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

What I alo hope for is a basic level of kindness and a willingness to give everyday examples of any abstruse symbolism, so we may all understand and the presenter may convince himself by our understanding that they know whereof they speak!,

http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/ORTHOGONAL/04/EMExtra.html

In my discussions and correspondence with Ivor Catt I have come to learn of the degenerate practice that maintains the current electromagnetic paradigm. I would encourage all to read his writings.

http://www.ivorcatt.org/

While Lionel Dinu may not have it right he is willing to explore alternative common sense approaches. When you know Newton considered this experiment but only used a single cylinder you catch an insight into how straightforward understnding Magnetim etc could really be.

Powered by leedskalnin.com & buzzdev.net

^

## Comments

Dinu does not realise the contra rotating spirals that surround a conductor / inductor.

These gyres , depend on the viscosity of the material and its bulk properties. It is these so called emissivity and permeability as well as inertial properties of matter, each being a specific measur of a metaphysical experience, which we define ultimately as magnetic, electric, thermic and elastic.

The final form of all material systems in dynamic equilibrium is spheroidal. The spheroid in its dynamic states may have 0 to an uncountable number of " holes". This topological surface and volume is poorly understood. The surface can be finitely described but the volume is not at that stage, and this description is highly abstruse, unless we stick to the donut terminology.

In any case the best modern example of the dynamism of such vortices is our current filmography of our sun.

In and of itself it is in constant rotational motion at all radial scales. These rotational entities are fractal in nature and fractally distributed as space. We may characterise their gyre into 3 types: radially contracting, radially expanding and radially stable. As a system they represent the thre aspects of the Newtonian concept of motive, and my exposition of that concept as Newtonian fluid motive or " energy".

Newtons axiom of motion is thus suitably expounded as to every energy action, there is an equal and opposite energy reaction, such that the status quo is maintained or moved into another state of dynamic equilibrium. This constitutes the fundamental inertial web and wave reaction of space.

Energy as a motive is transformational, and it's most prominent transformation is as force, with undulatory or rotational motion behaviour as a visible manifestation. The invisible manifestations of energy are heat and light , the magneto Thermo electric behaviours in and of space.

Newton proposed and introduced a quantification of certain physical concepts and experiences. Thus, as he stated, he hoped to discover something of these concepts and their behaviours and relationships by means of measures agreed to model the concept or some aspect of the experience.

These measures reveal to the quantifying mind nothing new beyond the experiencing or conscious mind and indeed a great deal less, yet if this is all we can do to interact with and label these experiences we can do the very best we can with what we have got!

The data that is these recorded measurements, and the fomal processes of obtaining these measures, that is the formula or algorithm , by inspection, counting and other arithmetics can enable us to construct a formal dynamic system. How is this done?

Well precisely by the axios Newton lays out stepwise as his 5 or 6 axioms of a body in motion.

It is often said Newton did not derive the notation we use for angular momentum, but rotation was the foundation of his method and principals in his Astrological Principles( Principia Mathematica).

We get short shrift from teachers of Newtonian principles, articulately when it comes to the so called third law simplified to action and reaction statement.

Newton expressed a general principle applying to all actions. Now an action is a very complex concept. This law does not fully set out all complex actions, because it would be impossible even to describe the simplest action of pushing! Instead Newton draws attention to a principal of model synthesis: whatever model is constructed must exhibit a reactionary potential! For every analysis of an action , however described a description of a complementary or conjugate reaction must also be given.

Why?

This question leads into the 4 th axiom or law, rarely taught, and that is the inertial structure of motion behaviours in space. .in fact hydrodynamics and dynamic and static equilibria are all manifestations of this 4 th and later axioms.

Throughout his astrological principles Newton applies and references well known physical concepts and measures found in the philoshical mechanics of Galileo , Archimedes and others. For example his use of the concet of density is that of the notion of density discovered by Archimedes. We can immediately draw from this that fluid behaviours especially liquids were of interest to him, but in the Archimedian sense of reacting resistivity to rigid or elastic bodies in motion within them

Newton considered wave motion too, but these liquid motio s and concepts were not quantified generally. Liquids might be given some relatively easy polynomial form to which differential calculus and Fluxions or derivative calculus (time step variation) could be employed.

The iterative or recursive. Nature and veracity of these methods of analysing Nd synthesing the causal relationships( assumed) are swept up under the general notion of an action,

In his second book Newton advances as far as he can go on the basis of a resistive medium. His notion of lubricity was thus the reason why he could not derive any correct general formulae. He needed the concept of fluids as a moving body capable of impacting on its surroundings, not just resisting the motion of solids.

The inverse notion to lubricity is now generally called viscosity. In terms of the description of properties of matter it is the fundamental concept in my opinion. All matter can be characterised by its regional viscosity profile, a notion that supersedes the derived lubricity or streamline profile still commonly used.

The definition and understanding of viscosity as a mechanical property measure requires it to be defined in terms of rotation of " viscous" media, not in terms of slipping parallel surfaces or Hookes springs stretched in parallel. Elasticity is modelled in these previous ways , but of course the twists in the spring are ignored in this context. While putting them back in to the model reveals the complexity of the required model, it is still misleading as a more complex trochoidal rotational model is required even for the dimplest cases!

Unknown to Newton, this model was gradually developed by others in the context of heat convection and transmission but eventually requires a bold conjecture by Foutier to develop what we now call the Fourier transform method. This was a widespread movement by Euler, LaGrange, LaPlace, Dalambert and others, but drawn together by Fourirs paper of 1807 and his memoirs.

Fourier modelled form not by rectangles and parallelapioeds but by circles and spheres. Even today mathematicians do not understand this clearly.

Newton quantified concepts using the rectilinear form of geometry , but thanks to Ruler and Ciges, a curvilinear geometry or rather metric was developed. Even though Newton and others like Wren etc and Huygens used the unit circle extensively , they shied away from using the circumference as a valid measure. The reason being that we can ever determine pi! However, pragmatically we do not have to. Euler simply states that he calculated pi to a couple of hundred decimal places and that was good enough for everyday use! In fact most engineering still only uses 6 decimal places!

The only objection to this pragmatics is we are unable to say anything about ultimate truth through an approximation! While this may be philosophically moot, one has to observe that we can say a lot about real space and real spatial behaviours by this approximation, and more importantly by the algebraic processes employed to model equateable measurements .

One other thing is the lost understanding of the meaning of expression, equation, formula rtc generally by mathematicians who focus solely on the symbolic manipultions.

Any model is an expression of a state of affairs or a system of relations. The relations themselves may be formulae defining calculation processes to determine measures, or representations of constraints on various parameters, which mean that certain parameters may be defined as a process involving others, or may be equated as the same measure.

Finally the concept of equating or forming equations is strict. It is not based on cardinal value being equal, but in dimensions or units being equivalent first,and then value being equal second. An equation must equate the units of measure and the cardinal clue to be a valid equation

As you may see, the effect of gyre us to promote internal filamentation. This behaviour is gyroscopic and allows the maintenance of stable dynamic regional behaviours locally while permitting global stringlike behaviours including knotting! It should also be noted that cylindrical behaviours are evident, because Newyon attempted to derive expressions based on a Fluxions analyss of rigid cylinders. However he failed to notice the interstitial anti ritationl layers in his model, be se he failed to understand fluids as viscous not just restive media.

Vortex rings and associated plumes fundamentally change the basis of fluid dynamics and mechanics.

An inward gyre is functionally and structurally different from an outward gyre, in a liquid. The toroidal structure for vortex flow a la Russel and others is misleading.

The torus is only a mathematical model. The real structure is like a smoke ring with its trailing and connecting plume. When we see a tornado we see the top of the smoke ring or plume on the ground , with the rising column being the ejecting plume. Similarly when we watch water draining down a plug hole we see the top of the ring with the ejecting plume falling downwards.

In the case of an injecting plume we see the initial jet pressured into a spherical or spheroidal shape as the plume flattens into a sheet or surface that deforms into a smoke ring donut vortex.

In all cases the form arises as different layers travelling at different spiral speeds form a dynamic stable structure.

A stream or filament travelling as a " current"can sit next to a body of water , also moving but at one tenth the spiral speed.

We observe this but discount it. Lubricity seems n appropriate concept in these circumstances except that we know that the interface of differently moving currents is a region of " turbulence! We can mechanically model this behaviour by means of ball bearing racers. Thus turbulence is a region of counter rotations that gives larger more cohesive bodies of fluids the lubrication to move at different velocities relative to each other. Friction is greatly reduced.

The slower moving regions should have a higher volumetric pressure but a lower stopping pressure than the faster moving streams. These streams are in other settings called filaments . Where and how they form is being studied in terms of ink drop plumes .

What a plume looks like as it ejects is studied with regard to volcanoes and high energy Plasmoid discharges..

The colours of turbulence.

On a simplistic scale filamentation of plumes and mushroom shaped ring vortices as structures provides us with a string or tensile rope that connects regions of space. These strings attach into bodies and provide attraction and or repulsive links. We may call these behaviour electro magnetism, but I prefer magneto Thermo electro complexes or simply trochoidal spaciometric( rotational) coupling.

Gravity is in this scheme a large scale phenomenon, quite weak because the attraction and repulsion act so closely together in a time step fashion. To understand this I have looked at rotating ferromagnetic bars. In that mode they represent a rotating multipolar lodestone. Consequently they both attract and repel ny stationary bar magnet, but the consequence as seen in space is to impart rotational motion to an initially stationary bar ( ie in a common reference frame in which one bar is rotating while the other is initially stationary). These represent Newtons posited centrifugal and centripetal motives which transform into impulse or continuously varying pressures ( or for point masses forces) which Newton remarked were equally possible.

The elaborate framework I have outlined is to redefine the notion of " charge " which indeed is part of an alternative model which leaves such concepts as fundamentally obscure.and non mechanical in the classical sense. I learned from Volta that he regarded this charge concept only as a short notation for the more general attractive and repulsive fundamental forces. Such forces were axiomatic in his time but inexplicable without a basic coupling transmission.

Newtons analysis required strings pulleys and tensile force reactions, but the mysterious inertial reaction of space was too complex to detail exhaustively. In particular the assumption of utter vacuum, or absolute nothingness immediately removed any coupling transmissions! While he concluded that space was not empty but of varying densities , his lack of knowledge of fluid behaviours forced him to conclude that it might as well be with regard to force transmission or rather pressure transmission. Thus he concluded that " action at a distance" was the unsatisfactory but only conclusion he could draw. He hoped that later generations would discover what he searched so hard for Alchmically, but apparently never found.

The only insightful comment he made was to concur with Gilbert and Boyle that magnetism was a suitable model for gravitational attraction. It also turns out that he drew inspiration from Hookes careful analysis of force and orbital motions as well as his measurements of magnetic force. Hooke was originally among the giants Newton referred to, but a bitter argument lead to Newton diminishing his influence on him in the Principia. Later as Chair of the Royal Society Newton set about burying all Hookes research papers in regard to gravitational orbits and light! Hardly a gentlemanly thing to do! It reveals a basic insecurity in his character which smacks of autism, but in any case by this time mercury poisoning had sent him down the road to irrational behaviours and anxieties.

As Newton explains in his famous letter to Bentley, he was not quite happy with the notion of instantaneous action-at-a-distance: But, contrary to the widespread belief, the notion of physical field conceived by Faraday and implemented mathematically by Maxwell does not resolve the action-at-a-distance puzzle. Indeed, field theory, which supposedly denies the intelligibility of distant action, nevertheless ends up invoking (albeit on a very small scale) what appears to be elementary attraction between distinct and separate entities. Maxwell himself clearly recognized this aspect of his theory when he wrote: The qualifier “sensible” is obviously intended to side-step the fact that his “explanation of the facts” does still assume the existence of forces capable of acting at a distance, but he excuses this on the grounds that it is not a “sensible” distance. This can certainly be criticized, since if the objection to action at a distance is based on principle, then it isn't clear why it should be considered more acceptable over short distances than over long distances. To be fair though, it should be pointed out that Maxwell never claimed that he resolved the "action at a distance" problem: and elsewhere he said even more pointedly It is entirely doubtful that today's version of field concept is, in principle, capable of successful resolution of the "action at a distance" puzzle. Why is that? Because this conception is inseparable from the notion of mathematical functions

differentiable almost everywhere, which makes it incompatible with scale invariance. A fresh look at the very foundations of mathematics might be in order here.There are some fascinating and encouraging developments in that direction. For example, Norman Wildberger - an Associate Professor in mathematics at UNSW in Sydney Australia - shows clearly that one can build differential calculus from the ground up successfully without making any use of the contemporary mathematics' notions of infinite sets, functions, limits, Cauchy sequences, or even the very notion of continuum. See his Mathematics on trial - why modern pure mathematics doesn't work - an insightful account of logical weakness in pure mathematics.

The complete description of material point is rendered by specifying one scalar quantity (its mass) and one vector quantity (its

velocity). I believe that the conception of material point based on such a definition has a fatal drawback which, in the final analysis, is responsible for the failure of all attempts (including that of Maxwell) to offer a successfultranslationalmechanicalmodel for treating electromagnetic phenomena.What exactly is the problem with the existing definition of material point that renders it impotent for dealing with phenomena where rotational motion in a continuous medium of substance plays dominating role (like the phenomenon of turbulence of which magnetic action is but one manifestation)?

The answer induced by the question itself is a simple one: the definition of material point has nothing to say about the

mode of motion. But, strangely enough, Newtonian mechanics, built on the notion of material point capable ofrotational, deals quite successfully with some phenomena where the rotational motion is manifest - spinning and rotating tops and gyroscopes. How is that possible?translational motion onlyRand heightH. What is the area of the lateral surface of the cylinder? Every high-school student knows the answer:S = 2πRH. But let's imagine that we are back in Archimedes' time and we do not have the formula for the surface area of a cylinder. What could we do to find that area, at least approximately?We could mark a lot of points on the lateral surface of the cylinder and connect the neighboring points with straight lines in such a way that to form a lot of little triangles, calculate the area of each triangle, and then add them all up. Now, if we cover the whole lateral surface of the cylinder with such a dense network of points that the largest distance between any two neighboring points is approaching zero, then intuition might suggest that the combined area of ever growing count of ever getting smaller triangles will ultimately approach the true surface area of the cylinder.

Nevertheless the intuition is dead wrong here! See details at: Cylinder Area Paradox.

But what does this little exercise has to do with the subject of this discussion? Think about it.

It is appropriate to recall here that Faraday, while speaking of his

lines of force, had in mind an understanding of force that is quite different from the concept offorceconceived by Newton (and adhered to by Maxwell): It seems rather obvious that Faraday's meaning offorceis closer to the modern concept of energy, just like Leibniz'slive forceimplies energy rather than "the tendency of a body to pass from one place to another."The base in modern theory is charge, and it is called electric, and then when moving it is called current which is both electric and relativistic. The relativistic notion is essentially charge density variation. This is used to obscure arbitrary introduction of "magnetic " rules.

The highly mathematical symbolic notation dissuades much common sense assessment of the current electromagnetic theory.