It is so easy to fall into the trap of right and wrong! Before Einstein, very few believed in atoms or electrons. They were powerful conceptual models. They proved to be very useful tools. They were wonderful aides de campe when pondering the behaviours of natural systems. What changed?

Scientists as a group reflect thir cultures, and those cultures provide alternative myths. What factualises a myth? It is the ability to choose what an individual wants to accept as a premise! For many disaffected scientists a revolution in thought was needed, a paradigm shift to avoid the inconsistencies of cultural mythologies. So a powerful rethink was done, under the twin headings of scientific rationalism. This rethink could point to magic, technology as its justification for demanding that the old myths give way to the new myths. But in this kind of struggle for hearts and minds myths have to be defined as facts! They are the same thing, but those who call a myth a fact merely betray their intellectual faith, their dogmatic certainty, their rational conviction, their revolutionary paradigm shift.

All human conception is mythical, imaginative, probable but never certain. Thus concepts like" reality ", are designed to cut off argument at the knees. " Truth" is designed to control the debate, both are expressions of convictions.

There are other viable conceptions of living in this experience, that do not require social or cultural approval, but they ecome increasingly difficult to sustain in an environment dominated by other animate groups. Inevitably one has to fight to fuck and feed, or flee to avoid being fucked or becoming food, or one has to negotiate.
It turns out that negotiation produces the most stable relationships over time. These are called symbiotic. The point is they do not eliminate the other options! Eventually the negotiated stability breaks up and a new arrangement has to be negotiated after a period of fight and flight.

None of us can negotiate with destiny. But destiny is a concept of the implacable Fates that both create and destroy. What we can do is adopt and adapt whatever utilitarian behaviours enhance our survivability.

Thus my paradigm shift does not invalidate the hodge podge standard model, it must do equally as well and better if it is to be a utilitarian exercise. It is clear that that is a very tall order, not for intellectual reasons, but for biological and cultural ones. …

For me the resolution of the structure of spatial motives is a ponderous magnetic core with a shimmering electric skin.

Space as a fluid fractal ubstance is ponderous, having substantiality, but at the same time like mercury , quicksilver as fast as lightning. I am holding out against my particular training, straining for the insight that comes with fluidity. But everything's seems to be in reverse!
The bumble has a gas interior and a film of liquid . Of the 2 the thin film seems ponderous , but this is only because my imagination is filled with quicksilver kinetic particles! In a fluid dynamic the core of the bubble must be ponderous fluid , and the skin a quicksilver lacquer straining to give it shape and regionality.

Bubbles are not always less dense than the surrounding air. On mainly occasions they are about the same or more dense, so they slowly float down. The liquid skin is denser than air, but shattered into a zillion pieces the liquid skin floats away evaporated into the air. The dynamics do not seem right. More is going on than meets the eye.

Bubbles that float are less dense, but they have a higher pressure than the surrounding air? Is that not mixed up? A weather balloon floats up until its internal pressure exceeds the surrounding air and it expands. So pressure and density do not work together to give lift always.
On an aerofoil low pressure gives lift, but how? Is it not low density that gives lift, and low pressure makes it freer to move in the direction of lowest pressure? If an aerofoil system displaces more than its weight of the surrounding air won't the air pressure around that system support it? And then within that system won't the Aerofoil move more easily in less dense air and so take the path of lowest resistance?

So we have a combination of systems. Displaced air creating a less dense region that rises; the triboloyl of the Aerofoil shaping the pressure profile which shapes the less dense region, and finally the whole system rising with local motion within the system. This external structure modified by local constraints must recourse at different scales combinatorially, but the ponderous nature of the environmental air through hich the Aerofoil moves is comprehensible.mthe ponderous nature of a soap bubble seems to be in reverse, and yet it nearly floats all the time
Back to magnetism and electric phenomenon: it seems to be sensible that magnetic attributes are ponderous, and electric less so, but equally it is feasible that certain electric attributes may become a bubble in a ponderous magnetic environment, and float toward a less dense magnetic environment.

As discussed above certain magnetic regions maybe encased in electric skins or certain electric regions similarly encased in electric skins. The question of which has greater " gravity" needs further empirical testing.

I do not know yet, but I favour a magnetic fluid whose density is greater than an electric fluid that sheaths it like the skin of a bubble, but this same skin can sheath a region of electric fluid which being less ponderous floats to regions of lower magnetic intensity.

Heat is involved in both these fluids, as is cold. Pressures that increase or decrease turbulent vorticity, with the attendant effects of sound and radiation.
But what of the Shear Energy? What about convincing explanations such as this?

Chip n Dip above explains the true complexity, but still uses these bubbles with + and –. Fluid dynamics does not exclude bubbles or miscible and immiscible fluids, so these explanations have a fluid dynamic explanation that is almost similar. But what of my idea tht positive is magnetic and negative is electric? How does it explain empirical data?
The concept of positive is deliberately arbitrary, as is negative. It hides the fact that we have reached the limit of our analytical process. We can give no further division or precursor. Their is no further a priori. My concept therefore is not the same as the standard model. It is in fact a new paradigm. We do not replace positive and negative willy nilly, but carefully starting with a primitive energy which is a fractal sub level of the one I wish to propose.
This energy motivates a magnetic region in space enclosed by an electric sheath that is dynamic as is the magnetic region. These concepts are the primitives for further definitions and propositions.


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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s