ONE UNIFYING EXPRESSION FOR MAGNETISM, FREQUENCY, AND OHM'S LAW

Everything about Robert Distinti's Ethereal Mechanics, New Electromagnetism theories and Q-Vector Algebra.
United States of America
Wired and Wound
Posts: 22
Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2017 8:19 pm

ONE UNIFYING EXPRESSION FOR MAGNETISM, FREQUENCY, AND OHM'S LAW

Post by Wired and Wound » Fri Sep 29, 2017 8:34 pm

k = (b+√(b² + 4a²)) ÷ (2a); (±a) and (±b)

This formula also expresses Plato's Divided Line

FORCE VECTORS in unit proportions where Φ = 1.618... 2cos(36)

Æv →← = 31/3 ns/m = 3e^8 m/s = (√(µε))^-1 = ÆTHEREAL VELOCITY
Ƶ ←→ = 5.4 ns/m = 185e^6 m/s = (Æv*Φ)^-1 = ÆTHEREAL PERMEABILITY
Æε →← = 2.06 ns/m = 485e^6 m/s = (Æv/Φ)^-1 = ÆTHEREAL PERMITTIVITY

//**************Don't let this part of the expression cause any confusion it is still under review****************//
vr →← = 47.75e^6 m/r = (2π√(ƵÆε))^-1 = VELOCITY RADIANS
µr ←→ = 29.5e^6 m/r = (2πƵ)^-1 = PERMEABILITY RADIANS
εr →← = 77.3e^6 m/r = (2πÆε)^-1 = PERMITTIVITY RADIANS
//*******************************************************************************************************************//


(P) Power; (R) resistance; (V) volts; (i) current; (H) Henries; (F) Farads; (T) time; (Fh) upper critical frequency; (Fl) lower critical frequency;
(Fr) resonance; (k) proportional value


P; µ; Fh = H s/m
R; ε; Fl = F s/m
V; T; Fr = √(HF) s/m
i; k  = √(H/F) (dimensionless) = Φ; -Φ; Φ^-1; -Φ^-1
Q = a/b

QUADRATIC EXPRESSION VARIABLES

a = V; T; Fr
b = [P - R]; [µ - ε]; [Fh - Fl]; [k - k^-1]
c = ±a (redundant)
k = Unit Proportion
Last edited by Wired and Wound on Sun Nov 19, 2017 10:57 am, edited 7 times in total.
I consider all of my comments about science and physics to be theoretical and open for debate. My posts are not the views of Ethereal Mechanics, and are not meant to prove or disprove anyone else's theories. Anyone is welcome to correct or dispute them.

User avatar Germany
SebastianG
Site Admin
Posts: 196
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 2:50 am
Location: Germany

Re: ONE UNIFYING EXPRESSION FOR MAGNETISM, FREQUENCY, AND OHM'S LAW

Post by SebastianG » Tue Oct 03, 2017 10:01 am

Hi Wired,

This looks very interesting and I hope you can help me to clear some things for me:

So as I understood the ÆTHEREAL VELOCITY is the "Speed of Light", correct?
Æv →← = 31/3 ns/m = 3e^8 m/s = (√(µε))^-1 = ÆTHEREAL VELOCITY
But what is the VELOCITY RADIANS? Maybe you can you give an example?
vr →← = 47.75e^6 m/r = (2π√(ƵÆε))^-1 = VELOCITY RADIANS
Thanks and best regards!

United States of America
Wired and Wound
Posts: 22
Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2017 8:19 pm

Re: ONE UNIFYING EXPRESSION FOR MAGNETISM, FREQUENCY, AND OHM'S LAW

Post by Wired and Wound » Tue Oct 03, 2017 10:57 am

Ethereal velocity and velocity radians are just relationships of the force vectors. It is in the defining of velocity that needs to be understood since it shows when plotted that propagation is not a linear event, but just a proportion that is not defined in space but effect. The radians is just how ethereal velocity, which defines m.k.s, is related to the unit circle as a trigonometric function. The "speed of light" is not a speed but a rate of induction, and rates are proportional units based on dimensionless magnitudes. The expression shown proves that all current is, is just a dimensionless proportional magnitude of forces. Our 5 senses realize current as a volume per period of time and space, but space requires dimension which is not part of its definition.

If you look at my post on "Argument for the Reality of Infinity: Comments for video 21", space/distance is not important since it only applies to our 5 senses, which gives a false concept of causality. Propagation is not at a distance but it is how the rate of induction is tempered by the retardation from the refraction of µ and ε.

Space means nothing. Distance means nothing. The effect is what matters, let me give an example:

When you decide to travel somewhere, ask yourself what are the things that matter to you. Is it the distance you travel, or is it how long it is going to take and how much it will cost - cost being correlated with energy. Most people, when asked how far are they going, instinctively reply with the time: "it will be about a 7 hour flight". Also, imagine that just over a hundred years ago, it would take most people an entire day to travel the same distance that they now commute one way to work.

What's changed? It certainly isn't the distance that has changed, but the time and energy that it takes to get there (efficiency). If it only took 1 hour to travel to the United States from Germany, How often would you take the flight. This is about the same proportion as the previous example.

Light does not travel. The effect is that it takes time to be realized due to the time dilation of refraction. It is only within our brain that reinterprets this as a function of space and distance.

Use this expression for anything in physics and it will apply. Plot out the force vectors which are not linear but divergent and convergent, moving away from and toward an infinitely small origin. And this is "space". It is not a coincidence that all the physical relationships of electrical energies can be defined by this expression.
I consider all of my comments about science and physics to be theoretical and open for debate. My posts are not the views of Ethereal Mechanics, and are not meant to prove or disprove anyone else's theories. Anyone is welcome to correct or dispute them.

United States of America
Wired and Wound
Posts: 22
Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2017 8:19 pm

Re: ONE UNIFYING EXPRESSION FOR MAGNETISM, FREQUENCY, AND OHM'S LAW

Post by Wired and Wound » Tue Oct 03, 2017 7:09 pm

But what is the VELOCITY RADIANS? Maybe you can you give an example?
In short: The velocity radians is the outcome of ε77.3e^6 m/r opposing µ29.5e^6 m/r. These are just the forces that define the magnitude of the native convergent force of the medium of Æther 47.75e^6 m/r (3e^8 m/cycle).

Magnetic field forces and magnitudes are just proportional to 47.75e^6 m/r if they are propagating through free space. There is no locus to the origin of free space, there is just vector velocities defining its attributes. So the rings of a diverging magnetic field create their own infinitely small "locus of origin" as they are generated, and in doing so, create their own space. If this space is being generated at a frequency that our 5 senses realize as something tangible, then the human mind can grasp it as a physical substance.
I consider all of my comments about science and physics to be theoretical and open for debate. My posts are not the views of Ethereal Mechanics, and are not meant to prove or disprove anyone else's theories. Anyone is welcome to correct or dispute them.

User avatar Germany
SebastianG
Site Admin
Posts: 196
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 2:50 am
Location: Germany

Re: ONE UNIFYING EXPRESSION FOR MAGNETISM, FREQUENCY, AND OHM'S LAW

Post by SebastianG » Thu Oct 05, 2017 1:06 pm

Thanks for your explanation, you gave me a lot to think about!

I'm not sure, but I think that everything related to "time" is depending on the density of ether. This would also mean that the propagation speed through the ether varies with its density. What do you think? Or is the propagation speed always constant?

United States of America
Wired and Wound
Posts: 22
Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2017 8:19 pm

Re: ONE UNIFYING EXPRESSION FOR MAGNETISM, FREQUENCY, AND OHM'S LAW

Post by Wired and Wound » Thu Oct 05, 2017 4:58 pm

This would also mean that the propagation speed through the ether varies with its density. What do you think? Or is the propagation speed always constant?
I Agree that the propagation rate of induction "speed" varies with density. Propagation cannot be constant, since it is purely based on the nature of the medium. Faster than light (FTL) should be possible if we can find a way to change the nature of the Æther, by affecting the µ and ε of Æther.

Hypothesis: If the Æther can affect the nature of a magnetic field, likewise, a magnetic field may be able to affect the nature of the Æther? Like how a moving conductor can induce a current from a magnetic field - visa-versa, or as a moving charge can induce a magnetic field.

What do you think?
I consider all of my comments about science and physics to be theoretical and open for debate. My posts are not the views of Ethereal Mechanics, and are not meant to prove or disprove anyone else's theories. Anyone is welcome to correct or dispute them.

User avatar Germany
SebastianG
Site Admin
Posts: 196
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 2:50 am
Location: Germany

Re: ONE UNIFYING EXPRESSION FOR MAGNETISM, FREQUENCY, AND OHM'S LAW

Post by SebastianG » Sat Oct 07, 2017 3:32 am

Yes I think that magnets affect the Ether! But I'm Not sure how :?

Maybe the positive and negative ethons are moving in different directions, like a shear movement of two fluids.

United States of America
Wired and Wound
Posts: 22
Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2017 8:19 pm

Re: ONE UNIFYING EXPRESSION FOR MAGNETISM, FREQUENCY, AND OHM'S LAW

Post by Wired and Wound » Sat Oct 07, 2017 11:15 am

like a shear movement of two fluids.
Flux (15th century transitive verb; To cause to become fluid)

The causality of the opposing forces is flux. But here is the thing... Space is nothing. Space is like a shadow without attribute, it is just the absence of light. (Ken Wheeler; Theoria Apophasis).

A divergent (←→ ) magnetic field is the absence of inertia created by its opposite nature to the Æther. The divergent field of magnetism within the Æther is affecting the convergent force of the Æther. If the forces become similar (→→), then the inertia between them becomes enhanced. This is what polarity really is; the loss and restoration of inertia. Thusly, these are the states of flux: (magnetic, Æthereal) (←→, →←) loss of inertia, attraction. (→←, →←) increase of inertia, repulsion.

Robert is correct in saying that the native state of Ether is extremely dense (high-inertia), it is Flux, (the causality of fluidity) that we perceive as magnetism. Thusly Æther is what is affected by Flux, and Flux being causality. Æther is the light and Space is the shadow. Æther is substance and Magnetism is space (this is my best guess at the moment).


I just wanted to add that it really helps to look into the Q of an RLC resonant circuit. I believe that it is easiest to observe how the Unified Expression is applied.
I consider all of my comments about science and physics to be theoretical and open for debate. My posts are not the views of Ethereal Mechanics, and are not meant to prove or disprove anyone else's theories. Anyone is welcome to correct or dispute them.

United States of America
Wired and Wound
Posts: 22
Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2017 8:19 pm

Re: ONE UNIFYING EXPRESSION FOR MAGNETISM, FREQUENCY, AND OHM'S LAW

Post by Wired and Wound » Sat Oct 21, 2017 11:08 am

I've had to edit the U.E. because I forgot to show what (k) actually is (though I imagine that most learned people probably could pick it up rather quickly).

Also, I've brought in the addition of (Q). This I believe is a huge oversight since it shows the proportional relationship of the energy affected by the medium, where Q = a/b.

Q is extremely important because it shows that, for free-space Q = 1, and not the quantum determined Electronvolts.

Why is this important? Because nothing can be truly measured by quanta. All things can only be measured - from the human perspective -by proportion. This is the main issue with Quantum Mechanics. They continually try to put a value on things that actually do not exist in nature. Ken Wheeler makes it clear that (reification of nothing) is absolutely a misguided rationalization of modern science. It is like saying that a shadow has mass, when all it is, is the privation of light. Claiming that privations are tangible mass quantities is the insanity of Quantum Mechanics.

Looking at the (Q) of the U.E. makes it very clear that higher Frequencies, Time constants, and Volts, in proportion to (b), store higher magnitudes of energy within the medium. This has been mistaken by Quantum Mechanics as [E = hv], where science claims that higher frequencies have higher energy, but the fact is that the energy is not higher, but that it is just contained within a smaller bandwidth, and thusly this is also true with magnetism and Ohm's Law.
I consider all of my comments about science and physics to be theoretical and open for debate. My posts are not the views of Ethereal Mechanics, and are not meant to prove or disprove anyone else's theories. Anyone is welcome to correct or dispute them.

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest