[Physics] Magnetic Vortex Spin Discovery

[Arend Lammertink]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Release_early%2C_release_oftenHi Zoltan,

Let me continue my reply where I left of yesterday.

>
> ”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.

I cannot disagree with you that there are inconsistencies in Paul's
model. However, it also offers some fundamental ideas on how to work
out an aetheric theory and thus offers a pretty fundamental foundation
to improve and subsequently build upon. It may currently be a bit
muddy and at some places one might sink down into it up to ones waste,
but at least there's some resemblance of solidity in the muddy parts,
which cannot be said about concepts like "curved space", "virtual
particles", "spooky action at a distance" and even the idea that
particles can supposedly exist at two places at the same time.


>
> His definition of the B vector is a good example of this inconsistency (but the gravity is even worse).

Granted, but at the same time it expresses two fundamental ideas which
deserve to be considered seriously:

1) the magnetic field is rotational in nature, which rotation can be
expressed in terms of rotational motions of the aether;

2) gravity is related to the EM fields and can be described
mathematically as a derivative (gradient, etc.) of the EM fields.

His math may be inconsistent, but these fundamental ideas do make sense to me.


> 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].

Yes, that's what it says.

> 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.

Yes, and that does make sense intuitively, because the current trough
a winding would then be aligned with the circular aether flow around
the 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.

Agreed.

> If the electron is a static charge (ex. on a tiny charged insulator sphere) then no magnetic force should act on it.

Yes, that would be true, but the electron is known to have a magnetic
moment as well:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_magnetic_moment
"In atomic physics, the electron magnetic moment, or more specifically
the electron magnetic dipole moment, is the magnetic moment of an
electron caused by its intrinsic properties of spin and electric
charge."

Note that "spin" means "rotation"....

> 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.

Yes, it does. The observations in Doug's experiment with the magnet
and electrolysis show that when ions are moving perpendicular with
respect to the magnetic field lines (i.e. towards/away from the center
of the jar), in a situation where the magnetic field would be as being
caused by a current carrying winding around the bottom of his jar, we
get a rotation of the electrolyte as would be expected if the magnetic
field were caused by "dragging" of the aether by the current trough
the magnet, were it not that it could rotate in either direction,
depending on the direction of the current trough the electrolyte.

So, it is clear that one cannot consider the rotational force acting
upon ions, or any kind of charged particles, to be a simple dragging /
frictional force. What we observe is that there is a 90 degree angle
between the (rotational) flow direction of the aether and the
direction of the particle movement under it's influence, and vice
versa.

We also note that such a 90 degree angle can occur in two directions
with respect to the aether flow, "+" or "-"....


> 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.

There's also the centripetal force, which causes the rotating aether
to tend to move towards the periphery and thus causes the pressure to
*increase* from the center towards the periphery:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vortex
"The fluid motion in a vortex creates a dynamic pressure (in addition
to any hydrostatic pressure) that is lowest in the core region,
closest to the axis, and increases as one moves away from it, in
accordance with Bernoulli's Principle. One can say that it is the
gradient of this pressure that forces the fluid to follow a curved
path around the axis."

> 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.

The pressure would move it towards the center, but that also does not occur..

> 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'm not sure if I follow your reasoning here, but I agree with the conclusion.

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

I think we have reached a point in our discussion, where it is clear
that the consideration of "charge" as being an isolated property of
some particles does not hold up, nor does the consideration of
particles being something akin to "point" masses.

The main point we encountered is the 90 degree angle between the
magnetic force, as would be expected to enact upon a "point mass", and
the actual observation of the effects of this force in our
experiments. In other words: we have a problem.

Now let us consider the hypothesis that the (free) electron has a ring
vortex topology, an idea taken from Paul's work, who suggests one can
calculate the value of the elemental charge e from this hypothesis,
which at least gives us a hint this may very well hold up, which is
why I stated I believe that will turn out to be correct.

What we have with a ring vortex, a toroid, is two axis of rotation AND
a 90 degree angle between them, which corresponds nicely to the
problem we encountered.

Now let us suppose the "main" rotation axis is the one trough the
center of the toroid. This would cause the fluid within the toroid to
be non-uniformly distributed, along the Bernouilli principle
considered above. Because of the rotation around the main axis, the
fluid would be forced away from the center of the toroid and the
pressure within the fluid would thus increase along the radius away
from the center.

Now if such a vortex ring were to be placed in a fluid where there is
a non-zero curl[v], the main rotation axis would become aligned with
the curl of the flow velocity field [v]. If there were any significant
drag, it would also start moving along with the movement of the fluid,
but we already pretty much established that is not the case.

Ok, now let's consider the other axis of rotation, the circular one
trough the center of the "winding". This one becomes pretty
complicated, because we do not have just rotation, but also a pressure
gradient because of the rotation around the main axis. So, we are
dealing with a situation whereby we have a *compressed* rotation,
which would therefore be non-linear. And we note that the "minor"
rotation can have two directions with respect to the main rotation
axis, "+" or "-".

Is it conceivable that such a non-linear rotation around the "winding"
would lead to a net aether flow, either trough the center of the
toroid or around it, or some other net force would occur, for example
similar to what we see with the Helmholtz resonator?

I would think that if the outer part of the ring is compressed,
because of the rotation along the main axis, the flow velocity of the
fluid at the outside of the ring would be less than at the inside of
the ring, so the aether flowing trough the center of the toroid would
flow faster than the aether flowing back around the toroid, which
would result in a net non-zero flow of aether trough the center of the
ring, which would cause a net force upon the whole ring at a 90 degree
angle with respect to the main rotation axis, which would be aligned
with the curl of the "bulk" aether flow velocity field [v].

And if indeed "charges" are aligned along there main rotation axis
with respect to the curl of the (bulk) aether flow velocity field [v],
we also have an explanation for why we can have attraction between
positive and negative charges.


> ”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.

I guess this is a difference in philosophy. Let me just share two
quotes regarding the "open source" philosophy:

"Release early. Release often." - Eric S. Raymond
“Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow.” - Linus Torvalds

As I explained in my previous reply, my main contribution is about the
definition of the [E] and [B] fields, which extend Maxwell's equations
with an explicit connection to an underlying aether model, described
in terms of fluid dynamics. I have checked it's validity with respect
to the Helmholtz decomposition and the Laplacian. With the deletion of
the dA/dt term in the definition for the electric scalar potential
field, we end up with a field definition which gives a fundamental
explanation of the [E] and [B] fields as being the translational and
rotational components of the Helmhotz decompositon of the flow
velicity field [v] respectively.

IMHO, that is quite an accomplishment in and of itself well worth
releasing "early" so others can build upon this find, or come up with
arguments explaining why this should be rejected. Sure, one can argue
that we also need an explanation for the concept of "charge" and the
Lorentz force, but the first step is to get our field definitions
straight. And so far, I have not seen any argument which would
invalidate my proposal.

For the next step, figuring out what charge is and how the Lorentz
force works, I now have an idea to explore in further detail (see
above), thanks to this discussion. In other words: my "early release"
strategy has already proven it's value.....

That's all for now. Time for bed.

Best regards,

Arend.