[Physics] Magnetic Vortex Spin Discovery

Wed Dec 7 13:06:42 CET 2016

Hi Zoltan and group,

First of all, thank you for your questions and remarks. One of the
reasons to start this group is exactly in order to discuss my work,
because one needs critical feedback in order to be able to correct
mistakes and move forward.

Then a little note on my personal situation. You asked me off-list why
I haven't responded to your earlier questions. This is because I have
"up" periods when I can think clearly and have the energy to consider
new information and I have "down" periods, when I just can't get
_anything_ done and am thus forced to let go of discussions like on
this list.

On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 3:12 PM, Zoltan Losonc <feprinciples at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 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.
>

I was not referring to field lines, but to *magnetism* itself. In my
proposal, I defined the magnetic vector potential [A] and the magnetic
field [B] as follows, indeed as "whirling mass or rotary motion in a
fluid " expressed in terms of the (average or bulk) aether fluid flow
velocity field [v]:

http://www.tuks.nl/wiki/index.php/Main/AnExceptionallyElegantTheoryOfEverything

[A] = curl [v]                             {eq 1}
[B] = curl [A] = curl curl [v]    {eq 2}

So, for the description of the magnetic vector potential [A], I
propose an equation which explicitly defines A in terms of the basic
fluid dynamics fluid flow velocity field [v].

The textbook definition for the vector potential field [A] is actually
the same as mine, but it is only defined in terms of the magnetic
field [B]:

[B] = curl [A]       {eq 3}

> 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.
>

As far as I am aware, he indeed did consider the magnetic field as
consisting of vortex tube loops (which would be the magnetic field
lines as far as I understand), BUT that microscopic consideration is
not actually described in his mathematical model. Malcolm Longair
described this as follows:

http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/373/2039/20140473
http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/roypta/373/2039/20140473.full.pdf

"Maxwell started with the analogy between incompressible fluid flow
and magnetic lines of force. The velocity u is analogous to the
magnetic flux density B. If the tubes of force, or steamlines,
diverge, the strength of the field decreases, as does the fluid
velocity. This enabled Maxwell to write down immediately the
mathematical expression for the behaviour of magnetic fields in free
space,

div [B] = 0   {eq 4}

[...]

Maxwell developed his solution in 1861–1862 in a series of papers
entitled ‘On physical lines of force’. Since his earlier work on the
analogy between u and B, he had become more and more convinced that
magnetism was essentially rotational in nature. His aim was to devise
a model for the medium filling all space which could account for the
stresses that Faraday had associated with magnetic lines of force—in
other words, a mechanical model for the aether, which was assumed to
be the medium through which light was propagated.

[...]

The model was based upon the analogy between a rotating vortex tube
and a tube of magnetic flux. The analogy comes about as follows. If
left on their own, magnetic field lines expand apart, exactly as
occurs in the case of a fluid vortex tube, if the rotational
centrifugal forces are not balanced.

[...]

Maxwell began with a model in which all space is filled with vortex
tubes. There is, however, an immediate mechanical problem. Friction
between neighbouring vortices would lead to their disruption. Maxwell
adopted the practical engineering solution of inserting ‘idle wheels’,
or ‘ball–bearings’, between the vortices so that they could all rotate
in the same direction without friction. Maxwell's published picture of
the vortices, represented by an array of rotating hexagons, is shown
in figure 2."

https://img1.steemit.com/0x0/http://www.tuks.nl/img/Maxwell_vortex_sponge.jpg

The key sentence from the above is this:

"The velocity u is *analogous* to the magnetic flux density B".

So, what he did was to describe [B] more on a macroscopic level,
rather than derive it from his intuitive vortex tube loop model. In
other words: the intuitively considered vorticity of the medium
itself, the vortex tube loops postulated to exist, are NOT part of his
mathematical model, his equations we still use today.

> 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.

You have a very good and important point here, which leads to further insights.

To me, visualisation c.q. imagination in my head comes before the
equations.  Stowe defined magnetism as follows:

http://www.tuks.nl/wiki/index.php/Main/StowePersonalEMail

Magnetism [B] = Curl [p]   (= curl rho [v] ) ,       {eq 5}

With [p] representing the bulk/average aether momentum, which equals
[v] times the mass density rho at a given point [x] in space.

>From this model, one would consider the electric current (as flowing
trough a ring-shaped wire, or inside a permanent magnet) to
essentially be an aether flow which causes some kind of helical vortex
phenomena perpendicular to the circulating current and that is also
the shape we see with the magnet experiment. So, that is why I
envisioned the aether flow to actually be such a  helical vortex,
while the rotation thereof would be toroidal, which would be the
magnetic field [B].

However, from this picture, one gets a hard time explaining why (the
direction of) the Lorentz force would depend on (the sign of) the
charge on which the Lorentz force acts. So far, I never realized that
my proposal is fundamentally different than eq 5,  since I defined [B]
as giiven in eq 2, and thus confused myself.

When we consider my proposal, eq 2, in the case of a toroidal field as
caused by a current carrying wire ring or coil winding, the direction
of the magnetic field [B] would be the same as the aether flow
velocity field [v], which at first hand is counter intuitive.

How could one get the aether curling around a DC aether current
flowing trough a (circular) wire?

Why would the aether not just flow along with the current within the
wire (coil winding) in the same direction?

Let's hypothesize that an electron has a toroidal topology.

Based on this hypothesis, Stowe claims to be able to calculate the
value for the elemental charge, e. In an unpublished (and thus
pre-draft) article, I quoted some of his earlier work on this:

http://www.tuks.nl/wiki/index.php/Main/OnSpaceTimeAndTheFabricOfNatureCharge#StowesChargeConcept

In his later paper, he works out the value for e in equation 18 and 19:

http://vixra.org/abs/1310.0237

While to me it is not (yet) clear what he did here and how it all fits
together,  I do believe he is on the right track here and that the
hypothesis of the electron having a toroidal topology will turn out to
be correct. So, let's continue with this hypothesis.

The picture he used to describe the toroidal topology is this one:

http://www.tuks.nl/img/RingVortex.png

Here, R is the large toroidal radius and r the poloidal axis.

If the electron indeed has such a toroidal topology, there are
actually two directions of rotational flow:

1) along the large toroidial radius, which would be like a current
flowing _trough_ a coil winding;

2) along the small poloidial axis, which would be like a current
whirling _around_ a coil winding.

The interesting detail to note is that the poloidial rotation would
cause a net current/flow trough the centre of the toroid, which would
either go "up" or "down", while we would get a net flow around the
toroid in the other direction.

Now if we consider a large number of toroid shaped "electrons" to be
aligned in a current carrying wire, we would get a top view of the
wire like this:

   OOO
 OOOOO
OOOOOO
 OOOOO
   OOO

In the internal of the wire, the poloidal aether flow/currents would
cancel out, but not at the surface of the wire, so the current would
flow along the surface of the wire, as it is known to do.

The toroidal flow/currents, however, would be perpendicular to the
current flowing "trough" the wire and would thus cause a rotational
aether current/flow _around_ the wire, which would be what we call the
magnetic field [B].

In other words: it appears that our hypothesis not only promises to
explain the value of the elemental charge, e, but also explains why
the magnetic field [B] (aligned with the aether flow velocity field
[v]) caused by a current-carrying wire is actually toroidal and not
helical in nature.

Also, with this hypothesis we may have a basis for explaining why a
transformer only works with changing magnetic fields. There appears to
be an intricate relatian between the topology and alignment of "charge
carriers" and the magnetic field caused by (electric) currents.

> 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).

As a replied to Doug, I do not believe the charges involved are ions,
but consist of such a Pollack "EZ" layer forming the surface of the
"bubbles". Since these are negatively charged and the bubbles move
"up", these will be acted upon by the Lorentz force. If it were ions,
we would see no net result, since there is no net charge in the water
and we should thus have an equal number of positive and negative ions:

http://mail.tuks.nl/pipermail/physics/2016-December/000250.html

>
> 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,

Usually, I don't pay much attention to what experimenters think about
what is going on. To me, it is the experiment itself which matters and
which can lead to new insights. The experiment seemed to confirm my -
in hindsight incorrect - picture that magnetism actually was an aether
vortex rather than toroidal, based on Stowe's equation as explained
above.

Only after some thought have i realized that my proposal actually
predicts [B] to be in the same direction as [v], while previously in
my thinking I still considered [B] to be the rotation of [v].

> 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.
>

To me, aether physics is all about making the right connection between
a fluid dynamics based model and experimental observations. I pointed
to Koen van Vlaenderen's paper, in which he claims there is a problem
with the current model for the Lorentz force and asked the question:
"what is the Lorentz force"?

And I recognized/acknowledged there was a problem with my current
intuitive "model":

> 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.

Well, I basically acknowledged I could indeed not explain the
properties of positive and negative charges. As you can read above, I
appear to have made an important step in that direction, thanks to
your questions.

> 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.

Quite frankly, I do not understand why that is. The best guess I can
give is that there is a non-linear oscillation taking place within the
resonator, which causes fast, high velocity shock waves leaving the
resonator, while the ingoing waves are "soft" sinusoidal waves. This
is why I added the word "appearance", btw.

Best regards,

Arend.