[Physics] Magnetic Vortex Spin Discovery

[Arend Lammertink]

Hi Zoltan,

Once again thanks for your critical remarks. It is really helpful to
be criticized, since that enables one to learn and correct misktakes.

On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 6:59 PM, Zoltan Losonc <feprinciples at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 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.

Well, it actually took a lot of time to write the articles and present
the progress I have made. I realize that indeed quite a lot is
missing, but the central point makes a lot of sense. While I have not
verified it's validity experimentally, the whole thing fits exactly
mathematically, both with the Lorentz decomposition and with the
Laplacian, which gives kind of the vector equivalent of the second
order derivative of a function. Both of these are very important in
physics and have been well established.

Now when we start out with the postulate that the aether behaves like
an ideal fluid, then we should start out at a fluid dynamics model for
the aether. This means one should start out at the flow velocity field
[v], which is very easy to understand intuitively.

Another important assumption is that sound-like longitudinal "Tesla"
waves exist and that they propagate at a theoretical speed of sqrt(3)
times c. This factor comes from the Poisson ratio, which is 0.25 for a
perfectly isotropic elastic material. See the part under "Note
(lamare)" at:

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

This would explain "faster (than c) light", which has been observed
with "anomalous dispersion" by a/o Stenner, Thevenaz and Wang:

http://www.tuks.nl/pdf/Reference_Material/Fast_Light/

And it also offers a basis for an attempt to explain "Young's" dual
slit experiment, without having to resort to statistics aka quantum
mechanics. So, to me it is a very reasonable assumption that
longitudinal waves do exist and that they propagate significantly
faster than c.

As a final note, let me remind you of the point I made in my article,
namely that at least two types of EM waves are known to exist, the
near and far fields, while the Maxwell equations only predict one type
of waves, namely transverse waves, which would not propagate trough a
fluid and thus be a reason to reject a fluid aether hypothesis.
However, the fact that two types of EM waves are known to exist is
sufficient to conclude that something is amiss with Maxwell's
equations.

So, when we can correct those in a (mathematically) consistent and
natural way, we end up with a new foundation for physics, which
promises to resolve many issues in the current standard model when
worked out further.

Now the equations I presented under "Deriving "Maxwell's" equations
from the first order Laplacian" at

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

are quite a lot more than "just to stick together few differential
operators", because they seamlessly integrate the fluid dynamics
aether model with the current Maxwell equations, with the exception of
the term dA/dt in the definition for the scalar potential field Phi.

With my proposal, all types of wave phenomena known to exist in fluids
and gasses (including vortices) can be described completely analogous
to fluid dynamics and it is clear that transverse waves can only exist
as surface waves, which would thus be the "near" field.

The concepts of "charge" and "current" are not yet defined, nor are
Faraday's law and Ampère's circuital law. However, the concept of
"charge" is not understood by physics, either. No one can tell you
what charge *is* and why certain particles are charged, while others
are not, nor why there are "positive" and "negative" charges. And no
one can explain to you why there is such a thing as 'wave particle'
duality.  However, with Stowe's suggestion of considering the electron
to be a vortex ring, we have a chance to make significant progress
there, if only because a fluid dynamics model enables one to visualize
what might be going on, which is a tremendous advantage.

One of the most important arguments in favor of my proposal is that
the wave equations which can be directly derived from my proposal are
known to transform nicely under the Galilean coordinate transform, so
the Lorentz transform no longer makes any sense and with it we can
reject the concept of "curved space".


In the end, there are two options:

1) the term dA/dt needs to be there, which adds the time derivative of
the rotational part of the Helmholtz decomposition to the rotation
free part of the decomposition and thus leads to the need for the
Lorentz transform to straighten things out, which leads to Einsteinian
"curved space" and that's how it should be. See Thornhill:
http://etherphysics.net/CKT4.pdf

2) the term dA/dt should not be there, because one cannot mix the
rotational part of the Helmholtz decompositon with the rotation free
part.





>
> 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?

Well, I did not start with the definition of the B vector. I started
out at the Helmholtz decomposition, because that decomposes a given
vector field in a "transverse" and a "longitudinal" component, and I
have reason to believe longitudinal waves do exist:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmholtz_decomposition#Longitudinal_and_transverse_fields

It took a lot of effort and puzzling with vector identities in order
to come to a field description that was consistent with the Helmholtz
decomposition, which mathematically establishes a rock solid
theoretical distinction between a rotation free longitudinal part and
a compression free transverse part. I was stunned when I found that
the solution I eventually found was the negated Laplacian operator for
the velocity field [v]. That's what validated my proposal to me and
the reason why I felt confident enough to share my find.


I'm not sure I'm interested in spending much time on working out a
model for charge and current and how these interact with the fields
now.  My goal was to come to wave equations with which longitudinal
waves can be described and to use those for designing an antenna for
transmission and reception of  longitudinal waves, so we can get
experimental confirmation that the transmission of information at
speeds exceeding c is possible.

I am also working on a free energy project, which is the project that
is highest on my priority list. We all have limited time and one must
choose where we spend our time on. Theory is very interesting and I've
spent quite some time on that the past year and am pleased with the
progress I made, but I need to focus on my free energy work, since
that can solve a big problem for all people on this planet.


>
> 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

No, it's not useless, because the field definitions and corresponding
wave equations should come first. Particles are known to be an
electro-magnetic phenomenon and therefore "charge" should follow from
the particle model and should play no part in the field definitions.
That's the whole point I made around the "recursive" problem. The only
way to understand what charge is, is to build particle models such
that the E and B fields created by these particles follow from the
deep understanding of how the aether flows within a particle and how
that results in the fields as observed from current flows and/or
static particles.

And that's not an easy task....

> 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.
>

Well, I was thinking of adapting a fluid dynamics simulator and design
a longitudinal antenna, so we can obtain irrefutable experimental
validation of the existence of longitudinal waves.

> 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.

Well, the differential equations are completely in line with both the
Helmholtz decomposition and the Laplacian operator, and put the
interpretation of what "charge" is where it belongs: the particle
physics models to be developed later.

There is little doubt in my mind that the differential equations for
the E and B field are correct and that one day they will lead to a
revolution in physics. Everything just fits together at the
foundation, and it explains how physics went wrong with Einsteinian
relativity and Quantum Madness as well.

There is no such thing as a "collapsing wave function" nor "spooky
action at a distance" nor "curved space". All that idiocy came to be
because no one ever bothered to check the consistency of the field
definitions with the Hemlholtz decomposition and made sure the
foundation was solid and included a description of longitudinal waves.


That's all for now.

Regards,

Arend.