[Physics] Magnetic Vortex Spin Discovery

[Zoltan Losonc]

Hi Arend,

”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}”

It is not enough just to stick together few differential operators and leave the rest to the readers to sort out for you. If you want your ideas to be worth considering, then you have to put some real effort into developing them, verifying their validity, and finally presenting them to your audience in a convincing and easily digestible form. 

In this case you have started out with a formula defining B vector based on fluid dynamics model. The next step is to make sense of the formula and visualize what it actually means in physical reality. To complete this step please illustrate the definition on the simplest possible case of a toroid coil with an air core in which a constant current I flows. We already know the direction of B field from practice, and that it is homogenous inside the torus. Why don’t you make a drawing and show the direction and magnitude distribution of 3 vector fields: B, A, and v? 

When that is done then we can move on the 3rd step, to define, visualize, and verify the validity of the E field. It must explain the electric forces on a charge model of fluid dynamics. It is completely useless to define an E filed without defining a corresponding charge model in fluid dynamics that would behave exactly as the real E filed and charge does. When that is done, then 4th step is to connect them together, and make sure that the experimentally observed phenomena of E and B fields should automatically be mirrored in the fluid dynamics model. In this case for example, the temporal change of B filed must generate a circular E filed according to Faraday’s law. If this works fine, then we can proceed further; define gravity, visualize its meaning in fluid dynamics and verify its validity. Then again connect them all together etc. 

You should have done all this before asking thousands of people to read pages and pages about a promised “Exceptionally elegant "Theory of Everything" of basically useless text (because to get an idea what you are talking about, one has to read Paul’s articles as well, which by the way won’t make things much clearer either). If you don’t understand your own theory, and you are unsure how it works, and whether it is valid at all, then your text is not worth the attention of a big audience of thousands of people on the Climont list. If your theory turns out to be invalid (or nonexistent, as it did), then you have wasted thousands of hours of the collective, instead of wasting only your own hours for the careful development and testing of your ideas.

”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.”

Is it not weird that an allegedly fantastic aether model with impressive numbers, which was developed for more than 10 years, did not deserve to have its own website put up by its author (Paul)? Free website hosting is also available for anybody since more than a decade, so money can not be an obstacle. There is a very good reason why Paul’s model was not widely publicized, namely because it inconsistent. It makes no sense at all.

His definition of the B vector is a good example of this inconsistency (but the gravity is even worse). If we move the constant rho in front of curl, then we get that [B] is a constant multiplied by curl[v]. Therefore the curl[v] should properly model the behavior of [B]. Let us test this definition on a torus coil with an air core. The [B] lines form circles within the coil perpendicular to the windings, and thus the [v] field is perpendicular to the B filed and it forms a circular aether flow in the plane of a winding. Now let us place a toroid model of an electron defined by Paul into this [v] filed and let’s see what kind of hydrodynamic force can act on it. 

I can imagine two types of forces. One is a drag force due to friction and one is due to pressure gradient, which can be the result of the Bernoulli effect. If the electron is a static charge (ex. on a tiny charged insulator sphere) then no magnetic force should act on it. We face the problem of flow resistance right away. A fluid stream supposed to exert a force on a stationary object in the direction of the flow. This contradicts the EM observations. Let’s ignore this problem for now and assume that for some unknown reason there is no flow resistance on an electron model. Since the curl of [v] is not zero, the velocity of aether flow near the wires will be greater than those closer to the center, and therefore we would expect a pressure difference between the layers due to Bernoully effect. This pressure is decreasing from the center towards the periphery. If magnetic forces on charges supposed to originate from such Bernoulli effect, then there supposed to be a magnetic force pushing the static electron towards the periphery, which does not occur in electromagnetics in static case. If we postulate that Bernoulli forces can not exert a force on an electron model, then only drag forces can be applied (which was already contradicted by the flow resistance issue, but anyway). Let’s see if this would be consistent with real EM. In static case the aether drag would only be able to rotate the charge around its center of gravity due to the speed gradient (or curl) if we ignore the flow resistance. So far so good. But, when we move the charge in a circular direction parallel to the windings, a Lorentz force supposed to push it radially towards the periphery. However, in this case there are no drag forces that could do that. The conclusion is that no matter how we try to explain real EM forces based on the fluid dynamics aether model, this definition of [B] by Paul fails.

I will let you perform the same consistency verification for your definition of [B]. Let us know how that turns out.

”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.” 

You are making the same mistake for which you blame the dogmatists of official science. You make a religion from research, and you “believe” in something without actually checking whether it makes sense in hydrodynamics or not. If you think his model is realistic, why don’t you first test it before advertising it to the whole world? You can perform a first approach test based on known laws of fluid dynamics, similar to the test above. Or if you want to be a real aether scientist, then you supposed to learn fluid dynamics inside out, and then model the toroid vortex in the proposed flow fields in a software simulator. Then you will not have to guess and believe, and you will be able to present value and real science to your audience. Then you will deserve to be listened to.

”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.”

An electrical engineer supposed to know that in a fluid that contains free charge carriers like ions, the bubbles can not have a net electric charge within the electrolyte. The EZ layer is a very thin negative space charge at the very surface of the electrolyte, which is surrounded by a layer of positive space charge that neutralizes the E field of the negative EZ layer. They are bound together by electric forces and move together. They behave like an array of large dipoles on the surface. There is no resultant Lorentz force acting on moving dipoles in a B filed. The Lorentz forces that would act on negative charges are neutralized by the forces acting on the positive charges, because they are bound together and move in the same direction. 

“If it were ions, [responsible for the helical movement of electrolyte] 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”

An electrical engineer also supposed to know that a flow of positive ions in one direction represents the same current as the flow of negative ions moving in the opposite direction. The Lorentz force acting on both positive and negative ions points in the same direction (because they move in opposite directions), and therefore results in a net force perpendicular to the path of movement. These ions are not bound together and they can move feely independent of each other (unlike dipoles). Therefore, the Lorentz force acts even on electrically neutral electrolytes as long as it contains free ions.

”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.”

That is a wrong approach! It does not matter what the experimenter thinks as long as he keeps silent. But as soon as he opens his mouth and starts preaching crackpot pseudoscience, one must pay attention. If you like the experiment but not his explanation then at least make a disclaimer in your article that you disagree whit his comments, and we should ignore it; watch the video only. Or even better, download the video, delete the sound track and add your own explanation and upload it back to your youtube channel. Or still better just make your own video. Once you refer to a video or text from others without disclaimer or critique, people have full right to assume that you agree with the quoted material. 

”Well, I basically acknowledged I could indeed not explain the properties of positive and negative charges.”

The ability to accurately model electric charges in an aether fluid dynamics model is the very basis and foundation of an aether theory. If you were unable to establish even this minimum requirement, then how did you get the idea to advertise your articles as “An exceptionally elegant Theory of Everything"? This is like selling snake oil to the gullible.

> Zoltan wrote:
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.<

Arend wrote:
”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.”

Yes, when the high velocity airflow exits the neck, it forms a vortex ring which carries a momentum for quite a distance. Here is a visual demonstration of a giant vortex cannon:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrgTtZXuj4w
In the case of CW Helmholtz resonator at high amplitudes a continuous stream of such vortex rings moves away from the resonator and a non zero net reaction force acts on the bulb. 

But the point is that you can not achieve attraction between two resonators using this principle, therefore this can not model the attractive electric force between dissimilar charges.

”In this case, the current near the sides of the magnet would be predominantly up or down and not so much in a radial direction, while you would expect the biggest currents to occur at the bottom of the magnet along the insulating ring supporting the magnet.”

The video maker did not make it very easy to get an intuitive insight about exactly what is happening. He supposed to state in which direction is the current flowing and what is the direction of the magnetic field. Preferably also show clearly the position and distance of the second electrode from the magnet. Then we could have a better chance to tell where the dominant Lorentz force is generated. As far as I can see the bulk of the bubble generation occurs at the bottom and on the sides of the magnet, and the electrolyte also starts to rotate along a helical path near the bottom of the magnet. The tornado motion above the magnet is mainly transferred by inertia and by the buoyant force of the bubbles. But there is still no reason to doubt the Lorentz force. At the bottom of the magnet we have similar conditions like on top of it. The current tends to fill the whole volume of the electrolyte, it exits from all sides of the magnet, and it is not purely parallel with the B vectors. Even if there is a slight perpendicular component, there is a Lorentz force. The only way to know exactly where, how big this force is, is to make a computer simulation.

”Yes, that was my best guess at the time. If particles consists of a number of vortices or other kind of rotating structures and the electric field is rotation free (as per the Helmholtz decomposition),
somehow the electric force must propagate trough the medium and somehow result in the movement of (charged) particles.”

Too many “somehows”. What you demonstrate here is not science but some kind of gambling. It is not professional to present guesses so that others should sort them out for you whether any of them is useful or nonsense. Everybody can guess, even a cobbler and crackpots. If you want to be better than them, then you have to test the validity of your guesses first, using your own time and work, and present them to the public or to other researchers only something that is of value, because it is correct. 

Regards,
Zoltan