END OF AN ERA, FRACTALFORUMS.COM IS CONTINUED ON FRACTALFORUMS.ORG

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/BujD4iYBcNI&rel=1&fs=1&hd=1" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/BujD4iYBcNI&rel=1&fs=1&hd=1</a>

In my research on Barycentric calculus I came across the above seminar.

Optics is the same as mechanics!

Thanks Kram1032.

Do you think it really is obvious?

The professor, for example threw this comment in as a throwaway remark! Later, he had trouble understanding a question from a questioner about the reasons behind the various developments of the same equation.

The history, especially the long correspondence, and the previous long history of the least action theory for Mechanics suggests to me that this is a knotty issue.

We rely on 2 great mathematical minds, one an outright genius, the other an outright mechanical engineer of the highest order. To say they came to a settled opinion quickly , along with D'Alembert is clearly not possible. Yet we say we can decide it!

My point is they did the work, some of us want to reap the benefit, but without understanding the issues!

The ballistic model of light has given way to the undulatory theory of light. As the professor said at the end, we can use one overriding method but we cannot claim to understand it always! This is why individuals choose different methods for different aspects:,to use their understanding while irking through the difficulties.

Thus, despite being a wave theory, light is still explained in terms of quanta or pseudo particles!
These pseudo particles change mathematical description in dense media, and are hard to describe!

The paths light takes is still a mystery, I think.

There is an issue at the foundation f the standard model of physics a, and it is charge.
This fundamental, mythical concept has escaped proper scrutiny and analysis, because it is assumed to be part of common dogmatic belief systems in science. Instead we find a fundamental tautology and doublespeak that exists in the description of force and matter, and the dynamical structure of quantum regions loosely called particles..

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/p5QXZ0__8VU&rel=1&fs=1&hd=1" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/p5QXZ0__8VU&rel=1&fs=1&hd=1</a>

This second video attempts to describe the dynamic structure of matter in terms of charge, but under plays the spherical and rotational paradigm on which the concept of charge is ultimately based.

You will note that the electron is shrouded in mist! This is because it is as mythical as the Greek gods of nature! The central region, a later addition is thought to be independent of the cloud. It is the cloud or charge in general, whether electron or quark, so called, that is said to be the generator!

This in fact shows the limit of our ability to describe the behaviour of this cloud. We might as well replace this generator notion with the notion of energy transformation. This is because it is c,ear that ths is a circularity of tautology , hole a cloud obscures this actual status in our reasoning.

Tautologies are fundamental to our understanding and distinction making processes. They need to be clearly identified, not obscured.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/Vi91qyjuknM&rel=1&fs=1&hd=1" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/Vi91qyjuknM&rel=1&fs=1&hd=1</a>

Do we in fact need the notion of charge?

My answer is no. The notion of force is quite adequate, especially if we abandon the notions of rectilinear action as fundamental. Rectilinear action is such a special case that it is perhaps a surprise to some that nothing in their entire experience has ever been rectilinear! Using a trochoidal motion model for force action is not only more natural, but eliminates many quantum level mcro level difficulties.

In addition, we can have one preferred tautological myth in science called energy and this can then be transformed into trochoidal motion which characterises the electro Thermo and magneto complexes of action behaviours.

Force is the fundamental transformation of energy.

I looked that liquid in two cups at a special tension can become sticky like as magnet attraction.
I don't know what liquid was used for this experiment.
 

The Earnshaw instability for inverse square root forces created a problem for Stability.
Redefine charge in your mind! It helps to understand what is bring promoted( Förderung) under disguise or ignorance.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/fgdZoUrMZ0g&rel=1&fs=1&hd=1" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/fgdZoUrMZ0g&rel=1&fs=1&hd=1</a>
Thompson was well aware of this, but Bohr chose to decree a quantum solution! We wanted stability and by god we were going to get this model to work!

Hidden behind mathematical symbols a quantum rule was imposed on a shell shocked engineering community.. With Einsteins support and Rutherfords tacit agreement scientists quelled all opposition or controversy. Spectroscopy and X ray crystallography were used to back up the imposition. The discrete bands were called absorption bands and said to show quantised energy absorption few bothered to recognise that these were frequency bands. In fact the ultraviolet catastrophe was historically a high frequency Anomally in the model , which Planck tackled in his black body radiation experiments..

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mod6.html
 
Very simply, quantum are based on rotation not translation. Absorption is due to kinetic energy being transformed into rotational kinetic energy rather than " vibration" from side to side in 3 dimensions. The notions of fixed orbits in the planetary model, relates to vortex shedding in a fluid dynamic model. The vortices rotate around the region in the vortex structure of a spherical vortex or spiral , and these vortices exist in anti parallel gyres. Their stability is due to vortex dynamics rather than " charge" dynamics.

Thompsons sticky pudding model has reasserted itself in the particle physics of today as the gluon model in the nucleus, but a simpler alternative and intuitive description is a vortex model based on tornadic or hurricane structure, but considered spherically.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/-YYBCNQnYNM&rel=1&fs=1&hd=1" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/-YYBCNQnYNM&rel=1&fs=1&hd=1</a>

Interplanetary shock "waves " or shock steps are explained in terms of magnetic and proton disturbances, with auroral light shows.

The connectedness of all these descriptors has a mechanical theory underpinning it: Space rotates an varies radially in that rotation. Space as a fluid medium varies it's density in this way, but in a fractally distributed manner. These distributed regions of rotating space varying radially are Newtonian fluid motive or energy dense dependent on their trochoidal( roulette or simply rotational) complexity.

These regions therefore squeeze out and suck in energy phenomena like light and shock steps as strain transmissions with general regional motion( proton count variation).

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/S8SLDL3K1Pg&rel=1&fs=1&hd=1" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/S8SLDL3K1Pg&rel=1&fs=1&hd=1</a>

The quantum of light?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=dHR6LiNzBaw

Because of conservation ideas everything looks and feels static. In fact it is always dynamic. Thus iteration is required to model actual field behaviours. We think we know, but we do not. Our ideas are based on static forms, static interpretations. So called chaos is mostly dynamical equilibrium!
http://youtube.com/watch?v=FLzJ2_DfNX0
We now know charge is a misleading concept . Capacitors contains electro thermo magneto complexes of energy in dynamic motion.