ENLIGHTENED MAGNETISM (The Full Proof of Ken Wheeler's Theories)

[Ufopolitics]

Abraham-Minkowski Contradiction_Part 2

Like I mentioned on previous Part 1...The Lorentz Classical (No Minkowski) would never admit a "Rotational Field" (Irrotational) and Non Divergent Field (divergenceless) either...rigid as a stick pole Theory.

So all this Lorentz Soldiers are completely stuck on the 19th Century...

However, it is great we can also look at others work who are "Non Lorentz Soldiers" and be able to draw our own conclusions:


First principles approach to the Abraham–Minkowski controversy for the momentum of light in general linear non-dispersive media

Now that is a very well written work!!...without any inclinations, as they also speak about Lorentz as well, but keeping in mind the main essence from the work of the Two principal original authors...are Abraham and Minkowski.

Abstract

We study the problem of the definition of the energy–momentum tensor of light in general moving non-dispersive media with linear constitutive law. Using the basic principles of classical field theory, we show that for the correct understanding of the problem, one needs to carefully distinguish situations when the material medium is modeled either as a background on which light propagates or as a dynamical part of the total system. In the former case, we prove that the (generalized) Belinfante–Rosenfeld (BR) tensor for the electromagnetic field coincides with the Minkowski tensor. We derive a complete set of balance equations for this open system and show that the symmetries of the background medium are directly related to the conservation of the Minkowski quantities. In particular, for isotropic media, the angular momentum of light is conserved despite of the fact that the Minkowski tensor is non-symmetric. For the closed system of light interacting with matter, we model the material medium as a relativistic non-dissipative fluid and we prove that it is always possible to express the total BR tensor of the closed system either in the Abraham or in the Minkowski separation. However, in the case of dynamical media, the balance equations have a particularly convenient form in terms of the Abraham tensor. Our results generalize previous attempts and provide a first principles basis for a unified
understanding of the long-standing Abraham–Minkowski controversy without ad hoc arguments.

And then...:

3. Electromagnetic field in matter as an open system

We begin our discussion by considering the electromagnetic field in matter as an open system, in which only the electro-magnetic field is assumed to have dynamics described by the macroscopic Maxwell equations. This is the case if the influence of the electromagnetic field on the macroscopic dynamics of the medium is negligible or if an external agent keeps the medium in a predetermined state of motion, independently of the values of the electromagnetic field. The validity of this approach is the same as the usual macroscopic electromagnetic theory [66,74,79] with the continuum
hypothesis assumed; no atomic systems will be studied in this framework...

Am done...for this morning...lol

[Ufopolitics]

Charge-Vortex Duality in Josephson Junction Arrays

Authors: R. Fazio, , A. van Otterlo, Gerd Sch , H.S.J. van der Zant, J.E. Mooij

Here ETH - e-periodica

nathan

Thanks Nathan

[bistander]

Monopole?

...

In this Effect #2 Aharonov- Bohm...they write it is directly related to the Dirac Strings Monopole :OMG!! ...I really do not want to upset Bistander by talking here about monopoles anymore...so, no monopoles, no unicorns!!...
...

Hi Ufo,

First hit on google for the underlined phrase yields this (first sentence in the article): "In physics, a Dirac string is a hypothetical one-dimensional curve in space, conceived of by the physicist Paul Dirac, stretching between two Dirac magnetic monopoles...

Notice the word which I highlighted in bold: hypothetical . It applies to both the string and to the magnetic monopole. Forgot to mention that word, didn't you? So I'll keep monopoles tucked away in the same file folder as unicorns.

bi

ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_string

[Ufopolitics]

Hi Ufo,

First hit on google for the underlined phrase yields this (first sentence in the article): "In physics, a Dirac string is a hypothetical one-dimensional curve in space, conceived of by the physicist Paul Dirac, stretching between two Dirac magnetic monopoles...

Notice the word which I highlighted in bold: hypothetical . It applies to both the string and to the magnetic monopole. Forgot to mention that word, didn't you? So I'll keep monopoles tucked away in the same file folder as unicorns.

bi

ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_string

Bistander ,

Bingo!...I set the catch and there you are...great!

When I talked about Monopoles it was due to an Induction to ferromagnetic cores, and it is considered "momentary" (momentum, you could search "monopole momentum" and see the hits)...however, never said permanent monopole condition.

Obviously, if there would be a Permanent Monopole developed or found, am pretty sure it will be due to a forced Nature process.

A Magnetic Field is a Natural small Engine that requires to have Dipoles and a center discharge field...just like a cell needs a Nuclei and a Cytoplasm...through a membrane.

On the Aharonov-Bohm I don't consider it that essential as the Aharonov-Casher is, which deals with Dipoles, Electric Charges and Magnetic Fields...deriving into the Josephson Junction Array experiments...resulting in Vortexes.

So, yeah, for now leave them there in the Unicorns Vault...


Cheers


Ufopolitics

[bistander]

Monopoles again

Bistander ,

Bingo!...I set the catch and there you are...great!

When I talked about Monopoles it was due to an Induction to ferromagnetic cores, and it is considered "momentary" (momentum, you could search "monopole momentum" and see the hits)...however, never said permanent monopole condition.

Sorry Ufo, I don't get it. Did your search suggestion and it's all hypothetical. One impressive paper ends with this quote:

And, as Griffiths points out, we only need the existence of one monopole to explain quantization of charge.

Why did you even bring it up? Where's the relevance? Did you build your machines with Dirac strings?

bi

[Ufopolitics]

Sorry Ufo, I don't get it. Did your search suggestion and it's all hypothetical. One impressive paper ends with this quote:

Why did you even bring it up? Where's the relevance? Did you build your machines with Dirac strings?

bi

Oh, come on Bistander, let's not make this into a full argument!,


Aharonov-Bohm Wikipedia related to Dirac Strings, just because they both relate to monopoles,period, then I used a joke there,when they mentioned monopoles, can you see that?

Aharonov-Bohm stayed within a CONCEPTUAL form just to develop the equations based on a monopole.

Aharonov-Casher is based on dipoles, therefore, there is MATERIAL PROOF about its positive results.

I brought them BOTH up, just to establish the difference between a reality and a conceptual development, as to prevent from misinterpretations when verifying out there...

I clearly stated about the priority on AHARONOV-CASHER on that Post

,,,[,,,],,,But...let's expand a bit more on the Aharonov-Casher Effect when it comes to magnetic vortices in Josephson junctions.

Hope this is clear now...

One suggestion that you should follow (as I recommend to anyone reading here) is to "Filter" all the Information out there...get the best and final conclusions before elaborating from just "the first hit".

Yeah, believe that my machines work based on Dirac Strings...

and believe me, I will refrain from ever playing a joke on you.

Please let's end this discussion about monopoles...




Ufopolitics

[bistander]

A joke

You come on Ufo. A joke. You can dish it out; lighten up and take one back. Can you do that? And maybe tell us all about this one dimensional curve in space.

bi

[Bob Smith]

This may be of some interest to some. I believe it upholds Ken's insistence that space only exists because of and within fields. IOW, fields come first, then space:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOAWG_ZZ0TM
Bob

[aljhoa]

IOW, fields come first, then space:

"Super Fluid Pressure Gradient"

Cosmic Background Radiation and ‘ether-drift’ experiments
M. Consoli 1, A. Pluchino 2,1, A. Rapisarda 2,1
1 INFN, Sezione di Catania - Via S. Sofia 64, I-95123 Catania, Italy
2 Dipartimento di Fisica e Astronomia, Universit`a di Catania - Via S. Sofia 64, I-95123 Catania, Italy

Abstract. - ‘Ether-drift’ experiments have played a crucial role for the origin of relativity. Though, a recent re-analysis shows that those original measurements where light was still propagating in gaseous systems, differently from the modern experiments in vacuum and in solid dielectrics, indicate a small universal anisotropy which is naturally interpreted in terms of a nonlocal thermal gradient. We argue that this could possibly be the effect, on weakly bound gaseous matter, of the temperature gradient due to the Earth’s motion within the Cosmic Background Radiation (CBR). Therefore, a check with modern laser interferometers is needed to reproduce the conditions of those early measurements with today’s much greater accuracy. We emphasize that an unambiguous confirmation of our interpretation would have far reaching consequences. For instance, it would also imply that all physical systems on the moving Earth are exposed to a tiny energy flow, an effect that, in principle, could induce forms of self-organization in matter.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1601.06518v1.pdf

4. CONCLUSIONS
The Sagnac experiment has been analyzed for two Postulates, I* and III*.
In 1905 Einstein proposed Postulate I: the velocity of light is a constant c
irrespective of the velocity of the source or the receiver. In 1907 he found it
necessary to limit this postulate to Postulate I* which restricts the previous
statement to nonrotating coordinate systems. In 1956 Moon and Spencer
proposed Postulate III that the velocity of light is a constant with respect to
the source. In 1990 it was found by Moon, Spencer, and Moon that in order
to explain the Michelson-Gale experiment, this postulate must be modified to
Postulate III* which likewise is restricted to nonrotating coordinate systems.
This paper has shown that the Sagnac experiment can be explained by
both Postulates I* and III*. In fact, the equations for the fringe shift in the
Sagnac experiment and in the Michelson-Gale experiment become identical
if expressed in terms of the area projected onto the plane perpendicular to
the axis of rotation.
A method of discriminating between Postulates l* and III* is suggested
by the fact that the fringe shifts are differently distributed about the closed
path. According to Postulate I*, for a regular polygonal path, the fringe
shift is uniformly distributed. On the other hand, Postulate III* predicts a
nonuniform fringe shift distribution with maxima in the branches furthest
from the source. This would require the ability to measure the fringe shift
in a single branch rather than in a closed path.
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc...=rep1&type=pdf


Primordial synthesis of amines and amino acids in a
1958 Miller H2S-rich spark discharge experiment
https://articuloscientificos.files.w...2/03/doc15.pdf


Al

[Ufopolitics]

Bending Light with Magnetism...Ken's Videos.

Hello to all,

Here is a recent video from Ken...:

[VIDEO]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-ES78p5zfE[/VIDEO]

Then there was this comment on YT:

Vandell Baker 2 days ago
Could you reproduce this experiment with a matte finish on your magnet. To disprove the question of the shining surface of the magnet reflecting visibly curved light.

Then Ken uploads this video...:

[VIDEO]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Vv-CiFhxSk[/VIDEO]

Where magnet is covered with a towel...still showing the curvilinear spectrum.

This also serves to whoever thinks that ferrocell just reflects the magnet's chromed surface as a reflection on glass...

Nope...it is not the case.


Ufopolitics

[bistander]

Magnetic light bending

Although magnetism may be able to bend light I doubt that his magnet is strong enough and his eyes or camera are sensitive enough to detect it. I think what is observed here is similar to the magnetic viewing film inasmuch as the light is reflected or refracted by the medium in the film which is influenced by the magnetic field. The magnetic field causes the fluid in the ferrocell to develop patterns which then affect the light coming from the LEDs and produce the images. It is an indirect cause-effect relationship between the magnet and light.

That's my take,

bi

[Ufopolitics]

Although magnetism may be able to bend light I doubt that his magnet is strong enough and his eyes or camera are sensitive enough to detect it. I think what is observed here is similar to the magnetic viewing film inasmuch as the light is reflected or refracted by the medium in the film which is influenced by the magnetic field. The magnetic field causes the fluid in the ferrocell to develop patterns which then affect the light coming from the LEDs and produce the images. It is an indirect cause-effect relationship between the magnet and light.

That's my take,

bi

Hello Bistander,

I really can not understand why your "take" always choose the longest and more complicated road which eventually does not resolve absolutely nothing.

The magnetic field causes the fluid in the ferrocell to develop patterns which then affect the light coming from the LEDs and produce the images.

Well, you established your point above very clear...Magnetic Field causes the fluid in the Ferrocell to develop patterns...

So, yes, then the magnetic field Does affect the ferrocell in order to render-develop "patterns"...and it happens that those patterns are always the SAME no matter the size, shape or type of magnet or EM field being screened.

In Science, whenever we have a Consistent Result after many, many different techniques to demonstrate a "Pattern"...we must conclude that those results are very solid, strong and clear evidence to build a series of conclusive facts.

The way I see it... the LED lights illuminates the space where the field is, making this patterns visible to our eyes.

Many of Us know that different Colors from the Light Spectrum vary in the length of their waves of propagation...and it is clearly observed on those videos how red, green and blue light develop the same patterns, but with different illumination gain, where Green is the brighter one and Blue the lesser.

Magnetism can and DOES bend a stream of electron flow which have mass, like it has being observed in the CRT deflections which originated so many applications since the 1800's.

Faraday demonstrated that polarized light is directly affected (rotated) by a magnetic field when this beam of light passes through it...see Faraday Effect.

It is an indirect cause-effect relationship between the magnet and light.

Light and Magnetism ARE Directly Related (Not Indirectly like you wrote)...ever since Faraday and J.C Maxwell discovered "just" a couple of Centuries ago.

I am not going to discuss here why there is always a Black-Dark Center (No Light at All) in every magnet being screened...Ken gives the answer very loud and clear in both videos.


Regards


Ufopolitics

[bistander]

If the magnetism is bending the light directly, why is the ferrocell needed to observe distortion to light passing near a magnet? I look at the end of a magnet and I see all the details. It's not "dark-black" center as you say. You'd think people working around very strong magnetic fields such as MRI would notice the bent light, but it's never mentioned. Wonder why?

[Ufopolitics]

If the magnetism is bending the light directly, why is the ferrocell needed to observe distortion to light passing near a magnet? I look at the end of a magnet and I see all the details. It's not "dark-black" center as you say. You'd think people working around very strong magnetic fields such as MRI would notice the bent light, but it's never mentioned. Wonder why?

Bistander,

You are making less sense every time...

Can you see the beam of straight light with your plain eyes under normal conditions, (not dark, not smoke assistance, etc)?

Absolutely not.

Can just the Photographic Film itself... capture an image, a "picture", or a visible, defined, focused "Pattern" of its surroundings without being enclosed within the proper dark area, plus the focusing lens and the right speed shutter according to the Film ASA (sensibility) existing inside a Camera, plus the proper illumination, etc,etc...?

Absolutely not.

The same exact way, the Ferrocell Lenses, the dark area and the LED Light is the "Camera set up" required to be able to see the Magnetic Fields developing in front of our eyes.

Ferrocell Lenses "develops" the Magnetic Fields just like the photographic sensitive film captures an image through the lens of a Camera.




Ufopolitics

[bistander]

Ufo,

It is illogical to conclude that magnetism bends light from viewing images made using ferrocells. I don't believe that the images which I've seen from ferrocells are an accurate representation of the magnetic field. Did you see the one from MRIguy holding the ferrocell in the MRI? It's on the ferrocell home page. Too bad he doesn't come around this board anymore. You can believe anything Ken tells you. I'll stick to what works.

Regards,

bi