[Physics] Magnetic Vortex Spin Discovery

[Zoltan Losonc]

Hi Arend,

Arend wrote:
”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.”

Referring to magnetic field lines as merely being the vortices of aether is not sufficient to accurately describe what you mean; you have to be more specific. Vortex in general means a whirling mass or rotary motion in a fluid (it does not have to be helical). But vortices can have different lengths, shapes, sizes, trajectories etc. and there can be huge differences between their nature and effects. 

Maxwell has described the magnetic field as consisting of double vortices, or more accurately closed (macroscopic) loops made of very thin (microscopic) vortex tubes. The only difference between Maxwell’s model and the modern official scientific model is that today the magnetic field lines are not considered to be made of vortex tubes, but otherwise their lengthwise macroscopic shape is the same as Maxwell’s. 

An electrical engineer supposed to know that a simple permanent magnet used in the video will not have a helical magnetic field that you have described. Its shape is toroid. The resultant magnetic field above the magnet in the video is composed of two fields. One is generated by the magnet and the other is created by the current. If you consider the B field of the current’s vertical component then that will create a circular magnetic field in horizontal plane. If you add the horizontal components of the B vectors of this filed to the vertical components of the B vectors originating from the magnet then it is possible in theory to get a slightly helical B field shape. I say “in theory” and “slightly”, because the magnetic field strength circulating in the horizontal plane originating form the current is orders of magnitude weaker than that of the permanent magnet in vertical plane. Therefore if you could see the shape of the resultant field lines, you would not be able to see any signs of helical shape. The weak magnetic field of the current has a negligible effect on the resultant field shape.

But even if we would assume that the shape of the magnetic filed above the magnet would be distinctly helical in vertical direction (which is false), it is still a grave error to think and say that the charges (which are ions in this case) would experience a force parallel to these spiral magnetic field lines. Only an electric field exerts a force parallel to the electric field lines on charges, a magnetic field does not do that. The direction of the force exerted by magnetic fields on charges is always perpendicular to the direction of the magnetic field lines according to the Lorentz law (and not parallel).

The video maker has committed a double blunder. First he has thought that the shape of the magnetic field is distinctly helical around the vertical axis of the magnet. Second he has thought that the bubbles and the electrolyte are experiencing a force parallel to these spiral magnetic field lines. He has shown no awareness about the Lorentz force, thus he has proved himself to be a crackpot.

The Lorentz force perfectly explains why the electrolyte and bubbles follow the trajectory of a vertical helix, just as Doug has already mentioned. As far as I know the author of the video did not claim to be a physicists, or a scientist, or even an electrical engineer. Therefore I don’t really blame him for not knowing electromagnetics. It is still nasty of him though, to try debunking scientists with comments like: “…this is just my small attempt to basically kick the butts of scientists out there who says this is impossible…”

I am aware that the authorities of the official science behave like priests and often like inquisitors of a “science religion”, and that there are holes in the official science. I am also convinced that this behavior is not accidental, and it is not because all the scientists are unable to recognize the truth. They stick to certain dogmas, primarily because of corporate financial interests. They must hide certain nuggets of true knowledge from the people, because those would certainly destroy the overwhelming power of the oligarchs over the population. Think of the energy sector… But it is not up to a complete ignoramus to correct them. If he wants to do that, then he supposed to invest few years first to study what is already known, and then try to find better alternative explanations. With crackpot videos like this, these guys are just discrediting the alternative (or dissident) scientific research, and actually serve the interests of the very masters they apparently attempt to criticize. 

Even though the ignorance of the video maker can be excused, because he did not claim to have relevant scientific degrees, Arend on the other hand claims to have an MScEE degree. Thus Arend, it was expected from you that you should have recognized that the video presents a crackpot explanation, and not to use it in your article. It is getting even worse, because you are still sticking to false ideas and unwilling to acknowledge the mistake, despite that Doug has already given away the correct explanation on 21th November. If this would be the only mistake in your presentation, I would say let’s skip over it, but there are more errors to be discussed.

Arend wrote:
”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).”

This is a different subject, which also needs to be discussed, because I have found no acceptable explanation in your articles or those of Paul, why a toroid aether vortex supposed to exhibit the properties of positive and negative charges. If you would understand why the Helmholz resonators experience a net force in the above videos, then you would not have suggested them to explain the charge behavior of aether vortices. There is no net inflow or net outflow of air from the resonators, the flame is not extinguished by a net unidirectional mass flow from the resonator. 

Arend, please explain why is there a net force acting on the resonators? Then I will explain why such phenomena can not account for the behavior of electric charges.

Regards,
Zoltan