[Physics] Magnetic Vortex Spin Discovery

Sat Dec 10 15:28:36 CET 2016

Hi Zoltan,

The third and final part of my reply:

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

Of course, logical reasoning comes before the checking. In other
words: you first get an idea of which you "believe" it will likely
lead to further insights, because it makes sense up to a certain
degree. At that point, such an idea is no more than a hypothesis, but
it can be discussed as such as part of a process which should
eventually lead to either confirmation of rejection of the hypothesis.

> If you think his model is realistic, why don’t you first test it before advertising it to the whole world?

Well, it is clear that the argument can be made that the title of my
article and the amount of background information I shared suggests
more than I have actually delivered. I acknowledge that. So, what
_did_ I deliver?

1) I have shown that with the application of the Laplacian to the
aether flow velocity field [v] and the deletion of the term dA/dt in
the definition for the electric scalar potential field Phi, we can
come to a new foundation for physics, directly relating the [E] and
[B] fields to a "deeper" more fundamental field concept, a field
concept that makes sense and enables us to use fluid dynamics and
macro scale wave and vortex experiments in order to come to further
insights and considerations.

2) I have shown that the magnetic field [B] is fundamentally
rotational in nature, because it works out to represent the
divergence-free, incompressible, "transverse" part of the Helmholtz
decomposition of the "deeper" field;

3) I have shown that the electric field [E] is fundamentally
translational in nature, because it works out to represent the
rotation-free, compressible, "longitudinal" part of the Helmholtz
decomposition of the "deeper" field.

If anyone has any arguments to reject these 3 points, I'd love to hear
them.  So far, however, I have every reason to believe these 3 points
form a rock-solid foundation to build new physics upon.

As I acknowledged just above, I also presented quite a lot of further
considerations, lines of thinking, which make sense to me and offer
various degrees of confirmation and/or suggestions for further
research. It seems I failed to make a proper distinction between the
points I tested and confirmed to the best of my ability, and the
points which are merely hypothesis at this point. So, let's address
some of the points I also made, but which are still to be tested
and/or worked out:

1) The field definition along the above 3 points allows us to
understand what is going on with Einsteinian relativity as well as
Quantum Mechanics and how the incorrect Maxwell equations led to these
rather strange theories, which can thus be re-interpreted and
corrected. Quantum Field theory can be rejected, because with my
proposal there is no longer gauge freedom and Einsteinian relativity
can be rejected, because we know the wave equations derived from a
fluid dynamics model transform nicely under the Galilean transform and
therefore the Lorentz transform is no longer required. According to
Dr. C.K. Thornhill, this pulls the rug out underneath Einsteinian
relativity: http://etherphysics.net/CKT4.pdf

2) The idea that gravity _is_ a result from EM phenomena, rather than
a separate field of force. Stowe suggested gravity to be the gradient
of [E], which I found to be incorrect, after feedback from Koen van
Vlaenderen:

http://www.tuks.nl/wiki/index.php/Main/AnExceptionallyElegantTheoryOfEverythingNotesFAQ#KoVaVla

So, I suggested to re-apply the Laplacian to [E] in order to define
gravity, but this is probably also incomplete. I now think we should
re-apply the Laplacian to [E]+[B];

3) Since the [E] field represents the compressible, longitudinal part
of the Helmholtz decomposition, longitudinal waves are also predicted
and predicted to propagate at a speed of sqrt(3) times c. This allows
us to explain Young's dual slit experiment, without having to revert
to statistics and the rather strange concepts brought forth by Quantum
Mechanics. Instead of having "collapsing wave functions", we simply
have a combination of longitudinal waves, transverse waves and moving
vortex rings which should be enough to work this all out in detail.

Further evidence supporting the existence of longitudinal waves can be
found in my collection of papers around "faster than c" experimental
data:
http://www.tuks.nl/pdf/Reference_Material/Fast_Light/

4) I suggested that David Lapoints experiments show that both the weak
and strong nuclear forces can be shown in the laboratory to be fully
accounted for by magnetic forces:

https://youtu.be/siMFfNhn6dk?t=20m15s

Together with the idea that gravity _is_ a force derived from the
electromagnetic force, this suggests that our field definition is
sufficient to unify all known "fundamental" forces of nature into one
unified model;

5) I suggested that the Biefeld-Brown effect can be described by
considering gravity to be a mathematical derivative of the field
definition given for the [E] and [B] field (i.e. the Laplacian of
either [E] or [E]+[B]), which offers the possibility for further
research in this area and thus refinement and/or
confirmation/rejection of the fundamental idea that gravity _is_ a
force directly derived from the electromagnetic;

6) I suggested that the rotational nature of the magnetic field can be
made visible with the magnetic vortex spin experiment. This has led to
new insights, based upon which it is now clear that further study and
consideration of the nature of "charge" is required in order to come
to a consistent definition of Farday and Ampere's laws. I subsequently
suggested that consideration of the electron having a vortex ring
topology is likely to lead to the resolvment of the 90 degree angle
problem encountered around the Lorentz force.

> 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, given the above, the question of deserving to be listened to
reduces to the question of whether or not the 3 main points I made
deserve to be considered seriously by the community...

>
> ”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.

You are absolutely correct that stationary bubbles within the
electrolyte cannot have a net electric charge. However, the positive
charges surrounding the bubbles are H+ ions which are only bound by
electric forces, while the atoms in the EZ layer are also bound by
covalent bonds.  So, it is conceivable that when the bubbles move with
respect to the electrolyte that the H+ ions are dragged away from the
bubbles because of friction, and thus it is conceivable that moving
bubbles in the electrolyte can have a net electric charge, although
one would expect a dipole to form rather than a net charged bubble.

>
> “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.

Yes, I know that, or at least your and Doug's comments refreshed my memory.  :)

>
> ”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.

Point taken.

>
> ”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.

No, but the idea that non-linear oscillations can lead to forces
coming forth can be considered in relation to the idea that the
electron has a vortex ring topology, which offers two axes of rotation
under a 90 degree angle.

> ”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.

It is clear that I failed to communicate properly what the point was I
tried to share, and what were mere suggestions / ideas which made
sense to me, yet are/were unconfirmed (at the moment).  I hope the
above explanation is sufficient to enlighten this issue.

Best regards,

Arend.