Entry

The Power Of Rock

In getting to the fundamentals of electromagnetism I have returned to the Leyden Jar, and from there back to the crystal battery projects and historical view. Excited by the power that was generated by crystal batteries I wondered back to the word Magnes, and found it was a regional name, what was significant was the rock from hat region, the Lithos.

The lithos is Greek for crystal, stone or mineral geode. This is where all over the world magnetism was found, in the rocks!

The change in perspective was breathtaking. Suddenly he substance gap is bridged for what connects all forms of magnetic and electric substances is rock!

A piece of rock when approached might exhibit attractive or repulsive behaviour. It may swing round and show a preferred orientation. Such behaviour was called magnetic, meaning a piece of rock tha exhibits a repulsive and attractive force. Rubbing hat rock might increase or decrease this effect, squeezing it might produce a spark. This is all magnetic rock behaviour.
The differentiation of this rock behaviour into distinct classes of behaviour was a long and culturally dependent process, one rock called Electra showed marked attractive and repulsive properties towards hay, others towards metals themselves smelted from rock. It took a while to track amber rock back to the tree sap from which it came, and in so doing to make a distinction between mineral nd vegetable compounds. But amber was a mineralised , fossilised vegetable compound, and the same crystalline structure may be seen to be important in exhibiting the magnetic effects.

However Electra did not come from Magnes rocks, ans so strictly speaking its brhaviour did not have to be described as magnetic, no matter how identically similar or congruent it was with lodestone behaviour. Amber was highly prized and so not valued for its orientation bilities. But like some rock it sparked when handled.

All these differences separated rocks and their strange behaviours rather than bringing them together under a common title. So instead of Lithoic properties we start with magnetic, nd eventually end on electric before realising that they are related if not one and the same thing. Today we refer to it as electromagnetic, but this is misleading and ultimately divisive . Lithoic properties have to define the sub properties, not be cobbled together from 2 separate disciplines which clash over common ground and compete for expository preeminence.

We need to start at the power of the Rock.

What is it about rock that enables it to reveal the powers of electric spark, magnetic attraction, nuclear fission and the coolness of fusion? What are we experiencing in relation to rock?

The clue seems to be in its crystalline structures, a set of relationships that fractally nest within each other, inhering and covering relationships and structures, and revealing that a field or fields are part or the whole of space.mspheres of influence that mechanically accelerate and decelerate in rotational motions, that act and react to the impingement of influences on each other.

How do we collate this information and make sense of it? What active principles are involved?

Newton, of course has trod this path, but we may look with new eyes and draw our own conclusions, build our own models, but like Newton said, by standing on the shoulders of others.

Today, I can apply Newton's active principles to rock and particles or fractals rather, of rock, providing I change his opening definition of matter and allow magnetism as an action at a distance between fractals. Why not as a fluid?

There is no visible substance that flows between rocks in magnetic interchanges. Thus to use a fluid model in Newton's method of philosophy and analysis would be unsafe..

However a spark can be seen to jump from rock to another rock or material in certain circumstances. This violent and audible discharge invites a fluid substance as a model. Careful investigation of the rock or crystal media sets up the hypothesis or Lemmae that a fluid substance violently flows between two rocks or substances transferring a reduction in tension between the 2 which is observed as an attractive action at a distance of a magnetic nature.

Now to call this fluid a magnetic fluid would be at odds with observation because of the implication of transference of magnetic properties, wher it clearly would seem to reduce the action at a distance effects. We come then to Franlin's observation that this single fluid, in excess in one rock and in lack in another is the cause or source of magnetic action at a distance. Only it did not go like that. Instead a new action at a distance force was posited to distinguish it precisely from magnetic action at a distance. .

While magnetic action at a distance was used to be a metaphor for epicurean gravity, the repulsive effects of a magnetic action at a distance were not observed in general and not currently observed among the planets, thus this scenario between rocky planets implied magnetism was not a good description, despite Gilbert and Boyles speculation. Similarly, because the electric phenomenon immediately suggested a Newtonian force law analogy to Coulomb, based on observations by priestly, this also excluded magnetic action at a distance it was assumed.

The problem theoretically has to do with the thn concepts of matter and the concept of an inherent fluid in among the particles of matter called charge. Theoretically this mix could not work in explanation without implying differing actions. The fluid or fluids were thought to be different to the corpuscular matter in essential nature. Thus corpuscular matter was rigid and solid at the level of corpuscles, while this fluid was more subtle even occult. To defray the charge of occultism it was given the innocuous name charge, and separated from matter as an additional substance attached to or surrounding matter in some way. It was considered to be the archetypical aether.

However, at this time philosophers did not have a clue, but inventors and engineers were coming up with machines that produced longer and stronge sparks emphasising the difference between magnetic action and this new phenomenon. It was exciting and led to flights of "fancy and fantasy" and completely stumped the philosophers. It was proff of the divne power of god!

Among natural Philosophers there was a struggle to understand its laws, to be the first to capture the powr of god in ones hand. to command the thunderbolt! Quietly models were being tried out, observations were being gathered together on the spark, magnetic action was almost completely ignored. The Leyden Jar tamed the spark, the voltaic cell produced a power in wires that seemed to cause the jerking of the spark in animal muscle and human muscle. Surprisingly it was called animal Magnetism, and got mixed up with psychological hypnogogy. the theoretical, philosophical societies were all over the place.

Enter Faraday. His work, attitude and empirical accuracy enabled him to gather together the research data availabe, experimentally verify it and observe the related effects. He also established a pragmatic terminology suitable to the task and mechanical in nature because he believed in a mechanical universe.

While collating and redacting all this information and publishing his methodical results others became inspired t o study the field. Enthusiasm leapt like an electric charge across continents drawing on Faradays Keystone works. Consequently Coulomb derived his equation from information priestly passed to him from work Ben Franklin was doing as a result of Faradays experiments on Electric Tension and induction. Ampere took the results of the Leyden jar batteries and united them with the voltaic battery effects, Oersted recognised the magnetic effect of these currents, others devised meters based on this indisoluble link between current and magnetism. Faraday was inspired into investigating magnetism as it came to be called, and Franklin linked electric charge to Lightning.

The hidden connection was the battery a Franlin called it. But there were 2 sorts it seemed: one which involved chemical or rock crystal interactions , and another that stored lightning in these types of material. The rock crystal interactions wre obscured for a long time because it was thought to be metal interactions in a solute. It was to take electrolysis and crystal growth to give the clue that it was not metal but dissolved crystal interactions that were involved, but by then a theory of the electron had been proposed, modified and accepted and used to revise and redact all of chemistry.

The concept was still thought of only as a model until Einstein. Then somehow everybody decided the model was reality!

The concept of the electric fluid was around in Franklin and Faradays time. Maxwell clearly invoked ir in terms of Navier Stokes fluid dynamics. Helmholtz used it in his perfect flud model of matter, and Lord Kelvin set out a complex theory of molecular fluid dynamics on this basis. The fluid was thought to take the vorticular form, but a perfect fluid or vortex according to Helmholtz could not satisfactorily transmit strain, For Maxwell this was key to modelling Faradays Electric tension.
Two com[eting fluid models were proposed for electric tension, one with 2 contra fluids and one with one. The idea was that one fluid gave a glass rod like charge and the other an amber like charge. The removal of one supposedly explained the observed tension effects, the attraction or repulsion. magnetic action at a distance was completely ignored, principally because the tension did not seem to attract iron filings! and yet it caused items to move ? This is and was a weak reason to exclude magnetism, but the pace of invention theory and discovery was so hectic, no one seemed to care. Franklin sensed there was something to be had in this new power, and the riches belonged to the victor!

We have an amazingly complex body and cybernetic system. but the conscious mind is so simple compared with all this complexity it is embarassing. Thus we tend to big up the simple, calling it elegance, we claom nature itself is "Lazy" going for the simplest or most elegant solutions, we totally avoid the complex and the convoluted because it makes our "brain" hurt! In the main this has been a guiding principle for dcientists and technologists, but not so for philosophers. So Franklin got rid of the 2 fluids because effectively only one of the fluids is changing sides or carriers and he called the remaining fluid positive charge when in excess and negative charge when diminished. By doing this he dismissed the complexity and coverd over the pproton as the positive charge in later theoryby Rutherford and Bohr.

Franklins simplification took hold and the fluid was called charge. Coulomb took the concept and quantified it and placed it in a Newtonian formulation. Charge was not matter, it was associated or appended to matter. The attractive force between 2 charges was formulated like newtons, but the repulsive force was just taken for granted as the reverse of the attractive. In fact the mathemaical behaviou of the sign rules seemed to account for the physical behaviour! For gods sake, mathematics was opening the door to the invisible world of the aetheric fluid that was electric charge!

The subject was in fluid change, many theoretical models and ideas were thron at it, but all clung to the simplification Franklin had made. Maxwell attempted to bring it all together into one mathematical set of principles based on this one fluid notionand the formulations of previous investigators. This was very complex work, and few had the taste for it. They wanted something simple and pragmatic. While many read Faraday only a very few read Maxwell. His 20 plus formulae, entirely mathematical made no sense except to Hertz .

Hertz recognised what Maxwell was trying to do and that his model, if right would allow strain and tension to transmit like it does along a rope. but in this case ot would disturb the aether like a stone in a pond. Hertz therefore viewed this one fluid as the aether, and the wave pattern as akin to Huygens theory of disturbance of an aether by light. The possibility of linking light to electric charge and magnetic action was there but still tantalisingly out of reach. What Hertz demonstrated was something else called radio wave eventually, but linked back to Maxwells equations by Hertz.

The aether and the electric charge and magnetic action were now finally linked. No one cared if there was a missing link between electricity and magnetism, if electric fluid and matter were really different, if gravity was different to magnetic or electric actions. It was all too complex to take in!

Lorentz and others in europe however were not satisfied with the fluid model for electric fluid. They positied a particle model amd called it an electron. This particle was theoretically necessary to explain all the anomalies the wave particle duelism ( argument!) was throwin up. Lorentz proposed particle was wrongly derived Poincare pointed out to Lorentz, but when corrected it still existed as a value of charge. Amazingly Thompson had been thinking along similar lines while revising the corpuscular theory. He discovered a radiation of about the right charge size and declared it. Shortly after it was confirmed, it was named as the electron. Suddenly the fluid had become a particulate medium!

Over time all of chemistry was redacted into this form of particle description where the electron, measured not in mass as one would expect, but in voltage as an electron volt was introduced. This is a piece of sleight of hand. What was a fluid was deemed to be a particle but only measuravle by magnetism as electron volts! The fundamental theory of matter is totally tautologically confused at this point.

It is important to note that this is Effed up! And needs pointing out repeatedly. The basisi of modern particle physiscs is this confusion of matter electric fluid and magnetic action at a distance.

Rutherford and Bohr changed the picture by discovering the particle they called the proton. What is not realised is that they used the electron volt to determine it. Using sparking radioactive material( rock crystals) they fired sparks at gold. These sparks the called alpha and beta particles and these they later defined as proton pairs. Electric sparks once a fluid model was now well on its way to becoming a particle model. But these particles were particles of electric fluid! The nature of the corpuscle was changing without proper understanding. Suddenly what Newton had defined as mere corpuscles separate from any fluid, we're now found to be the constituents of the fluid. Matter was essentially this fluid that jumped as sparks, but the theoreticians missed this and insisted that charge was appended to a particle, thus presenting a confused model in which charge was invisible, action at a distance was invisible and corpuscles were very small particles surrounded by oodles of space with extremely small corpuscles whiz zing round them. Oh, and these corpuscles had charge appended to them!

This model was methodically crazy. It did not reflect the method by which these particles were found. This is overlooked because most are just told atter is made of protons, neutrons and electrons! Of course, because the particles are not derived from the solid corpuscular theory of Newton, but from the fluid electric theory of faraday and ampere and Coulomb and franklin nobody noticed that fluid necessarily can be divided into all sorts of strange containers, especially when the method of determining the containers is by calculation, not direct observation. The electron volt is the Metron used to determine electrons, protons and neutrons and all the myriad other so called particles they have " found" by calculation and voltage jump measurement..

This of course obscures the fundamental role and character of magnetic action at a distance.mevery measurement device in electric theory is based on magnetic action at a distance, thus even electric charge, measured in volts is based on magnetic action at a distance. The question is: do physicists know what they are doing methodologically? Is there or can there be a real distinction between electric charge as measured and magnetism?

A very simple man said that scientists need a basis, and that basis should be magnetic action at a distance which is a dual phenomenon. In that light how can electric charge be sustained as a single phenomenon? That is how can an electron wholly inherent so called negative charge, and a proton solely positive charge when a magnetic dipole is all that physicists say they can find? You cannot use a dipole to isolate a single phenomenon! It is not logically sustainable.
http://www.tuks.nl/pdf/Eric_Dollard_Document_Collection/Eric%20Dollard%20Introduction%20to%20Dielectric%20and%20Magnetic%20Discharges%20in%20Electrical%20Windings%20(complete%20OCR%20remake).pdf
The dielectric, diamagnetic models of rocks or crystalline substances reflect this substantial and hidden correction in the field of electromagnetism. They correct for Franklins one fluid model of electric charge, and for the corpuscular theory of matter in which the corpuscle is a neutral particle to which charge is appended. now a particle is a charged region and the regional boundary reflects the viscosity of the material as well as its elasticity and permeability.

Leibniz put forward the idea that corpuscles were not hard billiard balls but some kind of deformable substance many centuries ago. This idea of deformable form has taken the name viscosity and eleasticity and is a fluid characterisitic of materials. The idea of viscosity is further developed under the notion of permeability and permittivity, with coefficients of stifness also playing a role. In short, our current models of matter are not particulate or corpuscular, they are fluid models.

Given that they are fluid models, the notion of an electron as wholly representing one charge is meaningless, as charge is meaninglessin its old Franklin sense. The two fluids clearly are dynamic. but one fluid is more dynamic than the other. This is the one that easily jumps out of a rock dielectric as a "spark".

The movement of this fluid in the dielectric is associated with the attraction and repulsion at a distance effects of the material, especially when this fluid moves through the dielectric in a spark. Thus the magnetic action at a distance is associted with the electric fluids attracting and balancing each other in terms of this magnetic action at a distance.

The 2 fluid theory supports the 2 fluids as the source of the magnetic action at a distance, the magnetic dipole effect in a dielectric, now called a diamagnetic in this case, and the spark phenomenon as one fluid jumps through a field of fluid to connect to its other fluid counterpart elsewhere located.

Now a magnetic action will guide that spark jump and the magnetic dipoles formed by the interaction of the fluids along the spark path.

In the light of this what is the electric tension? This is the tension that exists between the 2 fluids, which creates a magnetic dipole. A magnetic dipole is what is confused with an electric dipole. An electric dipole is a dielectric material that holds the magnetic dipoles in strict formation so that the fluids take up positions on either side of the viscous substance. When the fluids separate , that is when the magnetic dipoles split a spark is produced along a magnetic dipole path which means the fluid has to contort its way across a magnetic path, making its way from similar pole to similar pole. spining the dipoles accordingly. This creates a spinning magnetic dipole chain with secondary opposite fluid sparks tracking out at right angles to the main spark and out of phase with the main sparks action. These orthogonal sparks a a much lower power level are what are observed as magnetic field lines aaround a spark.

The use of the term magnetic takes preeminence historically, but the 2 fluid theory distinguishes itself by the term electric for the fundamental tensions between the 2. These names are arbitrary as the phenomenon is the same and dependent on the fluid viscosity of the regions containing the 2 fluids. By this i mean the 2 fluids in their interaction form a viscous region, and the fluidity of separation of the fluids determines the phenomenology. For a certain viscosity the fluids form dipoles we cal magnetic, and this seems to be the fundamental dipole; for other viscosities the fluids form a dipole we call electric.

Now of course we can switch the names or labels round and make the fundamental dipole electric, but then the larger scale effect, the discharge we would logically have to call magnetic, and we would be talking about magneticity today .

However, as we have it we should rightly talk about the atomic structure in terms of magnetic dipoles, and chemistry in terms of magnetic interactions. When that is done we may then understand nuclear dipoles as magnetic interactions, and ultimately quantum mechanics in terms of magnetic fractal effects.This means that we should not isolate the 2 fluids to an atomic level separation into one or the other, but rather the two fluids are a quantum distinction, and even then a fractal quantum distinction. The deeper we supposedly zoom the more the dual fluid analysis continues to apply.
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/spring01/Electrodynamics.html

What distinguishes a magnetic dipole from an electrostatic on in the fluid model is the vorticular relationship between the fluids. Got a magnetic dipole the fluids are rotating about each other mutually. for an electrostatic dipole magnetic dipoles are spinning against each other fractionating the dipoles into two polarised groups one fluid mving faster than the other leading to a chromatographic separation we call electro static.

We have to understand this field as an enhanced magnetic field effect. The structure and relationships of vortices , their combinatorial dispositions in space effect the field disposition of an electrostatic field, but a strong crystalline formation is associared with a magnetic field disposition.

Like Yin and Yang we cannot have one without the other, absolutely.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s