Atomic Power is predicated upon the Nonlinear Dynamics of Electrical Behavior

Warning!

The following text is not a transcript. There is a button in the substack app for that. The following is a slightly different way of presenting this material significantly different enough from the podcast to be worth your read.

---

First, two attempts to ask a question posed to Google’s AI with two slightly different results…

Can the magnetic field resulting from charged particles become, or become considered, analogous to a mass if their magnetic field is squared and multiplied times the speed of light?

Yes, the energy stored in a magnetic field, particularly that generated by moving charges, can be considered analogous to mass, especially when viewed through the lens of special relativity. The relationship between energy and mass, described by Einstein's equation E=mc2, implies that a magnetic field, which carries energy, can be associated with an effective mass.

This effective mass is not a property of the magnetic field itself, but rather a consequence of the energy it contains, according to Quora. [1, 2, 3]

Here's why: [1, 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13]

• Energy Density in a Magnetic Field: A magnetic field carries energy, and this energy is distributed throughout space. This energy density can be calculated, and it's proportional to the square of the magnetic field strength.

• Relativistic Equivalence of Mass and Energy: Einstein's equation states that mass and energy are interchangeable. If you have a system with energy, it also has a corresponding mass, even if that mass isn't in the form of traditional matter.

• Effective Mass: The magnetic field, being a carrier of energy, can be associated with an "effective mass" that is proportional to the energy it contains. This effective mass isn't a physical mass in the sense of matter, but it reflects the influence of the magnetic field on the motion of objects.

In essence, squaring the magnetic field and multiplying by the speed of light (or its square) relates to the energy density within the field, which can be equated to an effective mass through the principle of energy-mass equivalence. This means that the presence of a magnetic field, due to its energy content, affects the behavior of objects as if they were subject to a force caused by this effective mass. [1, 1, 14]

AI responses may include mistakes.

[1] https://www.quora.com/Does-a-magnetic-field-have-mass

[2] https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/427233/if-maxwells-equations-relate-fields-at-the-same-point-how-can-waves-propagate

[3] https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/chemistry/atomic-mass

[4] https://www.doubtnut.com/qna/644528453

[5]

[6] https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/20900/storing-energy-as-mass

[7] https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2evjp8/is_magnetism_used_up/

[8] https://www.reddit.com/r/AskEngineers/comments/xfxjt5/solenoids_and_earths_magnetic_field/

[9] https://testbook.com/objective-questions/mcq-on-energy-density-of-a-magnetic-field--5eea6a1339140f30f369eefb

[10] https://www.doubtnut.com/qna/277390657

[11] https://www.facebook.com/electronicstutorials/posts/the-energy-stored-in-a-magnetic-field-depends-on-the-energy-density-of-the-coil-/1029686355837664/

[12] https://www.qeios.com/read/M7G5HB

[13]

[14] https://www.qeios.com/read/M7G5HB

Second attempt…

Can the magnetic field resulting from charged particles become (or become considered) analogous to a mass if their magnetic field is squared and multiplied times the (square of the) speed of light?

Yes, while a magnetic field itself doesn't have mass, the energy stored within a magnetic field does contribute to the gravitational effects of the object generating the field. Therefore, you can consider the energy density of a magnetic field, which is proportional to the square of the field strength, as an "effective mass". Squaring the magnetic field and multiplying by the square of the speed of light (c^2) effectively transforms the energy density into a form that resembles mass in Einstein's equation (E=mc^2). This "effective mass" contributes to the overall gravitational effects of the object, but it's important to remember that it's not the same as the object's rest mass. [1, 2, 3]

Here's a more detailed explanation:

• Energy Density of a Magnetic Field: The energy density of a magnetic field is proportional to the square of the field strength (B^2). [1, 2]

• Effective Mass Analogy: The energy stored in a magnetic field contributes to the object's overall energy, and therefore its gravitational effects. Squaring the magnetic field and multiplying by c^2 (the square of the speed of light) gives you the energy density in a form that resembles mass. [1, 3]

• Not Actual Mass: This "effective mass" is a consequence of the energy stored in the magnetic field, not a property of the magnetic field itself. The field itself doesn't have mass, but its energy does. [1]

• Relativistic Considerations: This concept is particularly relevant in relativistic contexts, where the energy and mass are more closely linked. The gravitational effects of a magnetic field are a consequence of its energy, and this can be understood using the analogy of effective mass. [1]

• Example: A strong magnet will have a larger effective mass due to the higher energy density of its magnetic field, and therefore a greater gravitational influence. [1]

AI responses may include mistakes.

[1] https://www.quora.com/A-moving-charge-creates-a-magnetic-field-what-does-a-moving-mass-creates

[2] https://physics.info/em-waves/

[3] https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation?paperid=85142

---

Now, for my perspective…

E = M × C^2

This equation tells me that both sides have been squared to hide something in all likelihood…

E = (the electrostatic force)^2

√E = ±(the electrostatic force) [interpretation of the plus/minus sign: the plus/minus sign indicates that the electrostatic force possesses the ability to become polarized, whereas the Energy of non-square rooted E cannot become polarized because it merely deals with its relationship with Mass per speed of light squared]

M = (the electromagnetic force)^2

√M = ±(the magnetic force) [interpretation of the plus/minus sign: the plus/minus sign indicates that the magnetic force possesses the ability to become polarized, whereas the Mass of non-square rooted M cannot become polarized because it merely deals with its relationship with Energy in the context of light’s speed when squared]

This relationship between the mathematical operator of the square root and the formation of polarization as its result is one more vindication that I present before you of the baffling relationship in which electrodynamics forms the basis of atomic power.

C^2 = a time delay of positive or negative value.

C = the speed of light. More appropriately, C does not represent the speed of light. Instead, C represents the role which imaginary power plays in our perception of a time delay represented by the squaring of the speed of light suggesting movement is the cause of change, what physicists call the transference of energy, when in reality this change is imaginary involving the square root of some negative number and no movement is involved.

When this so-called speed of light is squared, the imaginary portion of reactive power has the opportunity of becoming the generation of negative watts while real power retains its character of being measured as the consumption of positive watts. Please see my previous article, entitled…

And if imaginary power predominates in a significant fashion over the amplitude of real power, then the squaring of the so-called speed of light results in negative time, namely: the appearance of (or our misinterpretation resulting in the appearance of) time moving backwards creating energy (generating negative watts) rather than destroying it (as it would do so under the auspices of entropy when time moves forward).

Please see my peer-reviewed article published in the INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL ON CYBERNETICS & INFORMATICS (IJCI) entitled, The Relativity of Energy and the Reversal of Time is a Shift in Perspective. [The shortcut to this URL is, https://is.gd/abstractrelativity.]

Of course, time never has to move backwards in order for imaginary power to become generated when it is squared as the negative watts of power. Instead, the difference in time between two changing values creates the appearance of the backwards motion of time when the slower reference of changing value is vibrating at a frequency less than the increasing amplitude of energy is vibrating at. This is similar to two cars on the highway in which one passes the other merely because it is traveling faster not because the slower car is moving backwards.

---

The difference between the electrostatic force and the electromagnetic force is a magnitude equal to a constant known as the speed of light.

This is the foundation of nuclear physics and atomic physics at the basis of atomic power. But they won't tell you this, namely: physicists will not tell you this, because they don't want you to know about free energy lest you have free energy and possess atomic power!

So, they sequester the topic of free energy under the domain of nonlinear dynamics and relegate it to theoretical physics and mathematics claiming that it's controversial and let's keep talking about it instead of understanding it and acting on it and making it an applied science such as electrical or mechanical engineering.

Nonlinear Dynamics is the study of a topic in which inputs are not necessarily proportional to outputs.

This is in deference to thermodynamics, which is ruled by the conservation of energy, in which input must equal output at all times.

Thermodynamics is the heart and soul of the fossil fuel industry because thermodynamics merely pertains to chemical processes such as the combustion of fuel in which input must (and will) equal output.

Getting back to our discussion of these two versions of the same mathematical equivalency…

E equals MC squared pertains to the explosive process of free energy, namely, freely available reactive power under the domination of imaginary power with very little real power in evidence, because the presence of real power suppresses the explosive nature of reactive power. So, we don't want too much real power around to prevent this explosive process. In fact, the ideal quantity of real power to serve as the input of a free energy circuit should be no more than the quantity of real power available in the environment such as plants and trees and flowers and you and me! Namely, no more than nano watts or pico watts of real power.

But the explosive process of E equals MC squared is also the explanation for the explosive behavior of atomic power (also known as nuclear power).

This explosive power is governed by squaring both sides of the proportional relationship between the electrostatic force and the magnetic force in which the magnitude of explosion can accelerate at an exponential rate. Consequently, a mere hyperbolic arch of increasing magnitude of explosive force can suddenly and without warning change into a vertical ascension of rapidly escalating dynamics of power output.

In theory, there is no limit to the escalation of this explosive force. For all intents and purposes it can rise to infinite gain within millions of seconds or nanoseconds or instantaneously with no time delay whatsoever.

Tesla knew this when he tested the materials of construction of circuitry with various levels of voltage and/or frequency to see at what point do the materials of construction break down and explode. And they did explode into nano-sized particles of copper and whatnot if he took it too far.

If we take the square root of both sides of this famous equation, made famous by Einstein and other physicists like himself, then we will have a constant known as the speed of light which is the amplitude of difference between the force of magnetism and the force of electrostatics.

But if we square both sides creating this famous equation, then the squaring of the speed of light becomes a time delay in which it takes a certain amount of time for magnetism to respond to electrostatic lines of force.

You see, there's no such thing as the traversal of electromagnetic waves across the empty vastness of space or even between two copper atoms of a copper wire. There's merely electrostatic lines of force connecting all atomic particles within the universe. These electrostatic lines of force interconnect every single atom of matter with all other atoms of matter in existence.

Since electrostatic force does not imply movement, that is relegated to the magnetic force, communication between all the atoms in existence is instantaneous with no time delay whatsoever.

But a time delay does exist in actual experience of our observation, because this time delay is a consequence of the squaring of the speed of light when we are considering E equals MC squared.

But the square root of both sides of this equation does not exist. In other words, the speed of light does not exist as a singular unsquared quantity.

We infer the existence of the speed of light when we take the square root of C squared. But we have never measured the speed of light. Instead, we have measured the square of the speed of light and inferred from that square that its square root is the speed of light.

This misunderstanding is predicated on the reality of the situation in which we are measuring a cross-section of an area, a two-dimensional slice of the spreading of an electromagnetic wave, as it spreads out in all directions simultaneously from a point-source of radiation. When we look at a cross-section of this space through which this electromagnetic wave projects itself, an imaginary two dimensional cross-sectional area of space, we are measuring the rate at which this electromagnetic wave has spread itself across a two-dimensional cross-section of its radiation from a single point of origin after it has traveled a certain distance from that point of origin.

So, we cannot measure a singular quantity known as an unsquared speed of light. We have to infer the constant, known as the speed of light, after having measured its action of spreading across a two-dimensional cross-section along a specific distance from its point of origin.

Thus, the speed of light does not exist. We have misinterpreted the square root of the spreading of an electromagnetic wave as being the squared spreading of the speed of light when, in fact, it is the magnitude difference between the electrostatic force and the magnetic force.

Consequently, the electrostatic force and the magnetic force, also, do not exist as singular forces. We infer them, but we cannot prove them.

Thus, the square root of both sides of the E equals MC squared equation is an inference that anyone can make. It is not a fact. But then again, neither is it a fact that electrodynamics exists since imaginary power is a fiction born of the mind of a mathematician focusing on reactive power, devoid more or less, of real power!

We infer the existence of electrodynamics from the observations that we make of our circuitry experiments. But we cannot prove its existence, because the causation of electrodynamics is imaginary power while real power is a side effect of practical merit which we benefit from.

The only proof that we have of the existence of the speed of light is the explosion of atomic power.

Because of this inference of inferring the speed of light from the measurement of its squared rate of spreading across a cross sectional area of its projection, it is easy to misinterpret the square root of this two-dimensional cross-section as a speed if we further presume that something has taken a duration of time to travel across space.

It is also easy to make this presumptive misinterpretation on the basis of our observation that a signal sent to the Moon takes considerably more time to elapse by comparison to a signal sent to a point in space nearby.

Rather than continuing to harp on this error (which is not obvious to our common sense and common misunderstanding), it would be better to look at it the correct way so we can see our error explained more clearly and more readily.

Consider a capacitor in which two plates are separated by a distance of a dielectric material between the two plates. And consider how the voltage changes when the only change we make is the distance between those two plates after the dielectric medium between those two plates has already been charged with a specific value of energy.

When we move the plates apart, then our measurement of the voltage difference between those two plates goes down. But if we move the plates closer together, then our voltage measurement goes up.

Thus, what we think is the speed of light is actually the amplitude of the electrostatic force across a specific distance and what impact that will have on how quickly will the magnetic force at the two terminal ends of an electrostatic line of force will take to respond by changing the intensity of their magnetic fields due to the strength of the electrostatic lines of force supplying them.

A stronger voltage will mean that the magnetism resulting from that voltage will respond more quickly. A weaker voltage will imply that the magnetism resulting from that weaker voltage will respond more slowly. This is all due to the fact that magnetism is the result of inductance and inductance has the property of delaying current lagging behind voltage.

This is where the so-called speed of light comes from, namely: a misinterpretation of the basic behavior of a capacitance across the dielectric medium of empty space – whether that space lies between cosmological objects such as our sun and the planet earth, or is merely the distance between two copper atoms along the length of a copper transmission line. Either way, space has to be traversed in our explanation of electrodynamic behavior.

But of course, space is not traversed because nothing moves across space insofar as electrodynamic amplitudes are concerned. In other words, there's no such thing as an electromagnetic wave moving electromagnetic energy across empty space. This is a misinterpretation of the dynamics of electricity.

To further seat this fact in our awareness, we must rearrange the elements of Watt's law so that…

Watts equals applied voltage times resulting voltage divided by various impedances and resistances within a framework of time.

Do you see any mention of current anywhere within that statement?

How can we get away without any current supplying watts? Because there is no such thing as current. It's a mathematical fiction; a shorthand notation which is suitable for technicians in the field when they measure something called current rather than calling it something more complicated.

Thus, current is a simplified way of saying that the voltage that results from the application of voltage across the two terminals of an electrical component is influenced by various impedances and resistances over a span of time to give us a change in voltage which we misinterpret as current because that change occurs at different times and at different rates across the length of a transmission wire (for instance).

Voltage is the only kinetic energy in the universe and yet it is not energy, it's not even power, because it's devoid of current and, thus, cannot result in any power that we measure in watts.

Meanwhile, the deficiency of kinetic energy which we can observe as voltage being the only kinetic energy in the universe, is made up for by the constant presence, the pervasive presence, of the potentials of electrodynamics, namely the potentials of electrical reactance, also known as: frequency, capacitive reactance resulting from capacitance, inductive reactance resulting from inductance, and a duration of time over which all of this occurs. This is the extent of what constitutes electrical energy in which current has no role to play (whatsoever) except as an artistry of mathematical fiction so as to avoid teaching the technician in the field the proper way of looking at electrodynamics.

---

For further reference, please see the following posts…

…and…

---

E = M × C^2

Let's play with this and see what happens ...

Let's take the multiplicative inverse of both sides ...

1 ÷ E = 1 ÷ ( M × C^2 )

Let's multiply both sides by the square root of M (Mass)...

√M × ( 1 ÷ E ) = √M × ( 1 ÷ ( M × C^2 ) )

Simplified, it becomes …

√M ÷ E = √M ÷ ( M × C^2 )

Simplified further, it becomes …

√M ÷ E = 1 ÷ ( √M × C^2 )

Since C squared, namely: the speed of light squared, has to do with the cross-sectional area of radiation from a point source with a certain distance between the cross sectional area in question and the location of the point source, and since capacitance is the ratio proportionality between the distance between two plates and the square area of each plate, it could be deduced by way of hypothesis that the following may be as equally correct as the equation above when we substitute capacitance in place of the square root of mass times the speed of light squared …

√M ÷ E = 1 ÷ ( √M × C^2 )

Capacitance = Distance × Area^2

√M ÷ E = 1 ÷ Capacitance

The multiplicative inverse of capacitance, namely: one divided by capacitance, is usually interpreted to be the method for adding various capacitances that are connected in series with each other. Thus, it could be said, that the dielectric insulator between two plates of a capacitor is getting thicker creating greater distance between the two plates of a single capacitor which represents this type of summation.

But in this instance, all we have is one capacitor mathematically phrased in such a way as to prepare it to be added in series with other capacitances. We don't have their formation as a summation of multiple capacitances connected in series. All we have is one element of that summation of what would have been a summation if we had multiple capacitances to connect in series with each other.

Let's multiply both sides by 2 …

2 × ( √M ÷ E ) = 2 ÷ Capacitance

This results in an increase of capacitance, rather than its reduction, indicating that we are connecting two capacitances in parallel with each other.

Yet, we are also doubling the quantity of the square root of mass divided by energy. Maybe we should have done one more transformation to that equation before we did all these other transformations based on what we did at the beginning of this article when we took the square root of both sides of that famous equation? Because, in that initial transformation at the top of this article, the square root of mass became the magnetic force. So, let's substitute that into this transformation and see how it looks …

2 × ( magnetism ÷ Energy ) = 2 ÷ Capacitance

Simplified, it looks like this …

magnetism ÷ Energy = Capacitance

I will assume, for the sake of brevity, that what this implies are the amp-hours associated with the capacity for a battery to deliver current at a specified voltage. So, …

magnetism ÷ Energy = amp-hours

So, this must be how a battery works? I don't know. I'm just fooling around with the math and wondering about it as much as anyone else would since I don't have any inkling what this means. But it's an interesting hypothesis nonetheless.

But it also means something else, because if that last statement is true (about amp-hours equaling magnetism divided by energy), then it definitely has something to do with the square root of mass equaling magnetism since a more massive battery would entail a greater quantity of amp-hours.

So, I guess the upshot of all of this tinkering (with the mathematics in a peculiar way) vindicates (by way of self-reflection) my presumption about taking the square root of both sides of Energy equals Mass times the squaring of the speed of light which converts a nuclear power equivalence into an electrodynamic equivalence which hints at the proper way of looking at nuclear power is in terms of electrodynamics rather than any specialty of physics.

What do you think?

---

Caveat

After reading this entire article you may remain of the opinion (or retain the opinion that you may have begun with – when you first started reading this article) that I still don't have a solid argument that is irrefutable. I could not disagree with you.

My logic is not flawed, but it's not completely backed up by facts. There are holes in my argument due to the missing facts.

What I have not mentioned (up until now), and is worthwhile mentioning at this point, is that I have 8 years of experience on various simulators that have trained me to expect an explosive characteristic behavior to electrical free energy operating under the auspices of nonlinear dynamics in competition with the entropy of thermodynamics eating away at the free energy gains of an over-unity circuit.

This explosive behavior of a free energy electrical circuit is quite fantastic to say the least. It's range of explosive amplitude is anywhere between zero and infinity when simulated under theory. The simulator can't tell the difference between a nuclear explosion and a free energy device. As far as it is concerned, they are one and the same explosion. The only difference between the two is the amount of time it takes to reach infinity of amplitude. The range can be anywhere between 10 million seconds or nanoseconds or instantaneous and anywhere in between.

For this reason, alone, do I make the claim that atomic power is related to electrodynamic behavior under the auspices of nonlinear dynamics. It's true that I am attempting to back up my claim with the square root of E equals MC squared. But unfortunately, that argument has holes in it because it presumes that the square root of energy is the electrostatic force and the square root of mass is the magnetic force and physicists will deny this saying that there is no other way to interpret E equals MC squared except to take it on face value without any modifications applied to it such as taking the square root of both sides.

This argument of mine, of taking the square root of both sides of this equation, is intended to be taken as a suggestion of how to look at this equation in a new way provided, of course, that you're willing to look at it in a new way. I doubt physicists will want to do this because they have no reason or justification for looking at it in a new way. Why bother?

Well, if you're trying to present an argument for free energy in a new and novel manner, then this is why I bother!

😁 Cheers…!

---