Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Powered by leedskalnin.com & buzzdev.net
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Comments
Ferromagnetic and paramagnetic materials are identical in the sense that, placed in a strong magnetic field, they both align the various types of 'little magnets', of which they are comprised, with the magnetic field, and, as a result, they get attracted to the magnet. The difference between ferromagnetic and paramagnetic materials is quantitative only: the induced magnetic field is much stronger in ferromagnetics than that in paramagnetics, and their Curie temperatures differ significantly.
But diamagnetic materials differ from ferromagnetic and paramagnetic materials qualitatively: the magnetic field induced inside the diamagnetic material is opposite to the inducing magnetic field. However, diamagnetic material can be said to be a counterpart of paramagnetic material in the sense that the reaction of both to the magnetic field is very weak.
It seems something is missing here. Where is the counterpart of ferromagnetic material - a material that would respond to the magnetic field in the manner of a diamagnetic material - only (unlike diamagnetics) very strongly. In other words, what seems missing here (robbing the whole picture of the possibility of having perfect symmetry) is a forth type of magnetic material: a material that is similar to ferromagnetics in the intensity of reaction, but similar to diamagnetics in the type of reaction to the presence of magnetic field.
If the existence of forth type of magnetic property can be conjectured, then diamagnetic material, perhaps, can be turned, somehow, into ... what we shall call it ... coramagnetic material. Since coral is of organic origin, I presume it is diamagnetic in normal conditions. Perhaps, Ed Leedskalnin had simply discovered a way to turn diamagnetic coral into coramagnetic condition. That would explain nicely the origin of the levitation he needed to perform all his construction miracles.
In order to expand your ability to apprehend what you are seeing, because Ken is a little confusing to the beginner who has not been inducted into his terrminology in his book, which I do recommend by the way, go to Laz Plaths TeeRoeKoid blog and view as well as download his free apps.
http://trochoid.blogspot.co.uk/
For those who want a browser implantation you will find one here.
oh no! It iss now a rescinded link! What a pity!
One of the facts of hisory is that the victor writes it as he pleases, thereby controlling the minds of generations to come.
If I was attempting to discuss a common phenomenon with another individual I would think it good practice to agree terms, but then I find that the other tends to disagree on terminology making it impossible to proceed to the discussion. This is nothing new. It is how we have communicated as long as we can remember. In fact the myth of the tower of Babel is precisely on this point.
I have an interest in what you present , and so I consider it my duty to learn your terminology. However that does not preclude me from using your words, or words in general in my own manner. In fact I can hardly do anything else! For if I were able to use words as you do how would we be distinguishable? I would then be in concordance with you, and to such an extent that you could justifiably accuse me of plagiarism!
Now generally plagiarism is thought to be academic bad practice in my experience. Yes it is a mechanical difficulty, but not an etheric one, nor even a deformation one!
A mechanical model while useful is a particular system. The general system does not have its constraints. In liquids even of relatively high viscosity stable systems are formed where the vortices play a dynamic role not possible in a rigid system. Ultimately in a fluid within a rigid boundary conditions block rotation is achieved, but where the boundary condition is dynamic no such block system is observed. We did tend to call it turbulent, but now we know that such systems in the large have a dynamic stability dependent on the environmental stability. Thus rotating an unrigidly constrained system , that is an unbounded system within a medium which is itself rotating develops long lived systems which maintain a form, though dynamic.
I have found it useful to let go of the bar magnet, and even the lodestone, and absorb the detailed dynamic representations of the sun. There I see structures that are dynamically stable over varying periods and conditions.
What is Kens model about? Ultimately it is not about a vector diagram, or a mechanical analogue. It is an attempt to describe a pattern of observable behaviours especially as revealed to our eyes through new display systems.
Iron filings is but one system or method of displaying the behaviour. We now have several others. Can we elicit from these displays a paradigm that explains them all?
Ken believes we can, and is attempting to expound it. Again he has had to take common but unfamiliar words and use them to communicate his insight. He is not always successful, but he keeps trying, and he attempts to be painfully consistent.
Gradually as I learn his terminology I apprehend what it is he is attempting to communicate. Is he right? I do not know yet because I do not understand everything he is saying yet, but my experience of what he demonstrates informs my own limited knowledge and prejudices and I change only as much as I think is necessary to accommodate new insights.
I have studied your diagrams and remind you that we have pondered this issue in another thread to do with smectic films under heat and "electric " potential in rotation. I think in the early part of how electricity runs in a wire.
Since then I have come to apprehend the difference between coupled systems which are deterministic ally coupled as in mechanical systems, and those which are stochastically coupled ( that is cohere to a certain statistical, probabilistic or stochastic coefficient).
We really have moved into the " quantum " era, by which I mean Einsteins simple mechanical expectations based on Newtons astrological principles have to be understood as an order of approximation.
Both systems you draw have there mechanical difficulties imposed by certain constraints. Both systems require but a little appropriate lubrication or lubricity to function, but then require differing external sources of drive to maintain a stable function, that is as mechanically coupled systems. The coupling coefficients for stability may well be horrendous to compute and may serve to indicate the limited stability of the systems.
So the question is: are they serviceable models of the observed behaviour? And again, are they even models of what Ken is expounding? We have to be careful not to set up " straw men" so we can knock them down and thus blind ourselves to what another is attempting to show us.
But natural philosophers and physicists of the 18th and 19th centuries - Jakob Bernoulli, Thomas Bayes, Fredrick Gauss, Pierre Laplace, James Maxwell, and many others - had a totally different, much wider, and much more encompassing understanding of the notion of probability. Probability theory - as Laplace put it succinctly - is nothing but common sense reduced to calculation. Edwin Jaynes was even more adamant about the really useful meaning of the notion of probability, which ought to be applicable way beyond the study of mass phenomena; he simply considered the theory of probability as an extension of deductive logic, i.e. as an extension of Aristotelian logic (deductive reasoning, which is nothing but a toy logic, basically useless outside the narrow domain of mathematics and computer science) to all-encompassing inductive logic (plausible reasoning, which is the real game in the real world).
Maxwell also subscribed to this wider understanding of the notion of probability as a foundation of plausible inference entitled on the evidence to partial assent:
I value your comment and critique very highly Barau, but that does not mean I always agree with your exposition, rather it means " iron sharpens iron" and together we cover the ground in a way that is as rigorous as we can bear.
That being said there ay be some dynamically stable systems that are very much gear systems.
Rigidity is also imaginary and relative: rotate a thin plastic wire - very flexible and relatively soft object at rest - with great speed, and you will get a grass cutter as rigid as steel blade.
One doesn't have to think of Maxwell's wheels as "mechanical" objects with teeth; in fact, they can be very "magnetic". That's what, in part, I am trying to demonstrate with this video.
What sorely missing in mechanics, which is still at the baby stage as Newton perceived it, is the recognition of inherently fractal structure of matter. Add to Newtonian mechanics the principle of scale invariance with uncompromising logical consistency and go boldly wherever it leads you, regardless how crazy may appear at first the conclusions you ultimately arrive at.
I'll give you just one example of "crazy" conclusion that follows inexorably from the principle of scale invariance: there is no preferred, or God chosen scale in nature - all scales must necessarily be of the same basic nature, obeying the same rules (or laws, as we call them). The existence of special "probabilistic" laws at "quantum" scales is utter nonsense - there is no such thing as "quantum" scale - all scales have the same "rights", there are no special scales.
Before the 20th century, natural philosophers believed in the existence of ether - a fine substance that permeates all space. If we are to follow the principle of scale invariance to its ultimate logical conclusion, we have to not only go back to the sane concepts (that were prevalent in physics before the nonsense of Einstein's version of relativity along with the mysticism of quantum mechanics settled firmly in during the first half of the last century) but go even further and conjecture the existence of ether2 finer than ether1, ether3 finer than ether2, ... ad infinitum.
If only we could figure out how the interaction between the hierarchical layers of this ether matryoshka actually works, the variety and richness of phenomena that might open before our eyes, I suggest, would be absolutely mind boggling.
I envision the so-called equipartition theorem as the first casualty of this interaction between different hierarchical layers of the ether. With the fall of the equipartition theorem, we'll get an entirely new perspective and insight into how things work in nature. Basically, this is a doorway to the phenomena we casually call "quantum" today, and, quite possibly, way beyond - to the phenomena we have never even dreamed of.
Here Marko simply claims spiritual insight into the way that the great name of god encodes energetic and dynamic behaviours which we observe empirically, and others we do not but which he observes by his spiritual insight
You are not crazy Barau. Newton however was cautious of precisely this sort of infinite regress, as we're many philosophers including Kant. It was felt that man can and should only know so much, and should not meddle in Gods affairs, or what is transcendent.
Because of Benoit Mandelbrot we have been able to invoke the very real formal model call fractal geometry as quite distinct and other to a God or God. As a natural philosopher I welcome the freedom such a fractal paradigm brings with it over the former ideas of Ethers, or Aethers.
As such aethers multiplied beyond any bounds or conventions, it became impossible to have sensible philosophical discourse. In addition occultism was a grave accusation, especially in Newtons day , wherein a man of any estate may be condemned to death on mere suspicion of it!
Behind the scenes even today the church inquisition still works to control the bastions of its beliefs against such heretical and damnable blasphemies.
Therefore I free myself from such affiliations as may hamper my thought, and such conventions as may carry the express will of behind the scene" others".
Resting upon Newton and thus Kant and finally Einstein has brought us to this confused state of affairs. Quantum mechanics attempts to break that historical bond, albeit by an Arcane mathematical or logical positivism. Whether we admit to it or not our thinking has been controlled by one way or another from the time of the triumphant rise of science and technology over religion, with few realising that the most prominent scientists were in fact men of the established or state religions.
I am not anti religion, just anti coercion! Consequently I have many sources of explanatory systems by which I attempt to cross check and contrast what is presented to me.
By this process I gradually formulate my own opinion , but ultimately I rely upon a fundamental fractal distribution of regions within and of space.
First about Ken Wheeler which raise the important question of how a magnetic field look like.
I think he should take into account that every particle which the magnetic force is
passing through, whether it's an iron filling / photon / atom / aether / particles in his
TV screen or the viewing film he is using - will create a "Sub Magnetic Effect" since
it will polarized by the magnetic field and will start to affect the other particles
surrounding it, so the whole group will take a certain pattern that will make us
thinking we are watching the real magnetic field pattern, while in fact it's not the case.
Second, instead of adding the two poles - which could help him in his theory,
he chose to disregard them as non existed without any intelligent explanation for that
and I think it's a mistake.
I agree with you Barau that everything in nature is mechanical but at the same time
relativistic like the example you brought of the plastic thread that cuts the grass
blades.
By the way in the video you put up of the "electron chain rings" you did not explained
right how electricity runs in the wire, since the electrons drifting in one direction (in DC)
while the electric force is coming from the other direction at speed close to the speed
of light and this is the electricity that we consider to run in the wire. According to the
accepted theory the electrons exit the (-) and the electric force from the (+) sides of the
battery. Not that I agree with that, but this is the theory.
Second thought about this video is that the "electron's chain link" will work only if the
wire was made of "one lane electrons" but we know it's not the case and if you add
other chains all around your chain the model will not work.
Hiya random mind thanks for dropping in.
Ken can defend his own position doubtless, but my position is that I do not preempt a final judgement by imperfect knowledge.
Ley x be what I currently believe. Then let me judge it as " right"
Let y be what another believes . It is not x therefore I judge it "wrong".
I may go further and state x is true and y is false.
I try to avoid these kinds of evaluation chains as ultimately binding me to a fixed position x that may later be proved to be imperfect or defective.
When someone is trying very hard to tell me something , I try to listen, adopt their points of view and try out their empirical experiments, always reserving final judgement until I have evolved a conclusive response.
Because I reserve judgement I am not misled or taken in, as those who are skeptical often are afraid to be. Skepticism does not mean fear of the unknown or preempting of judgement in my view.
As such I find no need to be rude or coercive because of an idea that at first I find unfamiliar or even threatening. Often ken responds as if he expects all to be rude to him. Many may be but some might take the time to fully evaluate before concluding,
Somehow once again I have lost the last paragraph of this post to the aether!
Continue critiquing please as it helps me was the gist!
How does energy enter at one end of the wire, propagate along the wire with the speed of light, and exit at the other end of the wire? Let us resort to a mechanical analogy to understand this. Think of Newton's cradle. You see how energy (in the form of kinetic energy of translational motion) enters at one end of the "wire", propagates along the "wire" with great speed (equal to that of wave propagation in steel), and exits at the other end of the "wire". My idea was to illustrate how the propagation of electric energy can be understood and visualized in the same simple fashion.
You see, the inter-medium steel balls in Newton's cradle move neither much nor fast, nevertheless the energy propagates with great speed. My idea is that, in the case of electricity, all we need to change in this model is: replace balls with wheels, translational motion with spinning motion, steel medium with ether medium. And you have a very simple model of propagation of electric energy along the wire, where our "electron-wheels" undergo extremely fast spinning back and forth motion (rather than slow drifting back and forth, as we are taught today), and, notwithstanding that "electron-wheels" do not change their positions at all, the energy itself (in the form of rotational motion, and not translational motion) propagates with the speed of light.
But I do not agree that "if you add other chains all around your chain the model will not work". Firstly, remember that, due to Heaviside, we know that the process of electricity propagation is basically taking place on the surface of the wire, not inside it. Secondly, check out On Physical Lines of Force, p. 38 to see how two-dimensional version of the model works (pay attention to that part of the diagram with cell-like large vortices surrounded by small "idle" vortices).
Electrons are, perhaps, the small "idle" vortices that play the role of lubricant and thus make the spinning of bigger knots (atoms?), a.k.a. bigger vortices, in the same direction possible. If so, the seat of "electric" energy would be mostly the spinning motion of large atom-vortices rather than small "idle" electron-vortices.
My base assumption is that nobody yet (me among) show that he knows how magnetic field look
like..... I raised two important points on Ken Wheeler model, the first that the particles which the
magnetic force pass through them will turn temporary magnets and create all kind of patterns due
to that, which might mislead the observer. second point is about the two poles which he claim
they don't exist. I think I did that in a fair way without attacking or using rude words.
I also suggest Ken to show new tests with electricity and magnetism using his model.
Also I would be glad to hear more comments from you on my first claim, since I think it applied
to almost all magnetic models.
Indeed, here is what Maxwell says on p. 164: Few lines below, on the next page, he continues (underlined emphasis is ours): It seems to me that Ed Leedskalnin knew better, and he would never confuse the notion of magnetic pole with the completely different notion of polarity.
Magnetic pole is a notion which is far more intricate than the simple notion of polarity as mere indicator of the direction of rotation.