"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

reply to post by metalshredmetal


This is what you said:

All electromagnetic phenomenon has a toroidal shaped field

This is what the paper said:

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 starts present also toroidal structure and nontrivial topology of the
field lines

...which means to say that indeed there are toroidal geometries and fields in nature. Well, duh.

If you don't see that this in no ways means "all phenomena have toroidal shaped fields", I pity you.

Originally posted by metalshredmetal
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?

OK, I challenge you to measure the change in the charge or the field in the case I presented. If you can't do that within the conditions of your setup, the situation is obviously static.

An electron will have same charge as you measure it over and over. What's dynamic about its field?

reply to post by buddhasystem


are you ignoring the majority of my post on purpose? this is what you commonly do: isolate single sentences which have the potential for seeming contradictory to my idea or that seem correlated to your own ideas.

and: it's obvious from the speed of your reply that you didn't read the paper. i'm only providing these quotes so it's easier to assimilate some of the information in the ACTUAL PAPER, which proves the point, NOT I.

once again, keep your name calling to yourself and call up the SCIENTISTS if you have a disagreement. after all, you supposedly work at CERN and you should have some decent contacts.

i'll repost it again for your ADHD-like mind to consider:

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.

reply to post by metalshredmetal


Sheesh, if you start with a torus, you'll end up with a torus.
What else is new?

Please explain to me how the electric field of a point charge is toroidal. And, how the electric field inside a capacitor is toroidal.

Originally posted by metalshredmetal
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

All electromagnetic phenomenon has a toroidal shaped field.

Is the beam coming out of a laser pointer electromagnetic?

Does it have a toroidal shaped field?

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by metalshredmetal
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

All electromagnetic phenomenon has a toroidal shaped field.

Is the beam coming out of a laser pointer electromagnetic?

Does it have a toroidal shaped field?

is that so hard to imagine?

imagine if the length of that beam was the length of the middle of the Torus, which is like a wormhole that connects the north and south pole of the torus.


"Even though the object on the left is taller than the donut torus, it is still a circular object with a circular hole in the center, so the object on the left fits the definition of a torus."

reply to post by metalshredmetal


What may appear to be fluctuating in the physical realm may be governed by forces that are not in a stat of flux like quantum entanglement.

Originally posted by metalshredmetal

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by metalshredmetal
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

All electromagnetic phenomenon has a toroidal shaped field.

Is the beam coming out of a laser pointer electromagnetic?

Does it have a toroidal shaped field?

is that so hard to imagine?

It's not hard to imagine, but why should anyone imagine, i.e. fabricate things, which are not borne out in experiment?

It's not hard to IMAGINE that I have $1M in the bank, but as a sane person I trust my bank statement.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by metalshredmetal

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by metalshredmetal
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

All electromagnetic phenomenon has a toroidal shaped field.

Is the beam coming out of a laser pointer electromagnetic?

Does it have a toroidal shaped field?

is that so hard to imagine?

It's not hard to imagine, but why should anyone imagine, i.e. fabricate things, which are not borne out in experiment?

It's not hard to IMAGINE that I have $1M in the bank, but as a sane person I trust my bank statement.

1) yet more proof that you pick apart one unimportant aspect, in this case a single word, and selfishly and deceivingly twist it into a meaning of your benefit...

2) yet more proof that you don't use your right lobe in thought processes...

how else do you think people get the idea to do an experiment in the first place? did einstein not imagine his theory of relativity before he experimented and proved it through mathematics?

do scientists not imagine the outcomes of experiments before they perform them?

Originally posted by metalshredmetal
do scientists not imagine the outcomes of experiments before they perform them?

They might have a theory. However, the experiment is the ultimate criterion of truth.

If you really imagine a toroidal field surrounding the laser beam, you must have zero knowledge of physics, experiment and a whole bunch of other interesting things. But why am I saying this... Just stating the obvious.

Originally posted by metalshredmetal
imagine if the length of that beam was the length of the middle of the Torus, which is like a wormhole that connects the north and south pole of the torus.

The square peg just doesn't fit into a round hole, but you're trying to pound it in anyway.

If there is nothing in the path of the beam from the laser pointer, it will continue traveling in a narrow cone shape for infinity. The main reason it won't do that in practice isn't because it has a toroidal field, it's because deep space has a few hydrogen atoms per cubic meter and chances are most of the photons from the laser pointer will eventually interact with those and get scattered.

Also, here's a dot from a laser pointer on the wall:

laserpointerforums.com...

Close up of laser dot on wall through goggles. Distance is about 3m

Are you asking me to imagine that I see a hole in the middle? Because I'm not seeing one.

hm, so far after buddhasystem claimed bullsh!t about EM fields being toroidal, and that there are static objects that exist in our physical world.....

then buddhasystem attempted to cite a measurement as a static system, and failed to recognize that a measurement of a dynamic system is not a static object. = failed attack

then I provided buddhasystem with a scientifically credible paper explaining the toroidal shape of EM fields, and totally ignores the conclusion or body of the paper entirely, and instead he instead addresses 1 word of 1 sentence which he sees fit to benefit his theory.... = failed attack

and arbiteugeureaar (it's a joke, don't discredit me! ) has called for the explanation of a toroidal field around laser beams.....

once I explained that toroids can be elongated so that their inner axis stretches the distance of a laser beam, he ignores this theory and he cites the resultant "dot" upon a wall as evidence there is no toroidal field?

to be fair, i have to give you both credit for using your left lobe so effectively. but at the same time, I have to conclude that in general, the both of you don't like to use your imagination. You don't use your imaginations in that you refuse to address possible outcomes that aren't accepted by the scientific mainstream.

by refusing to consider "theories" (consider them to the point that you entertain the idea that the theory is true) that aren't used by the scientific mainstream, you are closing your mind to many many many many possibilities.

if everyone thought like you then we would have 0 new scientific breakthroughs.

but like i said, i have to give credit for so vigorously flexing your Left Brain.

Originally posted by metalshredmetal
once I explained that toroids can be elongated so that their inner axis stretches the distance of a laser beam, he ignores this theory and he cites the resultant "dot" upon a wall as evidence there is no toroidal field?

I didn't ignore the theory and provided more than just an image of a dot.

I explained how the beam from the laser pointer is a narrow cone that has a tendency to continue for infinity. The torus shape is finite because it has to loop back around to form the donut.

The cone shape extending from the laser pointer does not have to loop back around, so it can be essentially infinite.

Therefore even in a hypothetical proposition, these shapes are inconsistent with each other.

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...

It would appear that arguing over statments of trivial relevance is more important to him than showing others what he considers to be "true"...

Originally posted by metalshredmetal
then I provided buddhasystem with a scientifically credible paper explaining the toroidal shape of EM fields, and totally ignores the conclusion or body of the paper entirely, and instead he instead addresses 1 word of 1 sentence which he sees fit to benefit his theory.... = failed attack

What you provided was a shining evidence of your non-existing reading comprehension skills. The authors studied a toroidal configuration. Hence, they dealt with toroids. I've seen calculations of fields in box-like volumes. Should I have made a "conclusion" that ALL fields in nature are rectangular?

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by metalshredmetal
once I explained that toroids can be elongated so that their inner axis stretches the distance of a laser beam, he ignores this theory and he cites the resultant "dot" upon a wall as evidence there is no toroidal field?

I didn't ignore the theory and provided more than just an image of a dot.

I explained how the beam from the laser pointer is a narrow cone that has a tendency to continue for infinity. The torus shape is finite because it has to loop back around to form the donut.

The cone shape extending from the laser pointer does not have to loop back around, so it can be essentially infinite.

Therefore even in a hypothetical proposition, these shapes are inconsistent with each other.

...and of course the cone is just the envelope of the region where the field is propagating. The actual field like in a momentary snapshot of the field would be perpendicular to the axis of the cone -- and thus bear even less resemblance to anything toroidal.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
...and of course the cone is just the envelope of the region where the field is propagating. The actual field like in a momentary snapshot of the field would be perpendicular to the axis of the cone -- and thus bear even less resemblance to anything toroidal.

Admittedly the three dimensional representation of the field is more complex than the simple geometry I used, but I did try to simplify a bit for the sake of msm because I felt the true nature of the field was over msm's head at this stage in his understanding.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by buddhasystem
...and of course the cone is just the envelope of the region where the field is propagating. The actual field like in a momentary snapshot of the field would be perpendicular to the axis of the cone -- and thus bear even less resemblance to anything toroidal.

Admittedly the three dimensional representation of the field is more complex than the simple geometry I used, but I did try to simplify a bit for the sake of msm because I felt the true nature of the field was over msm's head at this stage in his understanding.

Indeed. There is a fun experiment any person on this board can do -- get a pair of polarized glasses and look at your LCD screen, than tilt your head and enjoy.

reply to post by buddhasystem

I hate that.
I can't use the GPS on my boat with my polarized shades unless I start looking like a confused dog.

reply to post by metalshredmetal


Bravo, Metalshredmetal.

A voice of reason, integrity, and just plain common sense! A breath of fresh air on an otherwise nitpicking, narrow-minded, stubborn, prideful thread.

My patient efforts have paid off. I can rest now.