Most fluid dynamics or mechanical courses will start with a discussion of what a fluid is. Newton's Principia starts with some discussion of what he is proposing mechanically. Thus he does not start the Principia, book 1 by dealing with fluids. Instead he starts in book 2.
In book 2 he begins to propose the very properties of a fluid, from observations. However, it seems he was difficult to understand by some. His notion of Lubricity or slipperiness seems to have slipped past the followers of his pageant.
Newton, in his spinning bucket noticed the pressure of the motion translated to the water, which in terminal velocity led to a displacement of the fluid up the bucket side. He could clearly see that the pressure in the centre was lower and the rotation of the water was faster in the centre than the outside. The outside initially twisting imparted motion of fluid toward the centre. The centre, rotating slower tended to stop the bucket rotating, but forcing it forced the liquid to increase its rotation. This seemed to happen by a vortex swirl. In this swirl the slower moving water tended to radiate centrifugality. The faster moving water radiated centripetal lay. Thus the centre, through this exchange of streams in a spiral meant that faster lower pressure liquid accumulates at the centre while the higher pressure slower fluid accumulates at the sides.
There is a pressure gradient which is maintained at steady state by cylindrical boundary layers in dynamic equilibrium with the centrifugal force.
Newton noticed that this displacement of the fluid represented a pressure gradient that was maintained when the hole spinning bucket was also circulated in a stable circular path. From these and other experiments he concluded a fluid rotated at different speeds as one looked on the concave surface of the water. He also invoked a concept of lubricity to differentiate the observed speeds.
Lubricity was how slippery the water or fluid was, and that seemed to be related to how concave the fluid surface became in equilibrium.
No one seems to have understood Newtons idea of slipperiness? It seems that viscosity had to be defined in another subject before people began to link lubricity to it.
What the use of lubricity was is unclear at this moment. Today it is called viscosity and is a distinctive parameter in some descriptions of fluid flow. What is clear is that it is an important factor of terminal velocities and only really seems to be a technical concept used in that context, and even then it is generally not understood.
Fluid mechanics starts by defining matter. Now the quantity of matter Newton defined As density conjuncted with bulk.
The quantity of matter is not the same as the concept of matter as we see in fluid mechanics. The concept of matter is derived from the Alchemists: earth, wood, air, fire water. These represented a basic list of elements of matter. Today we have the periodic table, a detailed list of elements of matter. Fluid dynamics properly begins with the periodic table of elements.
Now this is going to involve tautology, because the elements are conceived as having mass, and conserving mass, but few understand the designation mass, and how mass is different to matter. The person who defined a quantity that is a measure of matter quantity is Newton. It is clear that onto and into his definition different language translations have imposed a confusion of meaning. In addition, Newton's subtlety in Latin was lost in translation into English.min Latin a case ending clearly distinguished an adjective from a noun, a descriptive concept from a described object, a principle from an instance, a self reflexive reference from a foundational reference etc.
In Alchemy we have 4 or 5 elements of observable and pragmatic matter
Earth minerals of all sorts, elements or compounds or amorphous mixtures etc. this is where Newton seems to have started Principia in book 1
Water and all sorts of liquids, particularly oils but also hot waxes, metal in molten state etc. this seems to be where he started book 2
Air he seemed to look at in book 2 and 3 but mostly in terms of vacuum, the removal of Air
Fire he seemed to reserve particularly for his work on optics, in which heat also appears and a theory of heat conductance by radiation and vibration.
Now he never claimed to have done everything that could be done, and in fact he left to one side lots of other interests he had because he only had limited time, and others would be able to find such things out, he did not doubt. What he sincerely hoped is that other learned men would inculcate his praxis and method of enquiry, experiment and philosophy to come to sound conclusions free of occult meanderings and hypotheses. That what can be known should be certainly known and not wildly an unabstemiously conjectured, or fancifully indoctrinated.
Thus his second book on liquids was a serious attempt to establish Descartes Vortex hypothesis in liquid and air, the only matter known to sustain uh behaviour. His conclusion was inconclusive! He could not penetrate the mysteries of liquid or air without exposing himself openly to criticisms of occult practice. Thus he began what he could not finish, but he knew he had a mathematical model that explained the motion of the planets if one would accept one unknown behaviour that was what was called gravity, the opposite of Levity.
However to model these behaviours he had to quantify them, which means he had to take every important concept and define a measure to measure the quantity of that concept.
Galileo had started by defining displacement as a concept and then a set of tools to measure displacement. The quantity of displacement was defined using these tools as Metrons.
The concept of time seemed well understood as the relative position of heavenly bodies orbdurationmas the relative position of a surface in a water clock etc. but Galileo decided to standardise time on a pendulum for scientific measures of duration. Duration Hereford was for cientific and philosophic reasonings time, that is the position of stars etc were already measured by astrologers using heir tools and natural dynamic standards of a day etc.
It was Huygens who worked out the dynamical reflexive relationships in a pendulum as a formula. This enabled him to build the most accurate and consistent pendula or metronomes, on which he built dialled timepieces with clock faces to count the periodic swings automatically.
Once the scientific community was convinced that such metronomes were indeed contant, they were then tested against astrological observational tools which measure in arcs, minutes and seconds from which the clock face drew it minutes and seconds nomenclature. The hours of the day were already well established ecclesiastical practice involving chiming or shouting out the hours. These mechanical time pieces were quickly adapted to these roles. Ere long these mechanical marvels stole the mantle of time for succeeding generations.
However in newtons time this prerogative of time was God's alone, and his time was absolute time such as philosophers could only acknowledge their relativity to it.
Huygens had realised pragmatically a relative version of God's own pendulum to count out quantities of time.
Galileo therefore had a concept of celerity, quickness which he quantified by conjunting the inverse of a sense of time with the displacement associated with that time. His quantity of velocity was able to capture largeness of speed or quickness by the shortness of time, or the greatness of displacement in a fixed time
Despite his concept, he found it hard to distinguish what Newton came to call motive and we call acceleration.
The quantity of acceleration was self reflexive, and thus more difficult to grasp. It required one to measure several events in the course of motion and then compare individually and severally between the events. The quantity of acceleration was the key distinguished of newtons formula over everyone else's. Motive, as Newton called it took away Descartes force as being in velocity, which all naturally thought was contained in the bare concept of celerity. It also took out the way Leibniz invocation of an active force giving life and movement to a dead corpus vis vita which Leibniz originally thought was celerity, but since it was not conserved in the mechanical experiments, something all truly divine things would be, according to the credo, he switched it to the square of the velocity, which was conserved. How celerity squared itself to become force he did not explain. It was more important that the hypothesis of conservation was upheld
Huygens also a fervent believer in the credo showed that in a collision interaction 2 things are preserved, the total quantity of motion, and the total vis vita or as he thought force.
Newton demonstrated that motive was the better idea behind force or vis, and by experimentation he noticed that motive was indicated by a variation in displacement between constant pendulum swings. This was a natural force he labelled gravity. But then Hooked law revealed the same variation in displacement. This and other experiments convinced him celerity was not the source of force, another property called motive was needed to be the source of celerity!
We could of course now repeat the pattern and look for some other concept that was the source of motive, and so on. Thus at its heart newtons concepts have a fractal recursive pattern, and this suits a self reflexive property ideally.
The alchemical basis of the corpuscular theory of matter had only one difficulty. It posited incorporeal causes in corporeal behaviours. Or effects. Cause and effect s a well known metaphysical principle, with the immediate cues giving way by recursion backwards, that is deductive reduction to the prime or principal cause.mthe so called first cues. Philosopher both pagan and Christian relied upon this process of analysis. However, it had become fashionable to charge philosophers and Alchemists with the charge of occultism! The implication bing involvement with dark and evil demonic forces. There really was no defence against such a charge if you strayed away from the creed. Newton did not assent to the creed, he therefore was free to investigate everything fairly, but also had to be ultra secretive nd cautious. It is not like he went to church and was a member of good standing. If such a charge was levied against him he would have no defenders!
However, as much as his standing grew so did his boldness in setting out some of his private thoughts and investigations. Newton demonstrates that he has no real view of matter beyond the alchemical, and that it might be the container of incorporeal principles , active ones as causative. Thus both electric as cause and magnetic as cause would be able to embody any corpuscle. Already heat and light were embodying a light corpuscle in his optick theory. In his fluid theory he did not seem to add any specific additional cause, and thus a fluid corpuscle was much like a mineral corpuscle.
It was Joseph black that demonstrated that a new cause called latent heat was required to change a mineral corpuscle into a fluid corpuscle, and later still the electric cause and the magnetic cause were not embodied in a corpuscle but in a fluid that was invisible. Newton's and the corpuscular theory made no provision for invisible corpuscles.
Today we have no problem in creating as many invisible corpuscles as we wish, calling them photons. At least electrons were observable as rays.!
The increase in formerly invisible corpuscles, made visible by their vapour trails lead to an explosion of particles, requiring a detailed model of the corpuscle. Newton observed a spark and thought of sheet lightning. He never seemed to associate magnetic behaviours or electric behaviours with corpuscles or with incorporeal cause. Consequently heat and light fitted in with Newton's theory, but electricity and magnetism were something different, developed bu other researchers with less structural grasp .
JJ Thompson rewrote the corporeal theory.mby then it was common to refer to the corpuscle as an atom.mhis atom was described as a sticky pudding! It was due to Einstins 1905 papers that the corpuscle became a real thing with properties and called an atom. Prior to then it was a vehicle to carry the causative agents in actions.
Rutherford and Bohr really received the atom in the popular consciousness, even though they had no accurate visualisation of it.
So what about the aether? Newton did not believe in a corporeal aether. He had no problem with a metaphysical aether from which causative principles can be said to arise as an extension of gods will. Thus he opposed Hugens on several grounds, but principally on the hypothetical nature of his synthesis of light. The other difficulty was quantitative. Newton had no IDE how you would quantify a wave? He liked to thinks quantitatively, and to do so he needed a measure of the hypothetical wave based on some tool that could measure it. Light spectroscopy, though really initiated by Newtons prism dispersion, did not become an effective tool until after Newton, when it was used to identify elements of matter. Only then was it possible to quantify matter by a quantity of light!
Ok, the historical background for the mess we are in has been drawn, we do not have to copy their mistakes.
Using the fluid dynamic model we can define a corpuscle as a bubble of fluid, deformable into any regional shape
Such a bubble , like any corpuscle is a vehicle for so called motive but motive has been identified as vorticular. From this vortex behaviour we may experience heat, light, electric and magnetic phenomenon. The motive of vorticularity causes acceleration of all these types of behaviour: heat acceleration( change in latent heat over time) electric( change in electric potential formation over time) magnetic( change in magnetic potentialformation over time). These primary effects of vorticular motive give rise to a combined effect called velocity acceleration and viscosity acceleration( change in viscosity over time )and a Lorenzian acceleration(change i aperiodicity over time).
These inherent behaviours inhabit any shaped corpuscular bubble at any scale. Corpuscular bubbles are not visible but there effects are as a fractally distributed region called space, or as I prefer the Shunya field.
C is the terminal velocity of a block of electromagnetic Energy in the fluid space with an extremely low viscosity
So what are these quantity measures and what are the concepts that are being measured, since we have a putative cause..
The cause is dynamically twisting space. With heat and attendant radiation space is twisted fractally creating a fractal disposition of vibrational cavities. The quantity of heat is a volume conjuncted with a latent heat and a heat pressure measurer( thermometer calibrated for expansion not temperature ), heat radiation pressure is also measured by a vacuum bulb containing a radiation sensitive vane. Using a Grassmann ausdehnunsgrosse we design a combinatorial measure which can then be accelersted? We could also use various spectrometers.
Each of these quantities will be combined to give a dynamic picture of heated space twisting vorticularly..
Using a Maxwell velocity distribution to characterise a volume of dynamically active fluid we can conceptually move betweenn amplitude of oscillators distribution, and frequency of oscillators distributions in that one volume. This means we can harcterise between density and pressure( velocity gradients) and intensity and radiation pressure( amplitude and frequency gradients). Intensity is a concept of power distribution, where amplitude is a concept of power or forced movement. Frequency is required to give the distribution dimension. We should therefore plot amplitude against frequency as independent quantities
http://www.odan.org/tw_inner_world_of_opus_dei.htm do not forget the role of the clubs in controlling thought.
Electric and magnetic fields: different aspects of the same phenomenon Main article: Relativistic electromagnetism According to the special theory of relativity, the partition of the electromagnetic force into separate electric and magnetic components is not fundamental, but varies with the observational frame of reference: An electric force perceived by one observer may be perceived by another (in a different frame of reference) as a magnetic force, or a mixture of electric and magnetic forces. Formally, special relativity combines the electric and magnetic fields into a rank-2 tensor, called the electromagnetic tensor. Changing reference frames mixes these components. This is analogous to the way that special relativity mixes space and time into spacetime, and mass, momentum and energy into four-momentum.
The idea seems to be that an electric field is identical to a magnetic field, we just change the way we view it! Although this is buried away in special relativity it does not need to be. What needs to change is the primary education in electric and magnetic phenomenon.
My question is are the magnetic and electric fields orthogonal? The answers are varied and show a fundamental confusion which is difficult to eradicate without facts.mvorticular motive is the paradigm shift to clean up electromahmetic theory.
It seem that the only difference between a magnetic nd an electric fiel is orienting. The combinatorial maximum occurs when they are orthogonal to each other. Two of the same field will have a maximum when aligned and the maximum effect is in the plane or a parallel plane of alignment.mthe electro magnetic combination twists things through a right angle. This is a clear sign of vorticity between the fields.mthis is the source of turbulence and heat effects in fluid dynamics.