James Maxwell's Physical Model

Has science taken a wrong turn? If so, what corrections are needed? Chronicles of scientific misbehavior. The role of heretic-pioneers and forbidden questions in the sciences. Is peer review working? The perverse "consensus of leading scientists." Good public relations versus good science.

Moderators: bboyer, MGmirkin

Locked
User avatar
StefanR
Posts: 1371
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:31 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: James Maxwell's Physical Model

Unread post by StefanR » Mon Jun 15, 2009 9:36 am

Solar wrote:It is interesting that prior to 1923 the universe was considered to consist solely of the Milky Way galaxy. Then, in 1922-23 or so Edwin Hubble suggested that some of the objects vied through the telescope were actually outside of the Milky Way. It took nearly two years before this became accepted as fact making it just over 80 years since this has been recognized.
With that realization one’s perception of the universe exponentially expanded (no pun intended) as ‘space’ functioned to ‘physically’ integrate the newly perceived potential distance relations and automatically subsumes physical continuity.
Solar, I'm still going through your post. You always have such a amazing way of compiling and rewording information, that I sometimes feel a little jealous :)
So before I finish reflecting on that, let me post a few sections from Boscovich concerning gravity, it's not all of course but again gives an indication of train of thought.
Please do note what is said in the last two sections concerning stars and other such particles

398. The primary elements of matter are considered by most people to be immutable, & of such a kind that it is quite impossible for them to be subject to attrition or fracture,unless indeed the order of phenomena & the whole face of Nature were changed. Now, my elements are really such that neither themselves, nor the law of forces can be changed ; & the mode of action when they are grouped together cannot be changed in any way ; for they are simple, indivisible & non-extended. From these, by what I have said in Art. 239, when collected together at very small distances apart, in sufficiently strong limit-points on the curve of forces, there can be produced primary particles, less tenacious of form than the simple elements, but yet, on account of the extreme closeness of its parts, very tenacious in consequence of the fact that any other particle of the same order will act simultaneously on all the points forming it with almost the same strength, & because the mutual forces are greater than the difference between the forces with which the different points forming it are affected by the other particle. From such particles of the first order there can be formed particles of a second order, still less tenacious of form ; & so on. For the greater the composition, & the larger the distances, the more readily can it come about that the inequality of forces, which alone will disturb the mutual position, begins to be greater than the mutual forces which endeavour to maintain that mutual position, i.e. the form of the particles. Then indeed we shall have changes & transformations, such as we see in these bodies of ours, & which are also obtained in most of the particles of the last orders, which compose these new bodies. But the primary elements of matter will bequite immutable, & particles of the first orders will preserve their forms in opposition to even very strong forces from without.

399. Gravity also is counted as a general property, especially by followers of Newton ; & I am of the same opinion, so long as it is not supposed to be in the inverse ratio of the squares of the distances for all distances, but merely for distances such as those that lie between the distance of our bodies from the far greatest part of the mass of the Earth, & the distances from the Sun of the aphelia of the most remote comets ; & so long as in this region it is not assumed to follow the law of the inverse squares exactly, but only very approximately to any desired degree of closeness, as I said in Art. 121. Now gravity of this kind is represented by the last arc of my curve in Fig. I ; & this, if gravity goes on indefinitely according to this same or any similar law, will be an asymptotic branch. Indeed, it may be, as I remarked in Art. 119, assumed that gravity is even accurately as the inverse square, & that it extends to all distances according to the same law, but that in addition there is some other force represented by another curve ; then the law of forces of Fig. I is to be resolved into this force & into gravity reckoned as being exactly as the inverse square of the distance. This force, then, at those distances, for which gravity follows very approximately such a law, will be an insensible force ; but at most other distances it would be very great. Where Fig. i gives repulsions, the force that is assumed to follow this other law would also have to be repulsive, & greater than the force, given by the law of the primitive curve of Fig. i, by an amount equal to the supposed value of gravity at that place ; & this must be cancelled by the addition of this repulsive force. However, this would depend upon our manner of assumption ; & in this my own primitive & actual law, I consider that gravity is indeed universal & follows the law of the inverse squares of the distances, although not exactly, but very closely ; I consider that it does not extend to all distances, but only to those I have set forth.

400. For the rest, that gravity exists universally throughout the whole planetary system, I think is thoroughly demonstrated by those arguments derived from Astronomy which are used by the disciples of Newton ; these I do not repeat here, since they are set forth everywhere ; I too have discussed them in several places, besides including them in Adnotationes ad poema P. Noceti De Aurora Boreali. But I consider that it is most evident that the approach to the Sun of the comets & primary planets, & that of the secondaries to the primaries, such as we see in the descent from the rectilinear tangent to the arc of the curve, & to a far greater degree other motions depending on mutual gravitation cannot possibly be due to fluid pressure. For, to omit other reasons truly numerous, the fluid that can avail so much in its action on spheres of this kind merely by its pressure, would certainly have a much greater effect upon their tangential velocities, by its opposition ; these would in every case be bound to be diminished by such resistance, with a huge perturbation of areas,- & the perversion of the whole of astronomical mechanics. Thus the fluid would either be bound to set up a huge resistance to 'the progress of a planet or a comet, or else it does not even by its pressure impress any sensible motion upon it.

401. Now, the principal laws of gravitation are that it varies directly as the mass & inversely as the square of the distances from each of the points of that mass ; & in my Theory it is quite clear that this must be the case. For, as soon as we reach the arc of my curve that represents gravitation, all the forces are attractive, & to all intents obey the same law ; & so some of them do not cancel others in opposite directions, but their sum approximately corresponds to the number of points. Except in so far as, on account of the inequality between the distances of the points, & their relative positions, there will be need, in order to obtain the sum of the forces accurately when the volumes are somewhat large, to make use of the reduction usually employed by mechanicians ; by the aid of which are found the laws according to which a point situated at a given distance & in a given position from a mass of given shape is attracted by that mass. Here, as I indicated in Art. 347, one sphere gravitates towards another sphere in the manner that it would if the whole of their masses were for each condensed at their respective centres ; whilst for other figures we meet with altogether different laws.

402. But the greatest support for my Theory lies in a statement in Art. 212, which I said ought to be noticed ; namely, in the fact that we see so much uniformity in all masses with regard to the force of gravity ; in spite of the fact that these same masses, for the purpose of other phenomena depending on the smaller distances apart, have differences so great as those possessed by different bodies as regards hardness, colour, taste, smell &sound. For, a different combination of the points of matter induces totally different sumsfor those distances up to which the curve of forces still twists about the axis ; where a very slight change in the distances changes attractive forces into repulsive, & substitutes, vice versa, differences for sums. Whereas, at those distances for which gravity obeys the laws we have stated very approximately, the curve has its ordinates all in the same direction &, even if the distance is slightly altered, practically unaltered in length. This of necessity produces a huge difference in the former case, & a very great uniformity in the latter.

403. The distinction between gravitation (which is proportional to the mass on which it acts, directly, & as the square of the distance, inversely) & weight (which is, in addition,proportional to the mass causing the gravitation) is just the same in my Theory as in that of Newton & all mechanicians. The former gives the accelerating force, the latter the motive force ; since the former gives the force of any gravitating point, upon which depends the velocity of the mass, & the latter the sum of all the forces pertaining to all such points. Similarly, the agreement is the same in my Theory with regard to anything relating to the motions of heavy bodies stated by Galileo & Huygens ; except that, in descent along inclined planes, or bodies supported by two inclined planes or inclined strings, I substitute for their resolution of gravity the principle of composition, as in Art. 284, 286 ; & I deduce the centre of oscillation, as well as the centre of equilibrium, the lever, the balance & the principles of machines from a consideration of three masses acting mutually upon one another ; & this more especially by means of a simple theorem depending on that consideration, which I investigated fully in Art. 307. The agreement is just as close in my Theory with regard to anything occurring in the celestial mechanics of Newton, now universally accepted, with regard to the motions of planets & comets, particularly the perturbations of the motions of Jupiter & Saturn when at less than the average distances from one another, the aberrations of the Moon, the flow of the tides, the figure of the Earth, the precession of the equinoxes, & the nutation of the axis. Finally, for the correct solution of these latter problems, a much safer & more expeditious path is opened to me, such as will lead me to it after an investigation of the system of four masses, not even lying in the same common plane, connected together by mutual forces ; just as the consideration of a system of three masses led me with such ease to the centre of oscillation even to one side in the same plane, & to the centre of percussion in the same straight line.

404. In addition to these, there is one thing in which I do not agree, namely, in that which relates to the immobility of the fixed stars ; it is usually objected to the universal gravitation of Newton, that in accordance with it the fixed stars should by their mutual attraction approach one another, & in time all cohere into one mass. Others reply to this, that the universe is indefinitely extended, & therefore that any one fixed star is equally drawn in all directions. But in things that actually exist, I consider that it is totally impossible that there can be any absolute infinity. Others fall back on the immense distance, which they say will not permit the motion arising in the fixed stars from the force of gravity to be perceived by the senses, even after an immense number of ages. In this they assert nothing but the truth ; for if we consider the fixed stars equal & similar to our sun, or at any rate the amounts of light that they emit, as not being far different from the ratio of their masses ; then since also the force is proportional to the masses, & in addition both force & light decrease in the inverse ratio of the squares of the distances, it must be that the force of gravity of our solar system on all the stars is to the force of our gravity on the Sun, which latter is many times less than the force of gravity of our heavy bodies on the Earth, as the total light which comes from all the stars is to the light which comes from the Sun ; & this ratio is the same as the ratio of night to day in respect of light. How slight is the motion that can arise from this in the time (the comparatively short time available for observation) nobody can fail to see. Even if all the fixed stars were situated in the same direction, the motion could be considered as absolutely nothing.

405. However, since our period of life & memory, in comparison with the immense number of ages perchance to follow, is almost as nothing, if universal gravitation extends indefinitely with the same law, & the same asymptotic branch, not only this solar system of ours indeed, but the universe of corporeal nature, would, little by little in truth, but still continuously, recede from the state in which it was established, & the universe would necessarily fall to destruction ; all matter would in time be conglomerated into one shapeless mass, since the gravity of the fixed stars on one another will not be cancelled by any oblique or curvilinear motion. That this is not the case cannot be absolutely proved ; & yet a Theory which opens up a possible way to avoid this universal ruin, in the way that my Theory does, would seem to be more in agreement with the idea of Divine Providence. For it may be that, as I remarked in Art. 170, the last arc of my curve, which represents gravity, after it has reached distances greater than the greatest distances from the Sun of all the comets that belong to our solar system, will depart very considerably from the hyperbola having its ordinates the reciprocals of the squares of the distances, & once more will cut the axis & be twined about it. In this way, it may be that the whole aggregate of the fixed stars, together with the Sun, is a single particle of an order higher than those of which the system is composed ; & that it belongs to a system immensely greater still. It may even be the case that there are very many such orders of particles, of such a kind that particles of the same class are completely separated from one another without any possible means of getting from one to the other, owing to several asymptotic arcs to my curve, as I explained in Art. 171.
Am I wrong in reading in that last bit a tentative approach to a galaxy and galaxy-clusters? :?
The illusion from which we are seeking to extricate ourselves is not that constituted by the realm of space and time, but that which comes from failing to know that realm from the standpoint of a higher vision. -L.H.

User avatar
junglelord
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
Location: Canada

Re: James Maxwell's Physical Model

Unread post by junglelord » Mon Jun 15, 2009 2:37 pm

I keep thinking that all the time Steven. Nice syncronicity to this posting today. Good stuff guys.
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord

seasmith
Posts: 2815
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

Re: James Maxwell's Physical Model

Unread post by seasmith » Wed Jun 17, 2009 4:40 pm

~
StefanR wrote:
Am I wrong in reading in that last bit a tentative approach to a galaxy and galaxy-clusters?
And, a tentative reference to what are now colloquially called 'parallel universes' ?

~
For a succinct EU approach to Boscovic's "contiguity and continuity", I found Aspden's 1996 final summation "The Creative Vacuum" well worth the re-read...

http://www.aspden.org/books/Asp/1825.htm
~

User avatar
Solar
Posts: 1372
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 3:05 am

Re: James Maxwell's Physical Model

Unread post by Solar » Sun Jun 21, 2009 8:25 pm

In this way, it may be that the whole aggregate of the fixed stars, together with the Sun, is a single particle of an order higher than those of which the system is composed ; & that it belongs to a system immensely greater still. It may even be the case that there are very many such orders of particles, of such a kind that particles of the same class are completely separated from one another without any possible means of getting from one to the other, owing to several asymptotic arcs to my curve, as I explained in Art. 171.
Yes, the heirarchical nature of electro-plasma dynamics. And thank you for the kind thoughts Stephan but it is indeed mutual. Another sentence in your last Boschovic post had me curious. From sec 402:
For, a different combination of the points of matter induces totally different sums for those distances up to which the curve of forces still twists about the axis…
In Boschovich’s Fig 1 below, the above sentence seems to suggest that the bottom representation of continuous force(s) form a ’spiral’. Not a sine wave as I had originally thought (?).

There is an interesting correlation to be made of Boscovich’s theory as relates the asymptotic “curve of forces” once you follow his thoughts. I want to reference Fig. 12 (top graphical representation in image below) of his geometric representation of the continuous force(s). Here he expresses a cycloidal nature to what appears to be a reciprocal relationship of the ‘radiative’ nature of force(s) and the ‘influx’ nature of force(s) aka “repulsion” & “attraction”.

Before reading Boscovich’s footnote, a section of which which I’ve posted below, please read the very short ‘section 3’ on page 8 of this Aetheromety pdf – “A Note on Dayton Miller’s Supposed Discovery Of an Aether Drift”.

Here we have the idea of a consistent motion of the Aether as impelling, or propelling, motion via its influx into ‘bodies’. The analogy of the Earth - as well as other celestial bodies – as put forth by Reich “is that of ball rolling on water waves more slowly than the waves.” This is commensurate with gravity as a “push”; as aetheric forces spiral and converge. This also results in the formation of a local “aetherosphere”.

Boscovich’s footnote is at the bottom of page 135 and continued at the bottom of page 139. The footnotes are in reference to the graphic on page 132 or 133 (containing Fig 1 & Fig 12). Specifically, the top graphical representation in the image below (Fig 1).

Image
Let, for example, in Fig. 12[top], CDEFGH etc. be a. continuous cycloid, generated by a point on the circumference of a circle rolling continuously along the straight line AB ; this by its nature extends on either side to infinity, & thus meets the base AB in an infinite number of points such as C, E, G, I, etc.

If at every point there is drawn an ordinate such as PQ, and this is produced to R, so that PR is a third proportional to PQ & some given straight line ; then the point R will trace out a continuous curve consisting of as many branches, MNO, VXY, etc. …
That is the important aspect because, in considering the influx of an attractive force (gravity for example), the cycloid is inverted as expressed with MNO, VXY etc.

Image

Boschovich continues:
, as there are cycloidal arcs, CDE, EFG, &c. ; each of these branches will have a pair of asymptotic arms, since the ordinate PQ on approaching any one of the points C,E,G, &c., will decrease beyond all limits, (3 thus the ordinate PR will increase beyond all limits. In this curve then there will be CK, EL, GS, &c., all asymptotes parallel to one another & perpendicular to the base AB;
Initially, I thought it was simply the use of Jean & Jacques Bernoulli (1696) along with Leibniz, Newton, Huygens, and others, solution to the ’curve of fastest descent’ that was interesting. However, when you consider an isochronous cycloidal “curve of forces” in relation to “gravity” it is very interesting. First, watch this very short vid:

Gravity demo on the Moon

Now, here is something really special. A real Experimental Scientist In the old tradition! Contrast the “proof” demonstrated in the lunar video with the demonstration at the bottom of the following page:

Scitechantiques

The important consideration is that spheres arrive at the apex of the cycloidal curve at the same time. Although this relationship has been well established and linked with “gravity”; that link has been a static one. It’s just a correlative observation of the rate of fastest descent. However Boschovich, in my mind, is now aligned with those who consider that this is the result of an ‘influx of something’. Boscovich gave it no name but considers ‘continuity of force’ in this relation. In other words, the cycloidal ‘influx of force’ is one of the ways that Boschovich considers ‘continuity of force’ via compound motions as impelling the relative motions of objects. He goes on in the footnote to later to describe how this 'influx' (attraction) and its radiativly asymptotic 'return to infinity' (repulsion) interacts.

Reginald Cahill calls it “3-Space”, and Aetheromety simply calls it what it is:
Aetherometry proposes that the rotational and translatory movements of planets, stars and galaxies are the result of spinning (vortical) motions of massfree energy on multiple scales. Aether waves (associated with the influx of aether lattices) impart impulses to the Earth as they curve in towards the planet along cycloidal paths. This aether influx not only propels the Earth but also produces its gravitational field by 'pressing down' towards the planet's surface or centre. The aether vortex (with all its subvortices) that generates gravitational 'attraction' within the solar system can be pictured as a discoidal extension of the Sun. – Aetherometry & Gravity An Introduction
It is poignant, to me, that Boscovich also used the inverted cycloidal dynamic in relation to his Law of Continuity, gravity, and the asymptotic “curve of force”. Conceptually compare this with sections 4 “Cycloids and gravity” & section 6 “Aether flux and celestial motions” of: Cycloids and Gravity. In relation to the cycloid and “gravity” what this means is that ‘free fall along the vertical’ is an inaccurate description. Look carefully at the picture of the apples & Newton at the top of the previous link. Boscovich is spot on in his reasoning!

Cycloid
Brachistochrone curve
Tautochrone or isochrone curve
"Our laws of force tend to be applied in the Newtonian sense in that for every action there is an equal reaction, and yet, in the real world, where many-body gravitational effects or electrodynamic actions prevail, we do not have every action paired with an equal reaction." — Harold Aspden

User avatar
junglelord
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
Location: Canada

Re: James Maxwell's Physical Model

Unread post by junglelord » Tue Jun 23, 2009 5:52 pm

The cycloid information was cool, I did not know that, but it makes total sense to me. Very cool video of a simple device to show that gravity is not what they teach. It is also clear that simple test like the cycloid or the north on north magnet are inexpensive and are great examples of nature talking.

The two gravity model, where the second one is the fine structure constant based on black holes is nonsense, as there are no black holes. But the plasmoid and the spiral galaxy and the fine structure constant are directly related...on that note I agree. Taking the geometry of the fine structure constant and applying it on the grand scale, as above, so below.
:D
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord

User avatar
StefanR
Posts: 1371
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:31 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: James Maxwell's Physical Model

Unread post by StefanR » Wed Jun 24, 2009 5:46 am

junglelord wrote:Nice syncronicity to this posting today.
It seems to cannot happen any other way ;)

seasmith wrote:~
StefanR wrote:

Am I wrong in reading in that last bit a tentative approach to a galaxy and galaxy-clusters?


And, a tentative reference to what are now colloquially called 'parallel universes' ?

~
For a succinct EU approach to Boscovic's "contiguity and continuity", I found Aspden's 1996 final summation "The Creative Vacuum" well worth the re-read...

http://www.aspden.org/books/Asp/1825.htm
~


There is something in there, that certainly seems to enable such excursion, as can also be seen in these sections
171. If, in Fig. 14, there are any number of segments AA', A'A", of which each that follows is immensely great with regard to the one that precedes it ; & if through eachpoint there passes an asymptote, such as AB, A'B', A"B", perpendicular to the axis ; the between any two of these asymptotes there may be curves of the form given in Fig. 1. These are represented in Fig. 14 by DEFI &c., D'E'F'I' &c. ; & in these the first arm E would be asymptotic & repulsive, & the last SV attractive. In each the interval EN, where the arc of the curve is winding, is exceedingly small compared with the interval near S, where the arc for a very long time continues closely approximating to the form of the hyperbola having its ordinates in the inverse ratio of the squares of the distances ; & then, either goes off straightway into an asymptotic & attractive arm, or once more winds about the axis until it becomes an asymptotic attractive arc of this kind, the area corresponding to either asymptotic arc being infinite. In such a case, if a number of points are assembled between any pair of asymptotes, or between any number of pairs you please, correctly arranged, there can, so to speak, arise from them any number of universes, each of them being similar to the other, or dissimilar, according as the arcs EF . . . . N, E'F' .... N' are similar to one another, or dissimilar ; & this too in such a way that no one of them has any communication with any other, since indeed no point can possibly move out of the space included between these two arcs, one repulsive & the other attractive ; & such that all the universes of smaller dimensions taken together would act merely as a single point compared with the next greater universe, which would consist of little point-masses, so to speak, of the same kind compared with itself, that is to say, every dimension of each of them, compared with that universe & with respect to the distances to which each can attain within it, would be practically nothing. From this it would also follow that any one of these universes would not be appreciably influenced in any way by the motions & forces of that greater universe ; but in any given time, however great, the whole inferior universe would experience forces, from any point of matter placed without itself, that approach as near as possible to equal & parallel forces ; these therefore would have no influence on its relative internal state.
Image
518. Also, in some of these classes, the absence of any force may be admitted ; & then the substance of one of these classes will pas perfectly freely through the substance of another without any collisions ; for, with a finite number of indivisible points, there would not be any ; & thus the substance would pass through with real impenetrability & apparent compenetration. Also it would be possible for one kind to be bound up with another by means of a law of forces, which they have with a third, without any mutual law of forces between themselves, or these two kinds might have no connection with any third. In the latter case there might be a large number of material & sensible universes existing in the same space, separated one from the other in such a way that one was perfectly independent of the other, & the one could never acquire any indication of the existence of the other. It is truly wonderful how many other combination- in cases of any such connection of two kinds with a third could be obtained for the purpose of explaining the phenomena of Nature. But the arguments, which I brought forward in favour of homogeneity, hold good for all points, with which we can have any relation ; & for these alone the principle of induction can hold good. Further, whether there may be other kinds of points, either here in the space around us, or somewhere else at a distance from us, or, if the idea of such a thing is not opposed to our reason, in some other kind of space having no relation with our space, in which there may be points that have no distance-relation with points existing in our space ; of this we can know nothing. For, nothing relating to it in the slightest degree can be fathered from the phenomena of Nature ; & it would be great presumption for any one to x as a limit his own power of perception, or even of imagination, of all the things that the Divine Author of Nature has founded.
So in a sense, certain options might be allowed by reasoning, but the fact that those other systems/universes have no interaction between the points of one universe to an other, makes them not detectable or sensible and by that not necessary to consider them in relation to the physical reality we live in
So it's not a version held by some today where there is a needed interaction or existence of multiple universes, be it two or more, to account for observations in our universe or theoretical considerations concerning our universe
From what I seem to get from Boscovich is that this universe is a whole made of the parts/points that stand in relation to each other, any other point or system of points "outside" this partial whole are not detectable and do not influence our universe, whether as a universes hidden inside "points" or several "spaces" outside one another or systems of points having totally different of kinds of interactions from our system of "points"

As for Harold Aspden, to me it slowly becomes interesting to see how all those kinds of theories and ideas converge and diverge from this theory of Boskovich which precedes them by some years, I personally think if one is able to hold all those different systems up to the light as blueprints and not hold on to one particular, the most interesting things come popping in mind ;)
The illusion from which we are seeking to extricate ourselves is not that constituted by the realm of space and time, but that which comes from failing to know that realm from the standpoint of a higher vision. -L.H.

User avatar
StefanR
Posts: 1371
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:31 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: James Maxwell's Physical Model

Unread post by StefanR » Wed Jun 24, 2009 5:51 am

junglelord wrote:black holes is nonsense, as there are no black holes.
Vidi well, my friend, vidi well :D
405. However, since our period of life & memory, in comparison with the immense number of ages perchance to follow, is almost as nothing, if universal gravitation extends indefinitely with the same law, & the same asymptotic branch, not only this solar system of ours indeed, but the universe of corporeal nature, would, little by little in truth, but still continuously, recede from the state in which it was established, & the universe would necessarily fall to destruction ; all matter would in time be conglomerated into one shapeless mass, since the gravity of the fixed stars on one another will not be cancelled by any oblique or curvilinear motion. That this is not the case cannot be absolutely proved ; & yet a Theory which opens up a possible way to avoid this universal ruin, in the way that my Theory does, would seem to be more in agreement with the idea of Divine Providence
The illusion from which we are seeking to extricate ourselves is not that constituted by the realm of space and time, but that which comes from failing to know that realm from the standpoint of a higher vision. -L.H.

User avatar
StefanR
Posts: 1371
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:31 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: James Maxwell's Physical Model

Unread post by StefanR » Wed Jun 24, 2009 5:53 am

Solar wrote:It is poignant, to me, that Boscovich also used the inverted cycloidal dynamic in relation to his Law of Continuity, gravity, and the asymptotic “curve of force”. Conceptually compare this with sections 4 “Cycloids and gravity” & section 6 “Aether flux and celestial motions” of: Cycloids and Gravity. In relation to the cycloid and “gravity” what this means is that ‘free fall along the vertical’ is an inaccurate description. Look carefully at the picture of the apples & Newton at the top of the previous link. Boscovich is spot on in his reasoning!
What is there left to add or subtract?
Quite some observation 8-) :idea:
The illusion from which we are seeking to extricate ourselves is not that constituted by the realm of space and time, but that which comes from failing to know that realm from the standpoint of a higher vision. -L.H.

User avatar
junglelord
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
Location: Canada

Re: James Maxwell's Physical Model

Unread post by junglelord » Wed Jun 24, 2009 7:09 am

StefanR wrote:
junglelord wrote:Nice syncronicity to this posting today.
It seems to cannot happen any other way ;)

As for Harold Aspden, to me it slowly becomes interesting to see how all those kinds of theories and ideas converge and diverge from this theory of Boskovich which precedes them by some years, I personally think if one is able to hold all those different systems up to the light as blueprints and not hold on to one particular, the most interesting things come popping in mind ;)
Thats syncronis too....
:lol:

I got kicked off of the TT Brown forum by the moderator who could only champion Aspden.
He could not get APM through his thick skull.
:?

I told him that Wilbert Smith, Correa, Aspden, Tesla, Brown, Birkeland, EU, APM, Blazelabs, Treeincarnation, Howard Johnson, Meyl, Faraday, Maxwells Original work, Dirac, were all pieces of the same puzzle.
I told him that all these models were related and that not one single model is giving you all the vision.
I told him I hold multiple models at once to light and watch what pops up.
:D

I told him aether was a RMF with a quantum spin of 2 and that mass was a dimension.
He nearly died.

I then mentioned that the work of EU and Birkeland prededicted the magnetic tubes b/t the sun and the earth carrying the currents of electricity, birkeland currents.

He posted some NASA pic of the earth circuit. He said we should make use of it.
I said we had, the NASA Tether.
He sent me some PM about me slighting him over some post on teathers?????
By that time I had enough of his internet bully tactics and told him to take a flying leap in a return PM, as I had no knowledge of his Tether posts, nor was I even talking about him, or some slight to his intelligence, by saying that NASA made tethers to gather electricity. Infact I did not understand his biligerent PM, I guess like he did not understand APM.
He kicked me off....
:twisted:

Too bad, cause a brilliant mind is a terrible thing to waste...but try to explain synesthesia to a control freak.
:roll:

This forum allows individual expression. TT Brown forum is a ASPDEN only site. At least thats the only model the moderator understands.
:lol:

I have in my hands a breakdown of Maxwells work, his original work, line by line by Dave Thomson of APM.
Its mindblowing.
:D

As you showed me via Meyl, the e- and the p+ is a two charge unit, as does APM.
This is very important. Thats simple enough, but hard for people to accept for some reason.
:?:
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord

kevin
Posts: 1148
Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2008 10:17 am

Re: James Maxwell's Physical Model

Unread post by kevin » Wed Jun 24, 2009 10:15 am

Junglelord,
Which forum are You on about been banned from?
kevin

User avatar
webolife
Posts: 2539
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: James Maxwell's Physical Model

Unread post by webolife » Wed Jun 24, 2009 10:52 am

The "vectors" that I tout [as influenced by Robert Archer Smith, see that other thread] are very much like Faraday's lines of force, with the following exception: Faraday supposed that phenomena like polarization require the lines of force vibrate in a lateral fashion, similar perhaps to Ralph Sansbury's view I think. Not as similar I suppose to Gaede's torsional wave hypothesis. I see polarization as an angular exclusion event, not requiring the vibration of the lines of force. Vector/ray geometry accounts for polarization, as well as phenomena related to redshift and recession, without the need for light itself moving either laterally or longitudinally. I agree with Faraday's disallowance [if I understand it correctly] of a physical sea of aether particles, but recognize the possibility of an "immaterial" aether concept determining or determinied by the motions and geometric interrelationship of particles "at a distance". Boscovich seems to have a similar view, but I think he assumes that light moves, rather than "requiring" it does? That light "changes" with respect to the relative motion and distance of objects, and also wrt intrinsic factors affecting and affected by the electrical fields of objects at the atomic and astronomic levels, but these changes do not require that light "stuff "[either particles or waves] move from point a to point b, let alone that that motion be the c-rate. I assert that both gravitation and light do not move at all in the sense of being propagated or emitted, so therefore they both must occur at the same "rate", ie instantaneously.
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.

User avatar
junglelord
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
Location: Canada

Re: James Maxwell's Physical Model

Unread post by junglelord » Wed Jun 24, 2009 7:50 pm

I keep trying to get a synesthesia with your model web, but it does not hit me.
I apprciate your understanding of your method. The instant effect is not foreign to my mind.
I do feel like I cannot apprciate the method from that direction. I also have trouble with gravity as done by APM.
Something is not clicking yet about gravity....looking, study, asking the universe questions, vision quests, fasting.
Waiting for the final impact of total knowledge.
8-)

I can appreciate two gravities. Thinking about the different ways to view it, with forces, radiation pressures, and the list continues.
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord

User avatar
StevenO
Posts: 894
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: James Maxwell's Physical Model

Unread post by StevenO » Thu Jun 25, 2009 1:39 pm

junglelord wrote:I also have trouble with gravity as done by APM.
Something is not clicking yet about gravity....looking, study, asking the universe questions, vision quests, fasting.
Waiting for the final impact of total knowledge.
8-)

I can appreciate two gravities. Thinking about the different ways to view it, with forces, radiation pressures, and the list continues.
Gravity is scalar motion. Not a scalar wave, but a three dimensional scalar motion. Since we can only observe one-dimensional motions, the speeds in the other two dimensions are only seen as "modifiers" (force, quantum effects). The process is too much hidden to be directly understood by our human experience. The effect is like a projection of a projection.

Atoms are three dimensional scalar motions. A one dimensional scalar motion can be 'modeled' as outward into all directions, similar to the expansion of the far away galaxies. Since the atomic scalar speed is smaller than the aether speed, which is a scalar motion at lightspeed, relatively speaking, gravity is the scalar compression of all matter wrt. to the aether.
First, God decided he was lonely. Then it got out of hand. Now we have this mess called life...
The past is out of date. Start living your future. Align with your dreams. Now execute.

User avatar
junglelord
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
Location: Canada

Re: James Maxwell's Physical Model

Unread post by junglelord » Thu Jun 25, 2009 6:24 pm

Good one Steven, I got a mental vision, as I read your post.
I see exactly what your saying.
Thanks
8-)
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord

User avatar
junglelord
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
Location: Canada

Re: James Maxwell's Physical Model

Unread post by junglelord » Sat Jun 27, 2009 8:02 am

Aspden on Electostatic Gravity
http://www.scribd.com/doc/11851827/aspd ... force-2005
More work from Aspden
http://www.aspden.org/

The key as I see it, that was not picked up by the moderator at the TT Brown forum, was that the math that derives the models of Aspden and Thomson and BlazeLabs respectivly were all based on the same groundworks. A review of physics from a quantum standpoint that made quantum constants, like Plancks constant a groundbase from which to work up from. The indentification of the electron fine structure constant was a momumental achievement for both Aspden and Thomson. I feel badly that neither has been recognized for their efforts, dispite the fact that Feynman said that the this finding was the answer to the entire universe. I therefore find much pleasure in trying to tell the world that according to Feynman, these two gentlemen have done something profound.

I see the merit in all these efforts. Each one has taught me to understand the database in a more complete way.
I see no problem in having more then one view of this underworld.
:D

I do however think that APM quantifies in a much more relateable way to modern physics.
The way that Aspden comes to certain conclusions is great in his context, but it is a totally different way to come to some remarkeable conclusions.
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest