## Dielectric and Magnetic Fields

Discussion of electricity, electronics, electrical components and theories of circuit operation.
bperet
Posts: 1501
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

### Dielectric and Magnetic Fields

I am working on the cosmic side of my RS2 "artificial reality," trying to model force fields. I noticed that when I modeled the material aspect, namely kinetic motion of particles and atoms, no electric and magnetic field effects were a consequence of the model, outside of the net, inward motion the temporal rotation of atoms would have on cancelling (or reversing) the progression. Gravitation is not really a "force field," so I don't include it--gravity is just the direct result of a change of scalar direction in space.

Whereas I am using quaternions to model a "rotationally distributed scalar motion," as Larson describes it, some interesting things have happened, particularly after I realized that the progression of the natural reference system is just the "clock" concept, and it is this "clock" that forms the projective plane of our interpretation of reality. That is why we normalize homogeneous coordinates to unity--bring them in sync with clock time, and normalize rotation to the unit quaternion--bring them in sync with clock space, for a consistent perspective of "reality."

When it comes to atomic rotation, there are two types: magnetic (2D) and electric (1D), as Larson describes in detail. Larson also describes that they two types are interchangeable, 1 magnetic = 8 electric, and vice versa. Larson has his geometric explanation for this, but the work of Miles Mathis opened up another perspective... quantum π, where π = 4 in a "discrete" (quantized) circle, such as you have in the Reciprocal System. What that translates to is that the electric field is just a "circumference" based on a radius: circumference = 2 π radius, so c = 8r when quantized, and electric = 8 x magnetic.

The other radial measure we use is for the area of a circle, π r2, which quantizes to 4r2, which is the equation Larson uses to create the magnetic rotations for the elements. If you consider the "rotational vibration" as a circular motion, then the area = magnetic rotation and the circumference = electric rotation. They are NOT two, separate things, but just two perspectives of the same motion.

When it came to using quaternions to model this, it was easy... model the electric as a single rotation, i, j or k (does not matter which one), and the magnetic as a double rotation, ij, jk, or ki. Looked good, until I realized:

ij = k

jk = i

ki = j

Which states that electric motion and magnetic motion are the same thing... if I do a "double rotation" from X to Y, then from Y to Z, I get the same result as doing a "single rotation" from X to Z. That is where I realized that you had to normalize the rotation to unity, the projective plane and "clock", which meant the full equation would have to include all three rotations, so the net result was unity.

If you have a double-rotation of "i j" that was the same as a single rotation of "k", then to get back to unity, all you had to do was to multiply "i j" by (-k)... and lo and behold, all the inductive (jωL) and capacitive (-jωC) relations popped into existence.

That means if you have a magnetic field, the dielectric field forms in the opposite direction from that necessity, to balance out to unity. If you have an electric field, the magnetic field forms to balance to unity, because of the 3D structure of the universe.

Because this system normalizes to concurrent positive and negative rotations, you end up with a birotation that appears mechanically as a vibration: a rotational vibration.
Every dogma has its day...
Coder
Posts: 22
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2012 6:39 am

### Which states that electric

Which states that electric motion and magnetic motion are the same thing...

...

They are NOT two, separate things, but just two perspectives of the same motion.
The electric motion and magnetic motion cannot be the same thing because we can have lone electric fields without magnetic fields - at least from the vantage of a gravitating material observer that is not moving relative to the source of the electric field (not moving in the material gravitating reference system). If they were the same thing, the electric field always would be accompanied by a magnetic field (and vice versa) regardless of circumstances (observers).

The observer's motion apparently is a part of the electric and magnetic phenomena (or maybe even a cause of it). For sure, the motion of the observer apparently causes a change in the "perspective", that you are writng about. But that is not the same as saying that electric field is always accompanied by a magnetic field or that they are the same.
bperet
Posts: 1501
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

### Perspectives and Observers

The electric motion and magnetic motion cannot be the same thing because we can have lone electric fields without magnetic fields
That's the thing with perspective... look at a coin, edge-on. All you see is the circumference (dielectric field). Rotate it 90 degrees, and now all you see is its face (magnetic field). Has either ceased to exist, just because you changed the observer perspective?

And only a single variable is needed to define both of them, what we call a "radius."

I'm still working on some test code to simulate the behavior, but it appears that the dielectric and magnetic fields are coordinate interpretations of a specific kind of "rotationally distributed" scalar motion, that only comes into existence within the gravitational limit of a 3D coordinate system. And to define a 3D coordinate system from scalar motion, one must create an observer to define the coordinates; what is up, down, right, left, front and back.

From Larson's astronomical information on structures outside the gravitational limit, where all motion is scalar, there are no dielectric and magnetic fields--only inward and outward motion. But the moment someone drives out there to take a look at an "EM free zone," they would put those motions within the gravitational limit of the observer, create a coordinate system, and use these "field" concepts to explain the behavior of the motions observed.

In the database of "absolute locations" of scalar magnitudes, there is no geometry--only speeds--and using the progression as a clock function, those speeds can be transformed into distances and durations. In order to observe this system, you cannot just pick one location of the set (as Larson does), because that does not give you enough information to resolve the system into coordinates--one point does not define up/down, right/left, front/back--you actually need 4 locations in which a coordinate relationship is known, that can be applied to the other locations to get 3D coordinates back. These "observer locations" allow for a 3D version of triangulation of all the other motions. And the observer locations must be gravitationally bound to each other, or the outward progression blows the camera apart on the next unit of time.

What I am concluding is that the force field effects are just the way we interpret certain kinds of scalar motions within a coordinate frame of reference. This concept is backwards to the way we conventionally look at force fields... it is accepted that forces are invisible structures that are changing spatial relationships. What I am saying is that the motions already exist at the scalar level, and we are using dielectric and magnetic fields to explain the way they are moving in relation to each other--they are not the cause of the change--but the excuse for it.
Every dogma has its day...
duane
Posts: 148
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 5:46 pm

### hi Bruce

hi Bruce

From Larson's astronomical information on structures outside the gravitational limit, where all motion is scalar, there are no dielectric and magnetic fields--only inward and outward motion. But the moment someone drives out there to take a look at an "EM free zone," they would put those motions within the gravitational limit of the observer, create a coordinate system, and use these "field" concepts to explain the behavior of the motions observed.

could that "someone" be a pair of particles (it takes two to tango or have gravity) or does it need something that knows up from down
bperet
Posts: 1501
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

### Two photons can't Tango

could that "someone" be a pair of particles (it takes two to tango or have gravity) or does it need something that knows up from down
I have been thinking about that while writing this simulation... the entire concept of a 3D coordinate system (extension space) appears to be tied to the human sensory system and consciousness. That is why I had to create a 4-point "camera" to create the coordinate reference system from pure, scalar motion. The camera simulates the sensory assumptions of the observer, namely binocular vision (needed for stereoscopic projection) and a uniform scale with respect to time. Without consciousness, the 3D coordinate system is unnecessary; just the natural reference system is all that is needed. (The circularly polarized photon does change locations in the natural reference system).

The required motions of an "observer" are a net, inward motion in space that is sufficient to cancel the outward motion of the progression, so the observer stays in one piece. (Photons don't do that.) They do not actually have to gravitate; neutral motion works to maintain the geometric assumptions of a coordinate system. I only discovered this after I created a camera using just "locations," without any temporal displacements. First snapshot worked pretty good, as the distances between the "eyes" of the stereoscopic camera were at the distance I set them. Then the progression took over, and my camera started getting larger, as the outward motion moved the locations apart, and the angles between those locations started changing, so my coordinate system just fell apart.

From what I've done so far, I am brought to the conclusion that the 3D coordinate reference systems (extension space and extension time), do not "naturally" exist, and are artifacts of the senses used to perceive the system, interpreted by the consciousness behind the senses. So your "observer" would require some degree of consciousness, in order to observe.
Every dogma has its day...
duane
Posts: 148
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 5:46 pm

### hi bruce,

hi bruce,

one of the reasons i asked the question was with regard to the expanding universe

the big band says the initial "pop" keeps things expanding

but maybe it's not exploding but growing

as the "observer" ventures into the unknown,

new realms appear to be filled with homeless waifs looking for a new start..

also, if an observer from Megatron 12 created a 3D cooridinate system, would we be able to access it?

that could be "proof" of aliens because we can see things far away
Coder
Posts: 22
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2012 6:39 am

### From what I've done so far, I

From what I've done so far, I am brought to the conclusion that the 3D coordinate reference systems (extension space and extension time), do not "naturally" exist, and are artifacts of the senses used to perceive the system,
That's agreeable with me and understandable except for the concept of "extension time".

I understand that our mind always assumes that matter moves pseudoscalarly in time at the same rate ...even if it doesn't really. Is that the basis of "extension time" that material observers perceive as travelling along a 1D line and always at the same rate?

I am still struggling with the rules of superposiotion of motion. Especially the tacitly assumed division, that a spatial aspect of one motion can superpose only on a spatial aspect of another motion, but not on a temporal aspect. Who decides that? Is superposition an illusion, too?
,... interpreted by the consciousness behind the senses. So your "observer" would require some degree of consciousness, in order to observe.
What is the consiousness needed for? Why eyes are not enough?

...is consciusness only needed for normalizing the rate of time to a linear (pseudoscalar) unity? Can't we just use a simple normalizing equation instead of a complex consciousness?
bperet
Posts: 1501
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

### Megatron 12

the big band says the initial "pop" keeps things expanding

but maybe it's not exploding but growing
The Reciprocal System is a "steady state" model; a constant exchange of motion between the material and cosmic sectors. There was no "big bang," nor will there be a "big crunch." The major difference between the Reciprocal System and conventional science is that the RS has a "moving" reference system--the progression of the natural, reference system--and conventional science has a static, "stage" background. So that progression can be consider a natural "growth" of the system, without any need for an explosion to trigger it.
as the "observer" ventures into the unknown, new realms appear to be filled with homeless waifs looking for a new start..

also, if an observer from Megatron 12 created a 3D cooridinate system, would we be able to access it?
Only if you are xenotelepathic. You would see the 3D version of Megatron 12 as you would comprehend it--which may not be the same thing as a native, Megatronian. We have the same situation here on this planet, between species. Look through the eyes of a dolphin... you don't see the same thing that you see through your own eyes.
that could be "proof" of aliens because we can see things far away
IMHO, the best "proof" of that is from Larson's comment, "anything that CAN exist, DOES exist." And we know that life CAN exist on planet. And there are one heck of a lot of planets in this Universe.
Every dogma has its day...
bperet
Posts: 1501
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

### Extension time & Superposition

That's agreeable with me and understandable except for the concept of "extension time".

I understand that our mind always assumes that matter moves pseudoscalarly in time at the same rate ...even if it doesn't really. Is that the basis of "extension time" that material observers perceive as travelling along a 1D line and always at the same rate?
Larson's use of the word "extension" means to extend motion into geometric relations, such as the concepts of lines, areas and volumes. The "extension space" version of this is what we commonly use as lines, areas and volumes. Extension time is just the temporal (aetheric) version of geometric structure--in time. Remember that time has no representation in space, so a temporal structure is not observable in space. Clock time is NOT extension time. Clock time is a rate of change of spatial geometry in space; "clock space" is a rate of change of temporal geometry in time. If you were born in the cosmic sector, you'd see extension time as lines, areas and volumes--it would look no different than the material observer counterpart, observing extension space. But time DOES alter space, so you can consider the concept of "force fields," which operate in all three dimensions of space, as the effect of extension time ON extension space.
I am still struggling with the rules of superposiotion of motion. Especially the tacitly assumed division, that a spatial aspect of one motion can superpose only on a spatial aspect of another motion, but not on a temporal aspect. Who decides that? Is superposition an illusion, too?
In the RS, the idea of "superposition" only holds for scalar motion, as that is the only "additive" system. Once you fall into the projections of 3D space or 3D time, the "shadows" of that perspective do not always superimpose, because you have a mix of "location" of one aspect, with "force effects" of the other. And since force is not linear, the coordinate realms do not meet the superposition requirement that the functions be linear.

So you have to "superimpose" the scalar motions, before you extend them into a coordinate system.
Every dogma has its day...
duane
Posts: 148
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 5:46 pm

### Light and magnetic fields

i'm not sure is this is the correct thread for this

electricty, dielectric, magnetic, light all beginning to blur together.....

http://ns.umich.edu/new/releases/8368

Solar power without solar cells: A hidden magnetic effect of light could make it possible

AN ARBOR, Mich.—A dramatic and surprising magnetic effect of light discovered by University of Michigan researchers could lead to solar power without traditional semiconductor-based solar cells.

"The researchers found a way to make an "optical battery," said Stephen Rand, a professor in the departments of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Physics and Applied Physics.

In the process, they overturned a century-old tenet of physics.

"You could stare at the equations of motion all day and you will not see this possibility. We've all been taught that this doesn't happen," said Rand, an author of a paper on the work published in the Journal of Applied Physics. "It's a very odd interaction. That's why it's been overlooked for more than 100 years."

Light has electric and magnetic components. Until now, scientists thought the effects of the magnetic field were so weak that they could be ignored. What Rand and his colleagues found is that at the right intensity, when light is traveling through a material that does not conduct electricity, the light field can generate magnetic effects that are 100 million times stronger than previously expected. Under these circumstances, the magnetic effects develop strength equivalent to a strong electric effect."

a Merry Christmas to all