"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

Originally posted by buddhasystem
reply to post by metalshredmetal

 

As I said, you don't get it, and I guess you never will. The static field of the charged metal sphere can fluctuate due to changes in air density around it, so I that's what I meant by measurement -- if these fluctuations are small compare to the problem you are trying to solve in the lab, it's still static.

Now again, for the fifth time -- how does a sphere produce a toroidal field?

maybe im not understanding you because youre speaking in circles, referring to posts you didn't make, things I never said, giving nonsense examples of static objects, and have the attention span of a cat.

you used the word fluctuate a lot to explain your idea of a static system...you know fluctuate is synonymous with flux, right? static systems dont fluctuate, thats why theyre static.

Originally posted by metalshredmetal
referring to posts you didn't make, things I never said,

Oh look at you lie now!

This is exactly what you said:

All electromagnetic phenomenon has a toroidal shaped field.

And I have inquired a few times how a spherical object would produce a toroidal field, to which I don't have an answer. And the reason there is no answer because your pronouncement was so wrong it bordered on idiotic.

once again you are completely ignoring the the points i make which illustrate your odd logic. so once again, i say:

Originally posted by metalshredmetal
you used the word fluctuate a lot to explain your idea of a static system...you know fluctuate is synonymous with flux, right? static systems dont fluctuate, thats why theyre static.

if you do not respond to this i must only assume that you're dodging the question, and that you were incorrect by claiming "bullsh!t" when I claimed all systems are dynamic, and none are static.

i know you've got a lot of pride, but i won't hold it against you if you just admit you were incorrect.

as for the the toroidal fields, will AGAIN provide you with a paper that i gave you earlier, which you AGAIN completely ignored:

Electromagnetic Torus Knots

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.

also, an important sentence that you ignore:

In nature, the magnetic fields created by planets and stars present also toroidal structure and nontrivial topology of the field lines.

IN NATURE (not man-made) magnetic fields (i.e. of planets & stars) PRESENT A TOROIDAL STRUCTURE.

now now, before you start calling me all kinds of names like "an uneducated vulgar piece of worthless trash" & "hick", maybe you should direct your hate and confusion towards the scientists that wrote the paper, NOT I. I'm only relaying this information, because you asked for it.

Originally posted by metalshredmetal
once again you are completely ignoring the the points i make which illustrate your odd logic. so once again, i say:

Originally posted by metalshredmetal
you used the word fluctuate a lot to explain your idea of a static system...you know fluctuate is synonymous with flux, right? static systems dont fluctuate, thats why theyre static.

if you do not respond to this i must only assume that you're dodging the question, and that you were incorrect by claiming "bullsh!t" when I claimed all systems are dynamic, and none are static.

This is a sophism. I can equally say that there is no torus in the whole Universe because no torus is perfect.
So within the accuracy of measurement, I'm asking again -- how does a sphere produce a torus field?

OK, let's make an experiment. Measure the field produced by a sphere, map it and graph it. Will you see a torus?

You won't. And no amount of trash metal will change that. So your statement, again is false to the point of silly.

Even your statement that in nature all MAGNETIC fields are toroidal is complete nonsense. Bremsstrahlung radiation, laser light and bazillion other phenomena have nothing to do with tori.

The earth as a sphere has "similar" magnetics...

Not quite toroidal unless you look at the way the Van Allen belts work, which is closer. But that's only if you're following the path that the particles themselves are taking in the radiation belts from one pole of the earth to the other (from a 2d perspective).

Still a stretch by any means.

Edit: I mean in this way-

Originally posted by SoulVisions
Edit: I mean in this way-

Except that's not what it looks like. As buddhasystem said perfect toroid shapes are only theoretical, and in reality Earth's field is quite a distorted version of that because of the solar wind. I posted a more accurate diagram back on page 167 here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

The torus shape actually fails to materialize in the outer part of the field on the downwind side of the Earth, as that diagram I posted shows.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


And even that is not relevant. The Earth's field is solenoidal, not toroidal to begin with, so I don't know why this even entered this discussion in the first place.

Toroidal magnetic field does exist in the tokamak.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

And even that is not relevant. The Earth's field is solenoidal, not toroidal to begin with, so I don't know why this even entered this discussion in the first place.

edit on 2-2-2012 by buddhasystem because: (no reason given)

I was attempting to explore reasons as to why a certain individual may have come under the assumption of a sphere producing a toroidal shaped field. As I said before, it's a stretch.

Originally posted by SoulVisions
I was attempting to explore reasons as to why a certain individual may have come under the assumption of a sphere producing a toroidal shaped field.

You mean solenoidal?

reply to post by SoulVisions


my claim was mostly referring to a paper published by two scientists at the university of madrid in June 2011...

my previous post illustrates some relevant points in the paper....

don't bring it up to buddhasystem though, I tried to show it to him but he just ignored it. then once he acknowledged the paper he made it clear that he thinks his opinion is more valid than these scientists'.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by SoulVisions
I was attempting to explore reasons as to why a certain individual may have come under the assumption of a sphere producing a toroidal shaped field.

You mean solenoidal?

No, I meant what I wrote.

Metalshred wrote as clear as day that he believed "IN NATURE (not man-made) magnetic fields (i.e. of planets & stars) PRESENT A TOROIDAL STRUCTURE."

That is why I presented the illustration/picture that I did. One that displayed a spin, as opposed to other graphs one might find of the earth's magnetic field (minus the effects from outside forces).

Originally posted by metalshredmetal
reply to post by SoulVisions

 

my claim was mostly referring to a paper published by two scientists at the university of madrid in June 2011...

my previous post illustrates some relevant points in the paper....

don't bring it up to buddhasystem though, I tried to show it to him but he just ignored it. then once he acknowledged the paper he made it clear that he thinks his opinion is more valid than these scientists'.

You are both right in this matter, and I'm sure you're both intelligent enough to realize this. The difference lies in whether or not an individual is accounting for other factors.

Spherical tokamaks create a "perfectly shaped" field. If anything, I would think a reference to one (due to the subject matter here) would have been brought up to support one side or the other.

Either way, it's still an incredibly useful find for those working in the field.

This is actually something I mentioned in this other gentleman's thread regarding his concepts on how "UFO" craft work. I threw out there the importance of using fields of this very same shape (I just called them donuts), but I imagine it just flew over everyone's head.

Originally posted by SoulVisions
Spherical tokamaks create a "perfectly shaped" field.

Sphericals tokamaks do not exist.



EDIT TO CORRECT -- there is variation of tokamak that is close to a sphere in shape, but still has a hole.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by SoulVisions
Spherical tokamaks create a "perfectly shaped" field.

Sphericals tokamaks do not exist.

You're kidding, right?
There must be at least 30 or 40 in the world by now. Hold on...

okay, click this link here:
www.toodlepip.com...

reply to post by SoulVisions


You are right, there is a variation of tokamak of a different ration of the whole to the size.

I stand corrected.

However, it's still a donut shaped object:

spehrical tokamak

Originally posted by buddhasystem
reply to post by SoulVisions

 

You are right, there is a variation of tokamak of a different ration of the whole to the size.

I stand corrected.

However, it's still a donut shaped object

Not exactly. Current iterations use a vacuum to...
meh, nvm. Not worth debating over to me. I'm going to leave it at that.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
reply to post by SoulVisions

 

You are right, there is a variation of tokamak of a different ration of the whole to the size.

I stand corrected.

However, it's still a donut shaped object:

spehrical tokamak

should i follow your example and belittle your intelligence for misspelling? and perhaps attack you with viciously vulgar names like you did me? Na, i'm not that mean.

although i do think you're intelligent enough to spell spherical, i find it interesting that you misspelled it.
And you also did not provide any source in your seeming "link".

and as for this proposal:

OK, let's make an experiment. Measure the field produced by a sphere, map it and graph it. Will you see a torus?

i've already provided scientific evidence for my point, which is that the universe NATURALLY creates EM fields in the shape of toroids, like the ones observed around planets and stars.

now, if you would like to perform that "experiment" in order to rebut my point, then go ahead.

while you're at it, have you thought of any new static objects i should know about?

btw, i noticed you changed your avatar...no more torus love?

Originally posted by metalshredmetal

Originally posted by buddhasystem
reply to post by SoulVisions

 

You are right, there is a variation of tokamak of a different ration of the whole to the size.

I stand corrected.

However, it's still a donut shaped object:

spehrical tokamak

should i follow your example and belittle your intelligence for misspelling? and perhaps attack you with viciously vulgar names like you did me? Na, i'm not that mean.

a) you can go right ahead belittling my intelligence
b) despite the term, the topology of the tokamak is still toroidal
c) I accepted and acknowledged my factual error as normal people do, in contrast with you and others

and as for this proposal:

OK, let's make an experiment. Measure the field produced by a sphere, map it and graph it. Will you see a torus?

i've already provided scientific evidence for my point, which is that the universe NATURALLY creates EM fields in the shape of toroids, like the ones observed around planets and stars.

a) you said all fields are toroidal
b) I gave a ready example of that being not true
c) you start talking about "natural" EM fields, and it doesn't get through your skull that the science of physics studies nature and not some alternative reality (which is Rodin's speacialty). When I charge a sphere in the lab, that's how nature works. And it's not "toroidal".

Lightning bolts in general follow the field lines of the electrostatic field in the atmosphere. I'm sure toroidal lightning bolts might exist somewhere, but most of that I've seen connect a cloud and the surface.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

a) you said all fields are toroidal

edit on 2-2-2012 by buddhasystem because: (no reason given)

nope, not quite. you're still manipulating quotes and events to make them seem in your favor...

In this post which you are referring to, I said:

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

not "All fields are toroidal".

My opinion (based upon observation & scientific evidence) is that Nature produces EM fields in the "over-all" design of a torus. whether or not that field is then distorted in different ways because of circumstantial conditions (solar wind, adjacent EM field interactions etc.) , that is a variable that often occurs, of course.

Originally posted by metalshredmetal

Originally posted by buddhasystem

a) you said all fields are toroidal

nope, not quite. you're still manipulating quotes and events to make them seem in your favor...

I did NOT manipulate your statement:

All electromagnetic phenomenon has a toroidal shaped field.

Either you have no clue about what you are talking about (my guess), or a case of dyslexia, or both, or you are prone to deny very simple facts. You said it. I didn't make it up.

My opinion (based upon observation & scientific evidence) is that Nature produces EM fields in the "over-all" design of a torus. whether or not that field is then distorted in different ways because of circumstantial conditions (solar wind, adjacent EM field interactions etc.) , that is a variable that often occurs, of course.

The EM field in the atmosphere in many cases has nothing to do with tori, and it's perfectly natural. The electric field of the proton in the hydrogen atom (perfectly natural stuff) is spherically symmetric, showing once again that you are talking nonsense.

Besides, as I said before, there are no "unnatural" fields anyhow, nature is nature both outdoors and inside.