[Physics] Magnetic Vortex Spin Discovery

[Arend Lammertink]

Hi all,



On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 11:27 PM, Doug Marett <dm88dm at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hey Zoltan,
>
>    I watched that YouTube video after you posted it to Arend - I think it is
> pretty clear what is happening - there must be a current passing through the
> water above the magnet (which is generating the electrolysis bubbles) and
> those moving particles/ charged bubbles are then experiencing a Lorentz
> force in the magnetic field, so they start rotating, just like as if they
> were a disk in a unipolar (homopolar) motor. That's why when you flip the
> magnet the rotation reverses. Interesting effect to see it in water, but
> this is not new science by any stretch of the imagination : ) .

Perhaps one should ask the question: "what is the Lorentz force"?

According to Koen van Vlaenderen, there is a problem there in that it
violates Newton's 3d law of motion (action = -reaction):

http://vixra.org/abs/1512.0297

"Maxwell’s Classical Electrodynamics (MCED) shows several related in-
consistencies, as the consequence of a single false premise. The Lorentz
force law of MCED violates Newton’s Third Law of Motion (N3LM) in
case of General Magnetostatics (GMS) current distributions, that are not
necessarily divergence free. A consistent GMS theory is defined by means
of Whittaker’s force law, which requires a scalar magnetic force field, B L .
The field B L mediates a longitudinal Amp`ere force, similar to the vec-
tor magnetic field, B T , that mediates a transverse Amp`ere force. The
sum of transverse- and longitudinal Amp`ere forces obeys N3LM for sta-
tionary currents in general. The scalar field, B Φ , is also a physical, as a
consequence of charge continuity.
MCED does not treat the induction of the electric field, E L , by a time
varying B L field, so MCED does not cover the reason for adding E L to
the superimposed electric field, E. The exclusion of E L from E simplifies
MCED to Classical Electrodynamics (CED). The MCED Jefimenko fields
show a far field contradiction, that is not shown by the CED fields. CED
is based on the Lorentz force and therefore violates N3LM as well."

>
> Doug
>
> On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 7:45 AM, Zoltan Losonc <feprinciples at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Arend,
>>
>> In your article “On Space, Time and the Fabric of Nature“
>> https://steemit.com/science/@lamare/on-space-time-and-the-fabric-of-nature
>> you wrote this:
>>
>> “Now let us consider the rotational nature of the magnetic field of a
>> permanent magnet. This can be made visible by placing a permanent magnet
>> under water and use it as an electrode in an electrolysis process. At
>> YouTube, several examples of such an experiment can be found (1, 2, 3),
>> which show that the magnetic field of a permanent magnet actually has a
>> vortex nature:
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAl1LVPbYhY
>>
>> Since these are permanent magnets connected to a DC power supply, it is
>> hard to imagine a transverse electromagnetic wave propagating along the
>> surface of the magnet to be responsible for inducing the vortex, because
>> that would also generate electromagnetic radiation, which would probably
>> have been detected by now. If we assume this to be correct, then if the
>> nature of the magnetic field would be like in Maxwell's multi-vortex-tube
>> model, we would not expect a vortex to appear in the water. For this reason,
>> we must reject Maxwell's multi-vortex model filling all space.”
>>
>> In the video “MAGNETIC VORTEX SPIN DISCOVERY, Sept. 2011, TORNADO
>> UNDERWAT.mp4”
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAl1LVPbYhY
>>
>> The narrator says: “This video that I made basically shows conclusive
>> proof that magnets generate helical vortex, a tornado type of magnetic field
>> that is unknown to science…” later on he claims: ”…did not see any type of
>> explanation how this happens…”. Basically he implies that classical science
>> can not explain the observed phenomenon why the electrolyte starts rotating
>> around a vertical axis and creates the appearance of a tornado like helical
>> vortex of bubbles.
>>
>> Do you agree with his claims? How do you explain the spin of the
>> electrolyte?
>>

I believe magnetism actually *is* a vortex c.q. rotation in the
medium, the aether, and that the vortices we see in this experiment
actually are caused by the electrolyte spinning along with the
magnetic aether vortex created by the permanent magnet. And actually,
Maxwell also described magnetism as having a rotational/vorticity
nature:

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_Physical_Lines_of_Force

"If we observe the lines of force between two magnets, as indicated by
iron filings, we shall see that whenever the lines of force pass from
one pole to another, there is attraction between those poles; and
where the lines of force from the poles avoid each other and are
dispersed into space, the poles repel each other, so that in both
cases they arc drawn in the direction of the resultant of the lines of
force.

It appears therefore that the stress in the axis of a line of magnetic
force is a tension, like that of a rope.

If we calculate the lines of force in the neighbourhood of two
gravitating bodies, we shall find them the same in direction as those
near two magnetic poles of the same name; but we know that the
mechanical effect is that of attraction instead of repulsion. The
lines of force in this case do not run between the bodies, but avoid
each other, and are dispersed over space. In order to produce the
effect of attraction, the stress along the lines of gravitating force
must be a pressure.

Let us now suppose that the phenomena of magnetism depend on the
existence of a tension in the direction of the lines of force,
combined with a hydrostatic pressure; or in other words, a pressure
greater in the equatorial than in the axial direction: the next
question is, what mechanical explanation can we give of this
inequality of pressures in a fluid or mobile medium? The explanation
which most readily occurs to the mind is that the excess of pressure
in the equatorial direction arises from the centrifugal force of
vortices or eddies in the medium having their axes in directions
parallel to the lines of force.

This explanation of the cause of the inequality of pressures at once
suggests the means of representing the dipolar character of the line
of force. Every vortex is essentially dipolar, the two extremities of
its axis being distinguished by the direction of its revolution as
observed from those points.

We also know that when electricity circulates in a conductor, it
produces lines of magnetic force passing through the circuit, the
direction of the lines depending on the direction of the circulation.
Let us suppose that the direction of revolution of our vortices is
that in which vitreous electricity must revolve in order to produce
lines of force whose direction within the circuit is the same as that
of the given lines of force.

We shall suppose at present that all the vortices in any one part of
the field are revolving in the same direction about axes nearly
parallel, but that in passing from one part of the field to another,
the direction of the axes, the velocity of rotation, and the density
of the substance of the vortices are subject to change. "



If this is true, then we have somewhat of a mystery in why "positive"
and "negative" charges would behave differently, which I believe can
be explained analogous to "acoustic" propulsion, as can be
demonstrated by Helmholtz resonators:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=je7eLZS6GG0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoEyIJx3uM0

In the second YT vid, it is demonstrated one can distinguish the flame
on a candle, by means of the *appearance* of a net air flow coming out
of an Helmholtz resonator brought into resonance. I believe something
akin to that is happening with "charges", whereby with one type of
charge we have the *appearance* of a net inflow of aether (low
pressure) and the other we have the *appearance* of a net outflow of
aether (high pressure).

I have no idea how to work this out mathematically, though.

Regards,

Arend.