Vortex Theory Of Matter: Oam Mass Ring

[barryispuzzled]

In 1861, James Clerk-Maxwell published Part II of his four-part series 'On physical lines of force'. In it, he attempted to construct a vortex model of the magnetic field but after much effort neither he, nor other late nineteenth century physicists who followed him, managed to produce a workable theory. What survived from these attempts were Maxwell's four equations of electrodynamics together with the Lorentz force law, formulae that made no attempt to describe an underlying reality but stood only as a mathematical description of the observed phenomena. When the quantum of action was introduced by Planck in 1900 the difficulties that had faced Maxwell's generation were still unresolved. Since then theories of increasing mathematical complexity have been constructed to attempt to bring the totality of phenomena into order with little success. This work examines the problems that had been abandoned long before quantum mechanics was formulated in 1925 and argues that these issues need to be revisited before real progress in the quantum theory of the electromagnetic field can be made.

 

A re-examination of the foundations of electrodynamics and a visualizable self-consistent vortex theory of mass, charge and field.

Edited June 8, 2017 by Buffy

[Buffy]

Hi Barry! Welcome to Hypography!

 

We removed your link because we control advertising on our site, but you're welcome to present and discuss some of your ideas here!

 

 

The true logic of this world is the calculus of probabilities, :phones:

Buffy

[exchemist]

Hi Barry! Welcome to Hypography!

 

We removed your link because we control advertising on our site, but you're welcome to present and discuss some of your ideas here!

 

 

The true logic of this world is the calculus of probabilities, :phones:

Buffy

I googled this guy. He apparently writes puzzles for a number of well-known British newspapers and magazines (e.g. here: http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/puzzles)  and has got involved in Quixotic causes before, including the authorship of Shakespeare's plays (a perennial topic for eccentrics on the British literary scene). But he's not apparently a madman.  

 

I suppose it will be of some interest to see if he responds, as this may simply be spam from his agent or something. I see an identical post has been made on at least one other science forum.

Edited June 8, 2017 by exchemist

[barryispuzzled]

Dear exchemist. Thank you for the response. Reading your message I feel like I have come across a forum-police checkpoint. The authorship of the Shakespeare plays, as far as my involvement was concerned, cannot be characterized as 'Quixotic' as I was awarded a PhD in that topic as well as publishing in peer-reviewed journals.   :umno: Before dismissing my latest book The Quantum Puzzle on a new vortex theory of mass as 'Quixotic', might I recommend reading it first. After all, science is about gathering evidence. In any case, I have published peer-reviewed papers in quantum mechanics although I accept this is insufficient to counter the view that I might be a 'madman'. Thank you for your interest although I would have appreciated a more positive, a better researched, and a less judgmental welcome.

[exchemist]

Dear exchemist. Thank you for the response. Reading your message I feel like I have come across a forum-police checkpoint. The authorship of the Shakespeare plays, as far as my involvement was concerned, cannot be characterized as 'Quixotic' as I was awarded a PhD in that topic as well as publishing in peer-reviewed journals.   :umno: Before dismissing my latest book The Quantum Puzzle on a new vortex theory of mass as 'Quixotic', might I recommend reading it first. After all, science is about gathering evidence. In any case, I have published peer-reviewed papers in quantum mechanics although I accept this is insufficient to counter the view that I might be a 'madman'. Thank you for your interest although I would have appreciated a more positive, a better researched, and a less judgmental welcome.

OK, fair enough. You have to realise we get a lot of out-and-out nutters in a place like this. My post was intended to show that at least you did not seem to be one of those, though I have to say I was a bit doubtful that the entity posting would actually be the author. I had suspected, out of a cynicism born of experience, that it might be spam from the publisher or something. But you seem to be real, which is splendid.

 

Re describing your theories about Shakespeare as Quixotic, that is simply because this is an old chestnut and I have never seen any serious reason to doubt that Shakespeare's plays could well have been written by Shakespeare, which seems to be the consensus view still, in spite of all the rival ideas.  

 

Regarding the vortex theory, I don't dismiss it entirely but I start from a viewpoint of scepticism, again because we get so many people in a place like this with theories of one sort or another, most of which are no good. The thing is it has to be the person who comes forward with a new idea who  makes the running. There are so many crazy alternative ideas out there that we cannot dutifully take them all seriously and plod through them to find where they fall apart. Nobody is obliged to listen to the nutter on the street corner: if we did, we'd waste our day. 

 

For the record I did make the point you are NOT apparently a madman, so I don't say you are just another of these ubiquitous internet nutters.  But don't expect people like me to be immediately enthusiastic, that's all. I've seen too many of these things before.  

Edited June 16, 2017 by exchemist

[Buffy]

The authorship of the Shakespeare plays, as far as my involvement was concerned, cannot be characterized as 'Quixotic' as I was awarded a PhD in that topic as well as publishing in peer-reviewed journals.   

 

I've always been an Oxfordian myself, but Bill Bryson disagrees with us, so we're in good company. 

 

You'll find us a more tolerant lot than most forums though, so give us a chance and we'll give you one too. :cheer:

 

 

A valiant mind no deadly danger fears, :phones:

Buffy