"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

reply to post by buddhasystem


It's where the action is.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

It's where the action is.

"flux field of electromagnetism"

is where the action is? What action? What is "flux"?

Specifically, electric fields exist in most of the known Universe. What does "where" apply to?

Originally posted by buddhasystem

is where the action is? What action? What is "flux"?

Flow of energy.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Specifically, electric fields exist in most of the known Universe. What does "where" apply to?

Where applies to drawing energy out of the vacuum with a device.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by buddhasystem

is where the action is? What action? What is "flux"?

Flow of energy.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Specifically, electric fields exist in most of the known Universe. What does "where" apply to?

Where applies to drawing energy out of the vacuum with a device.

a) so you are saying that Rodin's DIAGRAM (something that one can draw on paper) creates a flow of energy?
b) in electromagnetism, fields do not necessarily result in flow of any energy

Originally posted by buddhasystem

a) so you are saying that Rodin's DIAGRAM (something that one can draw on paper) creates a flow of energy?

Of course not. It is a representation that would be used by engineers. Rodin said that in the video.

It's a representation of the dynamic of the universe. If engineers design devices that are in harmony with that dynamic, bingo.

reply to post by buddhasystem


All electromagnetic phenomenon has a toroidal shaped field. Everything is in flux, nothing is static.

You are a fluxing em field.

But as usual, you'll find some other bone to pick

Originally posted by metalshredmetal
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

All electromagnetic phenomenon has a toroidal shaped field.

Bullsh!t #1

Everything is in flux, nothing is static.

Bullsh!t #2

BTW the plural of "phenomenon" is "phenomena".

Not that it will prevent you from posting rubbish.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
BTW the plural of "phenomenon" is "phenomena".

A physicist focusing on spelling in matters of physics is desperate for something to say.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by buddhasystem
BTW the plural of "phenomenon" is "phenomena".

A physicist focusing on spelling in matters of physics is desperate for something to say.

Right on, Mary. Since there is no content that has even remote relation to reality, posted by you and some others, might as well mention that.

Instead of posting this non-post of yours, you may have commented on the fact that not every EM field has toroidal shape. That's an astonishing statement (admittedly coming from one of less intellectually developed members of ATS) and quite false on its face. Somehow, you are not paying attention.

reply to post by buddhasystem


Im on my phone so it a auto corrects me, genius.

Ill provide you with links about the toroidal nature of em fields when im at a computer, but for now:

Please provide us with scientific evidence of a static object. A Static object is an object which does not change and shows no dynamics with any other system.

reply to post by buddhasystem


Oh yes, I'm paying attention where attention is warranted.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

Oh yes, I'm paying attention where attention is warranted.

So, despite your self-proclaimed curiosity and considerable research skills, you aren't motivated the check the specious claim that all EM fields have toroidal configuration? No further look is "warranted"?

What hypocrisy.

reply to post by buddhasystem


are you planning on answering my question? i'm still waiting for you to give some examples of static objects...

reply to post by buddhasystem


I've considered the source. I have to be selective about how I spend my research time.

Originally posted by metalshredmetal
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

are you planning on answering my question? i'm still waiting for you to give some examples of static objects...

A charged sphere sitting on a pedestal, on a workbench. Or a charged capacitor.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

I've considered the source.

Wait, so you take everything that Metal says as the gospel? Talk about dogma. Not a single nerve cell moved in your brain when he produced this idiocy about all fields being toroidal.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by metalshredmetal
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

are you planning on answering my question? i'm still waiting for you to give some examples of static objects...

A charged sphere sitting on a pedestal, on a workbench.

hardy har har.

is this an indirect way of saying you admit that you were wrong? that there is no such existence of static objects on Earth?

you can admit that you were incorrect, and that you acted out of fear-based impulses. I won't hold it against you...forgiveness is the stoppage of the wheel of karma.

did you know the meaning of "static" in relation to "dynamic" before you called my post "bullsh!t"?

Originally posted by metalshredmetal
is this an indirect way of saying you admit that you were wrong? that there is no such existence of static objects on Earth?

No, it's not. Most things are an approximation. Your own weight constantly changes as you breath. Yet there is a number in your medical chart. Same with blood pressure.

Now, was your question an admission that your toroidal field thing was an example of idiocy?

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

I've considered the source.

Wait, so you take everything that Metal says as the gospel? Talk about dogma. Not a single nerve cell moved in your brain when he produced this idiocy about all fields being toroidal.

we must have a typo here....when you typed "Metal", you must have meant to type "Manuel Array´as and Jos´e L. Trueba of Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, Madrid, Spain", because they have a paper that illustrates my point very well.

Electromagnetic Torus Knots

from the INTRODUCTION (basics):

1. Introduccion
The applications of electromagnetic fields in toroidal geometries range from plasma
confinement to nuclear magnetic resonance. In nature, the magnetic fields created
by planets and stars present also toroidal structure and nontrivial topology of the
field lines.

Here, we present a new range of solutions covering the tolopology of the whole torus
knots set and having previous solutions as a particular case. By having the topology
of the torus knots set we mean that initially all the magnetic lines and all the electric
lines stay linked and closed on the surface of a torus and, moreover, when time evolves
we can find numerically field lines knotted as a torus knot. These configurations could
be also important theoretically, as the stability of electromagnetic fields [3] may play a
role in particle theory [4, 5] or even in certain asymptotic limits of string theory [6].

4. Conclusions
In conclusion, we have presented new exact solutions of the Maxwell equations in vacuum such that, at a given initial time, satisfy that all the magnetic lines and all the electric
lines are (n, m) torus knots.

just wiki "electromegnetism" and you find this picture, which obviously hints (on a 2-dimensional level) at a (3D) toroidal flow:


and just for good measure, you could consider the paper which I "dropped off" a few pages ago which examines the basic DNA unit as a Torus-shape.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by metalshredmetal
is this an indirect way of saying you admit that you were wrong? that there is no such existence of static objects on Earth?

Your own weight constantly changes as you breath. Yet there is a number in your medical chart. Same with blood pressure.

hm, maybe i don't understand your post, because it seems that you're validating my point..do you mean to validate my point: that all things are dynamic, and not static?

just because a medical chart says a number doesn't mean that what that number represents is static.
here we go with the whole numbers and letters are symbols thing..

..you know that the recorded number was only representing a measurement (of a dynamic system) at 1 point in time, right?

this is very strange logic you have... to assume that because someone recorded a measurement of blood pressure, then it must mean that their blood pressure is static, and not dynamic. i don't see the thought-process you're using.