Suppose a simply expressed constraint is that all particles must move on the surface of some sphere, then such particles would move easily along any great circle or along any of the other circles in the spheres surface. What would require force therefore would be any path that crosses all these"natural" paths, and although it may not look like it the tangential force is in fact a tangential circle at right angles to the plane in which the circle is described. When he tensile rope is released, the particle naturally moves along this circle in its descent to the earths surface.

However at the distance of he moon additional and internal circular freedoms apply, so that the moon seeks out the path f a great circle as it moves in accordance with this constraint.

The actual elliptic paths hat Kepler took such great pains to calculate, represent a conic sectional constraint. One may ask why does suc a surface dominate in space where presumably there is less not more inertial resistance? And the answer lies in the radial disposition of force in space, the inverse square law, which provides a cone of influence that intersects every spherical surface.

http://www.spiralodyssey.com/PAGE13.html

Kegan's work shows the interaction of the shell of attraction with the shell of repulsion, that is contracting space with rarefhttp://vinokur.narod.ru/expeng.htmying space.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell_stress_tensor

http://www.pnas.org/content/102/23/8180.long

http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.3798

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:CTzn2eYUVLEJ:www.emph.com.ua/8/pdf/dmitriyev.pdf+&hl=en&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESi5MMtHaKf–qqpsVO8HrQgUo1uAZmXS1u5k_4NKRMWbci9y0PZO_wNk47DIHFB9lH2nibU1zlvjX8gaHPyBD3RUNOi2MnK9KNyA5R942eByR3XHAVi1t5CuFd91-0d5wTIcWzs&sig=AHIEtbQzbHCU-ItSrUIipSlRmXBEGhd3QQ

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_charge

One fluid theory hides the 2 distinct forms of charge, and is based on gravitational model of action on fluids. it obscures the question, how do like charges repel, but attract the opposite?Franklin's assertion implies that matter is positively charged while the fluid is negatively charged

Point charge models are used to discuss the behaviours, but these are clearly simplified models of the main features. The electrostatic symmetry is all that needs to be accounted for, but an antisymmetry, a reflection symmetry is implied, thus a vortex that twists inward, flips direction and twists outward seems to be a possible solution.

http://cmm.cit.nih.gov/intro_simulation/node8.html

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:MJBdgfbXpTwJ:mrewert.pbworks.com/f/11.02.16%2B-%2BWhat%2Bis%2BElectricity.doc+&hl=en&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShJu31zeOFKNaGQE_eCJ657rR2MMFDL0Rh-rvqs19NpKXtOLaSehqKQnMX0ghabxzsg3Bxtf4fRrExufHF8o4FFhMSAcRwm27jeQ668VmuCKk4bH8gs3TYFDm3ri-QbCE_OweBb&sig=AHIEtbTMjamiRlJzdrPpL_lMbrCYshEObA

Two fluid model, rejected by Franklin, implies matter is neutral wjile one fluid is "positively" charged and the other is "negatively" charged, to use Franklins terminology. Franklin used this terminology to introduce a connection to mystical philosophy which explained the differences in peoples fortunes as attracting wealth by positive actions r repekking wealth by negative actions. However, the natural law confounded hat mystical insight on closer examination.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dielectric

With the development of the atomic theory we moved to an atomic model of electrostatic charge, where matter is replaced by atoms. Although it seems similar to the corpuscular theory of matter, Daltons proposition of the combinatorics of these particles into an ordered modular group(modulo 8) which was Fully an irrefutably established by Mendeleyev meant that matter had some other attributes besides density and posited fluids and that was charge.

Matter was seen as a neutral carrier of charge in the 2 fluid model, and an implied charged particle in the one fluid model. It took some time to establish a fully particulate model of matter, so that even fluids were seen as very fine particles. Even Dalton used the term fluid in a novel sense to us, but its original senses of very malleable and changeable and flowing, to include an "elastic" abiloty to expand and contract. The kinematic kinetic theory assumed hard fine paricles with "mass" moving at various velocities, so this ws "cobbled together into the explanation.

It has taken a long time to come together to give a better model of electric charge, and it is sti;; being modified, but the dielectric models of charge give a better base for describing charge, and the point charge has been replaced , but no one seems to want to let it go!

We currently have a quantum model of charge, but we accept in that model that matter is charged. Mass has finally been replaced by probability distributions of energy. But charge has simply remained a sign(+/-), at best a direction.

Energy is an undefined concept, despite all the equations and examples we can point to. It is a bit of notation Einstein used to equate his state equations! the nearest equivalent to it conceptually seems to be plasma. Plasma is a chared state of matter.

Since the electron was found, other smaller than positrons/ protons charged matter has been found, and we now have a zoo of charged and uncharged "particles" . W have clung on to the particle wave packet description simply because we have come to a consensus. What mathematicians have lead physicists to do is to ignore the mechanics of charge.

Still, even in this state we have to rethink our quantity of matter definition, because mass has come to be dissociated from quantity of matter. Newton started this dissociation, but his excuse was that his life and reputation depended on it. We on the other hand have to account for the quantity of matter in terms of our models. The kinetic theory is our biggest justification for retaining the inchoate notion of mass. After all what difference does it make to the equations if you put all the details of the models in?

It makes a quantum difference! because while the concept of mass is classical it is also a macroscopic concept. To divide it down into the quantum dimensions to see if it applies is the first mistake. For we ignore the fact that mass as a quantity is defined in terms of volume and density, and while volume is a formal notion, which can be scaled down, density is a tautological descriptive term referring to the packing of particles. If we poait that such particles have mass, therefore it becomes meaningless. The notion of quantity and magnitude from which a quantity is defined requires a measuring tool. At the quantum scale, even at the atomic scale mass becomes effete as a quantity measure.

http://www.bookpump.com/upb/pdf-b/1126751b.pdf

http://webfairy.org/missilegate/rfz/swaz/chapter13.htm

In 1938 Hilgenberg followed this paper up with a mathematical and theoretical physics tour de force entitled "Quantenzahlen, Wirbelring-Atommodelle und Heliumsechserring-Aufbauprinzip des Periodensystems der chemischen Elemente," a mind-twister that is no less impressive in English: "A Quantum Number, Vortex Atom Model and Hexagonal-ring Construction Principle of the Periodic System of the Chemical Elements." Hilgenberg had developed the mathematics for a system of modelling complete atoms according to vorticular rotational principles of the now long-discarded aether! The combined effect of these two papers and their mathematical and theoretical development allowed Hilgenberg to predict a number of effects completely at variance with relativistic physics, and long before similar observations in the late 20th century began to signal significant problems with the relativistic-Big Bang cosmology, e.g., heterodyning effects on light coming from a body moving toward the observer, or, to put it simply, why red-shift effects sometimes accompany bodies moving toward an observer rather than away from one.

http://books.google.fr/books/about/Mass_and_Electric_Charge_in_the_Vortex_T.html?hl=fr&id=9I1ktUoLIHYCThe book presents foundations of the vortex theory of matter based a philosophical framework of classical physics with certain suppositions about the nature of physical space which is traditionaly called aether (ether). Twisted vortex rings with left and right rotation are models of particles and anti-particles. Vortex rings of radius equal to the radius of a vortex cord is a model of a photon. Division of that ring into two rings with opposite twist is a model of pair production. The hypothesis of the topological identity of an electron's and proton's rings lead to values of masses for mu, pi, K and tau particles which are close to experimental. A model of electric field as field of vorticular filaments is presented. It is shown that the squer of an elementary charge is proportional to the Plank constant and speed of light.

« Moins

It is clear that the antisemitic bias of germano/prussian scientific culture is still a governing principle in scientific debates to this day. i cannot undo the past, nor justify past acts, but notions and ideas that arise from meditation which are similar or the same as those of some hated persons or groups, cannot be ignored or denigrated by aspersion. There is an observation: god causes it to rain on the just and the unjust; and one consequent to that: a fountain that gives both sweet and foul water is not to be trusted. It is the fountain that is not to be trusted, not the god given rain which supplies the fountain.

https://sites.google.com/site/aetherwizard/metaphysics-and-physics/8-outward-practices

http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.co.uk/2011/03/alternative-models-ether-farce-of.html

I have shown that many of the advances in science and "mathematics" derive from individual personal belief systems, thus it is necessary to search for the gold by mining belief systems and their products, rather than resorting to intellectual, but not very pragmatic dismissal. We all have had experiences of"throwing the baby out with the bath water!: missing something due to an overriding distraction, Fortunately, if we mine, we have the chance of finding treasure that will revise our imperfect models for the better.