studiot

Unfortunately for your claim the recent discoveries around submarine hydrothermal vents concerning sulphur based life would suggest otherwise. In 1823 German Botanist G Ehrenburg published a paper "Symbolae Physicae", explaining Manna as a secretion of the Tamarix Mannifera, which grows around Mt Sinai. In 1927 Bodenheimer and Theodor led a scientific expedition to the ara and studied firther, producing the first photgraphes of the Manna. +1 to the Americans

No the t or ct axis has the same extent as the other axes. However raising the subject of surfaces is important and I don't think I properly brought it out in my last post. If you have a volume it is either finite or infinite. If finite it has surface(s) A finite volume such as the crystal lattice in my earlier example has a particular surface. If you introduce a crack then the volume doesn't change but the surface increases. This increase requires energy. So a space not only possesses volume but also surface area.

Other uses of the word 'space' give thought. The absence of something that could be or should be there. So interstitial space can form a container space for atoms or ions in a lattice. In fact if there is a lattice atom missed out then we have a lattice space and perhaps a screw dislocation. Or if we have a crack in the lattice we have a griffiths weakness which may or may not propagate to a large space/weakness. Depending upon the shape of the space further lattice damage may be promoted or resisted. A cation is an atom or molecule that has lost one or more electrons. The cation takes up less space than the parent atom. Sometimes things are not always there. For instance a passing ray (photon) may hit (interact with) a bound electron. Or it may miss it since the electron is not always 'there'. So what is in the space where the electron is sometimes ? A forest fire needs two things. Air and a forest. A gap (firebreak) in the forest is, well space, and prevents a fire spreading. The Karman line conventionally marks the division between the atmousphere and 'Space'.

Your circuit diagram posted here shows an iron cored transformer ? Do you know the difference between a universal motor and a motor ?

Yes indeed, but more than that, the higgs field is the gage field that supports the higgs boson which is the particle that is responsible for mass. Higgs didn't invent the idea that was originally due to Nambu (1957) who showed how the mass gain of cooper pairs in superconductivity are a result of a symmetry breaking mechanism. Higgs applied this to his new field to derive the mass boson.

I'm banging on about 'empty space' for a reason. Back along Mordred mentioned symmetry breaking and I mentioned Higgs and the Principle of Least Energy. This is because using our best standard model equations Higgs' great insight was to show that 'empty space' is in an energetically higher state than space permeated by what we now call the Higgs Field ie non empty. It would seem that Nature does indeed abhor a true vacuum.

https://www.appliancecity.co.uk/news/microwaves/what-should-you-never-put-in-the-microwave/

As any microwave user knows, sugar also gets hot. Sogar softens at around 110oC, is melted around 135oC and burns at around 170oC.

Since we don't live in an Anne McAffrey 'Pern' universe and space is what lies between things, why is that space not 'unoccupied' ?

So what's in the distance between things ?

Are you suggesting that you cannot have unoccupied space ? I think a good question to consider is " Is there any (detectable) difference between occupied and unoccupied space ?" Another good one is the Principle of Least Energy, which appears to be in force at all scales and is the justification for Higgs Theory at the smallest.

I don't think you will find many in agreement with these claims.

Yes but conditions in a working microwave oven are not those of thermodynamic equilibrium.

Ok so physics used to be fun and here is an old fashioned experiment we did at school. Elihu's Exeriment is particularly fun. These should help with understanding transformers and what happens when you remove the keepr or I part from the Es and Is frame. I note that this is still a legitimate experiment in some places.

Thank I was not criticising your website or its presentation, just commenting on the physics. Thank you for offering further thoughts. This may help us bridge the gap between your ideas and conventional ones. In the original linked videos you mention but I could not see the capacitor. The later video doesn't mention it or show it. In the circuit diagram above the capacitor is in series with a transformer and a motor (and the mains supply). Consequently the entire supplied current must pass through this capacitor. Hopefully it is rated for these currents. In the original vids a current of around 2 amps is mentioned. The later vid has around 5 amps, reducing to 4. something when you add series inductance via the second motor. This is to be expected and shows that it is inductance, not resistance which controls the current. As regards power your metering is not set up to show the change in phase angle between voltage and current, as additional circuitry is added. Showing this would be enlightening for all concerned. I do not see any scope for mutual inductance between the two motors in the last video. Mutual inductance is, of course, a way to get field line interaction.

Perhaps that is why no one managed to answer it. It was so well disguised. Thank you for posting this. It appears a perferctly normal circuit that can be analysed by the normal processes of electrical engineering. In fact your video short circuiting the transformer is a standard method of measuring one of the important circuit parameters. However it does not help to use incorrect terminology thus Nonsense. The field intensity is controlled by the magnetic properties of the various parts of the circuit and the current flowing. Resistance is not a magnetic property. If you have a question please ask it more clearly.

That's just word fluff. One scale's local is another scale's global. See these discussions about invariance, scale and relativity. https://forum.allaboutcircuits.com/threads/the-difference-between-invariants-and-constants.29563/

Does your use of the word reality bear any relationship to your use of the word real ? Both seem very hand wavy to me. My intent is to use words as they are generally defined by the standard model. However, the further down the rabbit hole this material finds itself the closer it gets to philosophical terminology. So what do you mean by real ?

Does your use of the word reality bear any relationship to your use of the word real ? Both seem very hand wavy to me.

Hello and welcome. I did was the videos and other stuff on the website you linked to, although it is a requirement of this forum that I should not need to. I didn't see anything unexpected on the demos, though the explanations were somewhat hazy. One thing that was not clear to me was your relationship to that website ?? Is it your site or are you a third party asking for our opinion on the material presented there ? There are several things to note about field lines. There is no such thing as 'electromagnetic field lines'. Hence there is no such thing as 'electromagnetic field lines'. There are electric field lines and there are magnetic field lines which are quite different, although there is a connection between them. Field lines from a single source do not cross each other. If any field lines cross, they must be caused by a another source. Electric field lines start on a charge and end on a charge or go to infinity. Magnetic field lines start on a pole and end on a pole, if there is one, or form closed loops. Unlike electric fields for which a polarity can be distinguished, there is no such thing as a north magnetic field or a south magnetic field. Such fields would require the existence of 'magnetic monopoles' , which although they make the maths easy, have been sought but never observed. Big prize money is available for anyone who demonstrates one. I think the website demonstrator would do well to show a better understanding of transformer action. This is widely misunderstood in the difference between the activity in the primary and secondary. Final point, the explanation of the circular magnetic field concerns to Direct Current, but transformers don't work at DC. The supply is actually alternating and so the magnetic field will be reversing at line frequency, which is why the little button magnet was jumping around in one of the videos.

+1 In my opinion History is a subject that shoud be explored when the 'student' is read, not some collection of vaguely related facts and figures rammed down a child's throat for an examination. Having spent my working life addressing the questions 'what do I need to know or figure ?' in order to get this answer or that result I am finding in retirement the pleasure of exploring the questions ' How did we get there and what insights can be gained from this knowledge?' I think that these insights may well be more valuable to pass on that say the details of the aerodynamics of biplanes, which knowledge in near obsolete these days.

I'm not hiding behind anything - I've been away - , but this is the wole point of 'foiliations' which you seem to misunderstand. Yes indeed a foliation is a way of selecting a subspace ( sub manifold) of a given one (manifold), exactly as you have said and slicing is a good word. BUT This is not necessarily the case. A simple example relates to the laws of Mechanics, which are different in spaces of different dimension. And your 'slices' are another way of invoking the reduction of dimensionality map I referred to earlier. Whether presented as tensors or otherwise the differences in Mechanics between dimensionality 1, 2, 3 and 4 have been taught to Engineers, Geologists and other disciplines for a very long time.

I'm away on holiday tonight but you folks might find this interesting reading.

So you asked a question, didn't want the answer. Oh. Marcus in particular and also Mordred like to deal in the abstract. I like to ask the question "What does that posh statement mean, can i construct a simple down-to-earth example ?" I offered you such but thank you for not wanting it.

I thought I answered your actual question, given in your post #2, shortly after you posted it. But I do not seem to have a reply.