© Kyle Vincent Schiefer and "Quarks and Kytons" blog, 2014. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material, to include derivation of, and not limited to, experimentation and/or utilization of theses contained herein, prototyping of proposed technologies and/or implementation of any or all parts of proposed commercial plans without express and written permission from this blog’s author and owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Kyle Vincent Schiefer and "Quarks and Kytons" blog with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.
New York, NY - Bus Terminal Queue - October 10-11 2014 ACE/AD
Anyone who has ever cultivated even the slightest interest in science typically knows the most famous equation in the field; E=mc^2. This was the simplistic equation that came from the brilliant mind of Albert Einstein regarding his theory of gravitational and general relativity as an defined by the motion of light as it reaches terminal velocity. A simple equation that clearly carries far more value and complexity than the six (or five depending on how its written) characters that comprise it. But if something as complex as the physical mechanics of light, as affected by gravity, can be boiled down to a handful of characters.. why can't the rest of the universe?
This very question is what started me along this strange and wonderful path of discovery and dates as far back as my elementary school days. Why is light the only force we have been able to "crack" withing the last 100+ years, and why in the name of science did Einstein only seem to focus on light and gravity with null regard for the other fundamental dynamic forces of heat and magnetism? In all reality we may NEVER know why he didn't focus on those underpinnings of physics. However, in spite of this realization, undeterred, I have taken it upon myself to, instead, build upon the foundations of my scientific forefathers. And I always do so by first questioning why?
Why is it that a visually observed plume of flames can to be felt across a greater distance than it otherwise should based on its visually smaller size? And for that matter, if lightning is supposed to be raw electricity built up by atmospheric friction, why is it that it frequently carries the direct current that has the ability to spark violent wildfires? And best of all, how is it that a current that encounters resistance creates infared heat radiation, while the same design of apparatus, albeit with a less resistant coil, will instead produce electromagnetic radiation that can be harnessed for other means of producing energy-based work? All questions that I intend to cover theoretically as I delve into the scientific underpinnings of the universe. Get comfy my esteemed curios of science. I am about to pick up the mantle as I attempt to further develop our collective understandings of science, and pick up,where Einstein left off.
My first point, I will attempt to illustrate based on my firsthand experience observing the pyrotechnics of various stage shows (from a reasonable distance) and the thoughts that aroused thereof. My first encounter with this radiant effect occurred when I was a younger man. I happened to have the fortunate opportunity to see a stage show of Batman at the Six Flags: Magic Mountain theme park in Southern California. And at one point in the show there were large explosive plumes of fire used to emphasize the mayhem and destruction being caused by the our hero's particular villains. However, as these bursts of flame were launched from the stage, I observed a very interesting effect as the burst of flame that I was clearly observing from an excess of 50 feet, could be felt, if only for a moment, on the skin of my arms and face. This immediately struck me as odd given that my previous life experiences taught me that heat rises and generally will ascend from its point of origin much faster than it will move horizontally. I of course am referring to various encounters with campfires, bonfires, and all other manner of controlled flame that one might safely encounter as a child.
But this was different on a very tangible level and ultimately brought to mind images of the initial blast of outward energy from the likes of an atomic explosion. Needless to say I felt very confused, and the conflicting ideas and experiences in my own head were summarily dismissed shortly thereafter as I chose to carry on watching the show. But then the plumes launched again, and finally for a third time much larger than the first two combined. At this point I had three separate, but similar observations which with to formulate more clear conclusions. Ultimately I came to the realization that many of us probably take for granted frequently in our day to day lives; heat, although the basic form of energy created by fire, is not ultimately synonymous with the physical manifestation of fire itself. In fact they are quite different from each other even though they are indisputably linked.
Although I saw the physical boundaries of the fire as it rose from its launch point, I simultaneously felt the heat from it, at a distance, because of the molecular displacement of the air as it was suddenly forced outward by the explosion of fire. This displacement transformed into molecular friction that ultimately caused a radiant wave of heat that was able to travel much further than the actual fire itself, constrained as it was by the surrounding preponderance of "cooler" atmospherics energy.
So how is this news? For starters, this allows for the fundamental, fourth-dimensional thinking neccesary to humor the concept, that radiant energy can be separate and distinct from the visual observations of energy dispersal. Which brings me to my next point. Why is it that lightning is typically understood as the discharge of static electricity that has collected within the stratosphere? If that be the case, then shouldn't we be thinking of the convection currents in our atmosphere as nothing more than giant versions of wool blankets in a clothes dryer? Blankets that inexplicably accrue a charge as they tumble around and over each other? Perhaps, but I do not simply regard the knowledge of observation as evidence enough to account for unexplained buildups of electricity in my laundry nor the atmosphere at large. After all how can dust and water vapor in the air cause a build up of electricity?
Instead, I try to think about the what these two occurrences have in common? They both deal with the transformation of water vapor to of from liquid form. And they both consist of convection-based motion as the materials in question repeatedly tumble over and aroj d each other causing friction. Coupled with the outside heat source of the dryer's heating element, and the energy of the sun, these interactions begin to combine and interact in a way that is similar to that of an electromagnetic generator, albeit a fairly inefficient one. And as applied to both the atmospheric accrual and discharge of lightning and the static electricity on your freshly dried socks, it is clear that the electromagnetic force is much more prevalent than even our modern understanding would care to admit.
But even if this idea may seem radical, it still begs the question, why is it that, what is obviously a natural manifestation of the electromagnetic force, lightning, can trigger such wanton destruction in the form of forest fires. Given our current understanding of electricity and the inherent thermodynamics of resistance thereof, it can be assumed that lightning, with it's immense voltage, actually carries the same basic energy responsible for the manifestation of fire, and subsequently, heat, when conducted through biomatter (i.e. trees, people, etc.).
This is a monumental link in understanding because of the fact that it bridges the gap between electricity, heat, light, and in some regard, magnetism.
While you may be scratching your head or even objecting outright based on your own education in the subjects of science, I ask that you bear with me. There is an underlying method to this madness.
So lightning is inherently linked to light heat and possibly magnetism? Why is this important, because my fellow scientists, this understanding can be developed and applied into the largely sought after theory of unified fields. We already have a fundamental understanding of how we can apply these dynamic effects to traditional systems of heat and electricity generation via the conduction of current through a circuit with various degrees of ohm resistance. But what if we were to combine all of these forces into one dynamo that could simultaneously produce heat, magnetism, and electricity in cyclical amounts so as to become self sustaining. To answer that question I must conduct some experiments related to gleaning specific principles of how these forces interact. However, based on the various hypothetical outcomes of such experiments, I already have various designs in mind and would gladly share them with my peers should they be so inclined to inquire further. However an undertaking such as this must not be taken lightly as a truly self-sustaining force can quickly surpass control measures should all the variables not be properly accounted for and mitigated beforehand.
But at this point, innovation is still a work in progress and will always be easier if you understand the fundamental reasoning behind it first. So I will get back on course. The reality of these questions is that they are based on observations that are not completely understood, or otherwise dismissed as inexplicable. Nonsense. As Einstein put it so succinctly, it is all relative. But why? What is the underlying reasoning, mechanic, or even purpose of the physics of the universe? Because even the cosmos play by a set of rules. And based the observational dichotomy of my own observations of various forms of visible, and tangible manifestations of energy, in the forms of lightning, fire, and electromagnetism, (along with the relative effects of energy transfer of each), it is clear to me that there is another side to this entire physics thing that we have only begun to understand.
So I pose the questions to you, my readers, how to we break the scientific stagnation that we have been trapped in for the last century. Understandably, we have made huge technological advancements in that time, but they have been advancements based on the musings and theoretical observations that ultimately gave us the equation, E=mc^2. And if we are indeed the smartest species on this planet, why is it that we have become a society that delegates the "menial" task of thinking to our smartphones? How do we escape the doldrums and make real progress in the realms of science again, in lieu of the than simple conduction of trial and error experimentation that got us this far? Easy.. we have to aim to understand the bigger picture, and we have to pick up, where Einstein left off?
No comments:
Post a Comment