axis and it will instantly reorient while in that levitated state. A gentleman named Andy Alcon from Texas patented the device nearly 25 years ago. He incorporated the concept into a sort of maglev style trolley system that has yet to be realized. About ten years ago he sent me videos demonstrating the effects. The videos timed out after a few days and I can't seem to find any demos on the net. http://www.google.com/patents/US5319336

Thanks for the link.

While Barau_R_Tours challenge is a pleasant " model" of rotational geometries around a "wire " and is potentially a step in an analytical direction , I think it detracts from the accessibility of this thread if it is answered here!

Your response is the kind of engineering detail which though technical is still graspable where the mathematics surely would not be.

I have mentioned before the relevance of Arago's disc in revealing the dynamic nature of "Magnetic" flux , and Barau gave us some fabulous insight into,Örsteds concepts of a rotational flux around a wire. The ideas are the same, and in fact consistent with observable behaviours in fluids. Where we have been duped is by the commercial aspirations of a few who wanted to control this natural resource everywhere around us and keep us ignorant of how to use it.

Heavisides redaction of Maxwell into 5 fundamental relations the fifth being the telegraph equation does not exhaust the theoretical musings of Axwell, or even his metaphysical ones. At the same time Faraday was suspicious of any mathematical formulation. Academia and Mechanicl technological engineering are unwilling bedfellows!

My stance is that the artisans, enthusiasts and engineers know more than any mathematical equation or formulation about what is really going on. Well at least as far as we can sensibly know.

My claim is that if we ditch the mathematics and look at the empirical data and experiments we can form a common sense consensus. What is more today we have technology that enables us to enhance our sensible appreciation: microscopes, videos tele visual transformers that are now known to be reliable. We can see to resolutions unheard of in Arago's time, we can resolve to measurements inconceivable by Fresnrl and Rayleigh, and we can transmit signals by deformations of space only barely conceived by Fouier.

These men wreathed their insights in mathmatical Jargon , but it is the engineers who built the technologies who really know what is going on!

When a radio ham says that n antennae is picking up energy from the surrounding space, he does not just confirm Tesla and Gilbert and other early pioneers he confirms Volta's opinion over that of Galvano's. Yet at these crucial moments a committee of men have decided to adopt a different view or none other reason than Humn frailty, backslapping and advantage!

The Magnetic Universe stands in contrast to the Electric universe. The electric universe is forging a new paradigm, But it is still in my opinion the wrong basis. The sound basis would be magnetism, as Ed Says , and from that I would only differ in describing magnetism as a rotational dynamic of space.

Indeed, this thread is probably not the best place to discuss the mathematical details of the model of electric current I have conceived recently, which I was trying to illustrate in maths language. I am working on a video with the purpose of presenting the model in a format more suitable for this forum.

However, I am not so sure about the validity of the following statement: I do not have the quotes handy at the moment, but, as far as I recall, Faraday longed for his ideas to be expressed in precise mathematical terms by someone who was capable of doing just that. And Maxwell turned out to be precisely that kind of person. In fact, Maxwell saw Faraday's methods as mathematical in essence: See more interesting quotes from Maxwell on Faraday here:

http://skullsinthestars.com/2009/07/25/maxwell-on-faraday/

Thank you again for your documentary evidence which caused me to verify my source.

http://hermital.org/book/holoprt4-4.htm

As it is pertinent, many men admit to changing the conceptions of others to thir own, either to promote their work or to improve that of others, but some do not or cannot because they are unaware that they have done so.

Maxwells lines of force as he conceived it was heavily based on fluid dynamics. However his concept of lines or vortices of force was based on inaccurate observation nd the primitive work of Navier and Stokes. The work of Helmholtz on vortex structure was not sufficiently distinct to alter his opinion and consequently his analogy of a comet tail is only partially correct. As you see in the diagram he does not admit a now wave , which old have bern sensible, let alone the true magnetic bubble we have learned exists in the solar wind!.

In contrast Faraday intuitively imagines that the space around an object acts upon it so as to impart energy of motion. While this is by no means the full opinion of Heaviside it is close enough to say that Heavisides redaction also removed concepts implanted by Maxwell that were contrary to Faradays empirical evidence.

Heavisides redaction barely acceded to Maxwells input, but rather names other greats whose ideas maxwell relied on. In any case it seems that Heaviside Hertz and Faraday and Örsteds were of a different philoshical opinion to faraday., whose only saving concept was the implicit fluid dynmic framework in which he sought to construct his theory.

The Maxwellians as they were called, we're inspired by his theoretical structure, but we're forced to make many modifications and adjustments to bring the theory into serviceable use.mkeybto this process was Fitzgeralds use of MacCullaghs " curl" concept, which attempted to derive all action from a potential that was rotational.

The concept of the curl is one of many possible rotations, but few realise that it is only a " token" of rotation. The advent of of rotational matrices dealt more directly with rotation, but the curl process was based on the quaternion Algrbra and thus gave clear clean results, especially by hand. The Curl still maintains its place in many formulations despite its odd behaviour..

With regard to your mathematical idea, either simply open a new thread on it or I will be willing to discuss it by email.

You have to view this on desk top. Restore h at beginning to locate.

The principle of electromagnetic induction generates magnetic current, rather than an electric current. When a galvonometer( a compass) Is deflected the vortex interacts with the magnet . When the vortex interacts with a copper wire the vortex establishes on the wire, but reflection creates a null vortex, that is the vortex superposed on itself by reflection and destructively interferes. This is not the same as saying there is no vortex around the induced wire.

Superposition of vortices or vorticular waves is rarely discussed but it occurs all the time in cymatic patterns in fluid materials.

When induction stops so does conduction of the magnetic vortex . The decaying vortex clearly decays in the opposite direction to the conduction of the induced vortex. The question is why does this disturbance have this flow pattern? It is experimentally measured by Ivor Catt in his Wakefield experiments.

There is a fundamental error in this point of view and that is the medieval and modern western view that these effects are individual unrelated resident powers. Even the ancient myths record that these powers were united in one super entity which or who could transform into any at will!

The triboelectric scale is hardly matched by a tribomagnetic scale. This is because of an academic bias toward electric and electronic description. Yet the great works of Gilbert and now my research shows Faraday did not obscure empirical data behind mind numbing symbolic arithmetics, the resemblance, or the interdependence or the identity of the tribological effects ON Electra and on Magnes were suspected, experimentally hinted at but certainly believed as a basis of scientific conjecture or religious faith by these paramount researchers into the phenomena.

However the comparison should have been between Faradays electromotive force , which he always and ever proclaimed as a magnetic kind of Energy and Newtons concept of energy, which is force producted with the displacement by that force. The constant then would simply have been "mass" per unit area or a kind of density pressure.

Thompson considered this in the light of Samuel Earnshaws decisive " mathematical" proof that like charges can never form a stable agglomeration and realised he had to place this constant in the heart of a counterbalancing quantity. In his rewriting of the corpuscular theory of his day, according to his light and data he posited a sticky or magnetic fluid mass in which these quantities existed together, only separating when sufficient electromotive force overcame their equilibrium status of attraction. In that case their natural repulsion would cause them to fly away as as Earnshaw described.

This knotty and interdependent ratio of quantities had no name until Lamar and others urged Electron upon him, both to evidence their mathematical and theoretical position based on Quaternion analysis, and the magnetic rotational theory of Lorentz which also had the same name the electron.

The electron thus isnot nor never was a particle. It is a constant relationship between what was then thought to be 2 different elemental orces of nature the EMF being principally the force of Magnetism( more properly distinguished as Magneto Motive Force).

We do not need to continue these confusions in our modern age, but of course human failings and commercial interests will prevail!

NB! I am reminded not to use Newtons name so glibly, for as is always the case what Newton preaches and what his so called students teach are 2 almost entirely different conceptions!

The original note was lost to the aether, unless you can recover it from the saved drafts Martin?

https://www.dropbox.com/s/2cbf1mwn0ppq9ae/ElectricCurrent.mp4