Some glossary sort of definitions
   angle - the idea of angles requires 3 points, 2 on the arc covered by the angle and a central origin point; the origin is the centroid of the circle containing the arc.  The angle and the arc-length for 1 time unit are the same thing.
   curvature - the idea of curving, requires 2 points, from, and the to, with a forward vector, which is curved a certain amount per time...   The origin that is being moved around can be computed, but it's not really part of the system, but a projection of the real value.

   spin - the idea of spin requires 0 points, but and moves all other points around it the same amount around that point, it's value is not a point, but a curvature.

   Angle in unit-circle/unit-sphere math which is measured in or radians, is exactly the same as the arc-length, and really only differ in the idea of them; the values and functions applied to those values are exactly the same.
   Curvature is usually measured by the arc of a curve covered in a certain amount of time...  the full arc can be covered multiple times per tick, wrapping many times, before coming to a final state where there is a principal angle plus the number of wraps it did..  A thing that has 0 curvature is a straight line.

There's a theory that one would be able to make a maxwells daemon that could move things from the cold side to the hot side, and not lose entropy, but convert that entropy into a sort of state memory which moves the entropy to the daemon instead of the space.  Being a software developer, I'm all about 'state memory' which can take the forms of many things, including implicit definition in the system itself; like there's certain things you know just from having the numbers in the first place, like in Physics there's 'inertial frames' and 'non-inertial frames' which really are 'real frames' and 'relatative frames between other frames'... the latter don't REALLY exist, except in math, and maybe for discrete systems.  Quantum physics sort of puts a box around the combination of frames that averages out any individual motion into the average of the system over time... Consider a few real frames like a box filled with a bunch of (ping pong?) balls, loosely packed, and in microgravity.  Moving the box is going to effectively make an 'invisible' acceleration force in the relative frame between the box and the balls such that the balls would 'observe' that they were falling towards the size of the wall... their impact with the box is going to adjust the boxes frame and adjust the relative frame to actually be moving faster than the box as a whole...

Anyway... if we had perfect knowledge of the current state of all spins in a system there wouldn't really be uncertainty... but the exact spin cannot be known by observation... but moreover, electrons spin, as they spin, they orbit, as they orbit, they are in bodies that are on a planet that spins, which rotates around a sun, which spins around a galaxy, which orbits other galaxies and have virtual origins they rotate around...  Even if the exact moment of spin is known for a thing, the composite of all other frames at the same time that a certain spin happens cannot be known....

Let's suppose there's a few 'states' of quantum matter... and having more than 1 or 2 states starts to give enough room to have memory just by things being in a state different from another state... so we can move a bunch of entropy from one state to another state, without losing or gaining overall energy.  What sort of states do we observe?  Photons?  Matter/condensed photons?  (black holes? pure spin 0 linear component?)  Photons seem to have a linear component and 0 spin; that is as they travel, when they arrive they are in exactly the same state as they left, unless there is an interference along their path (quantum cryptography is based on this idea).  They might have an spin component coincident with their velocity though, and spin helically in their same direction (but I expect this isn't the case; later, limit on spin vs velocity esp. 'causality' constraints).

Let's suppose also that the only 'frames' in the universe contain a velocity axis and a rotation axis, which are often nearly the same.  Let's also suppose that spin, or curvature is a primary component of things, not just a projection of the points a rigid body representing rotation, but as a truly intrinsic part of 'things', notably at the very smallest and very largest of scales.

---

I should take a moment to reflect on some origin story of this theory... I was working on a few projects this year.  the first, takes a cloud of points in an x/y/z grid, and computes from their values the shape of a surface.

https://github.com/d3x0r/MarchingTetrahedra  (notes and references in readme) https://d3x0r.github.io/MarchingTetrahedra

I then added better texturing based on the 'element type' of the voxel (water,sand,dirt,grass,granite,... ) https://d3x0r.github.io/IsoSurface-MultiTexture/ 

So, these make pretty pictures, one of the 'input data' choices is 'Sine Waves' which is (0=sin(x)+sin(y)+sin(z) ) where the 0 surface is drawn.  This can obviously go from -3 to 3 as a maximum value... if the '0' is moved to +/-1 the shapes start to look like steinmetz solids(wikpedia).  at +/- 2 they are more isolated forms and plot as little balls... But so far I can only say 'this is a pretty picture generator' the significance will be mentioned later.

---

So; I have this mesher that does a really good job of giving me the shape of things, now I just need a good system which I can move and collide these clouds of points... the intersection actually isn't that hard, there's a common technique called 'octree' in 3d graphics, which doesn't have to actually be a 'thing' but can just be a computation laid on an existing grid of points to easily resolve 'is there something here in this region or not'.  I did have to take a few leaps and experimental stabs that were outside of the 'official' standards; but having been an independant researcher for like ever, I have the freedom to make such choices...

But, since I first wrote my first 3D thing; there hasn't been a system where I can just add and subtract the angles, and get the relative orientation of one body to another; and this is my 25-30 year contribution...
https://github.com/d3x0r/stfrphysics#space-time-field-reactor-physics

Rotations that you can just add and subtract!  They're NOT non-linear... in fact the problem that has kept this from being done until now, is that they're maybe TOO linear.

It turns out, the sum of the angles around 3 axles of rotation is the sum of the rotation of the system.  There's a measuring system called 'taxicab geometry' which has a 'manhattan normal' which, because of the constraint of x/y summation restrictions, the sum of x+y is the distance, and not the sqrt(x*x+y*y).  The normal of rotations is also a manhattan normal; and makes it so 1 rotation (a complex number) works great, but when you start adding more dimensions, things start 'not working'.  This 'manhattan normal' is actually a 'new idea' to geometry... and none(!) of the rotation systems really account for this...

There are a bunch of references in the STFRPhysics readme; a few of those are log-quaternion systems, where they did come up with the (|x|+|y|+|z|)/2 is the effective value to convert log-quaternions into quaternions.  The basic definition of the log of a quaternion is actually somewhat 'wrong', and that lead to 'Reimannian Space' which itself is a hyperbolic space... which only leads more to 'maybe real space is curved too'   It's not, and rotation space doesn't have any invisible walls or asymptotic conversion points.

I made a lot of graphs along the way...

https://www.geogebra.org/u/d3x0r

https://www.geogebra.org/m/jnk82ncd (arccos(cos(a)+cos(b))

https://www.geogebra.org/m/pwjdwzrz  ( phase space of rotations around other rotations... is an interesting transform... meaningless to someone who doesn't know what part of the equation that represents... so 'oh look, pretty pictures, you can change with sliders)

https://www.geogebra.org/m/whnktbpt  (this is attempting to build an extended arcsin() function... arcsin ends up having infinite holes (see attached graph of 'Sine Waves' which the surface is also the 'arcsin(x,y,z)' well each plane slice through that is an arcsin curve... the problem with arcsin, is it goes up, and then backwards... never effectively leaving the origin, it just loops... cos on the other hand ended up being a solid surface...

So arccos(x) is like 'the shape of the surface of things'  and 'arccos(x) is the shape of 'no-thing', or the space outside of a surface'  That space is itself a continuous surface, but also has infinite holes in it.

So at this point, I can also realize that there are straight lines on 'Sine Waves' graph which are helical lines.... in pretty much every direction; and I begin to wonder to myself if spin is really the all there is, and that linear motion is emergent from just spins.   I still sort of think that the 'inertia' or velocity vector might just be a computed value that doesn't have a 'real' part to play... that any change to linear motion is actually a change in the helical spin paths of all the spinning things making up the body...  You really can't instantaneously move from forward to backward, you can either slow down and then reverse, or curve around a path (perhaps at a greater speed than you could stop and then reverse, batmobile grapple hook turn?)

I've sort of settled on, in the meantime, keeping the values separate, so in my new 3D phsyics system, I have time, spin and velocity as my primary dimensions.

So then, I'm getting around to initializing this frame-thing, and am looking at other ratios, such a elliptic cuves would have two scalars instead of 1 common scalar... so there's a ratio between spin and linear speed available.. it would appear that matter would be like 1/2 spin and 1/2 linear component, where the spin is still at 1x the speed of light... a photon (as previously mentioned) has only a linear component and 0 spin, the other thing would have 0 linear component and 1 spin; this would seem like a place black holes fit in.... Especially since they seem to 'warp space' such that although they are incredibly massive, they're really not... Black holes emit very high energy gamma particles - neutrons are high energy gamma particles... would seem black holes take energy from ambient energy that's otherwise lost (including the heat phonons in their area) and make matter, and is 'endothermic' to the universe; where suns on the other side are 'exothermic'. 

So that leads one to wonder, We (as humans) are really good at taking things and breaking them and getting energy out... we're not so good about the other side; that is taking some energy and reforumulating matter.

We know breaking things apart (fission) releases energy... so obviously the other process should absorb energy.

---

Is there any documented sciences which are endothermic?  Yes, Geet Reactor, electromagnetic devices from John Bedini, The SEG(which, this theory validates most), ...

---

I'm kind of wander all over at this point, and I do really want to get to the point.

1) process A reacts and generates heat, that difference of heat vs the ambient cold can be used to do useful work.
2) process B reacts and consumes heat, the process itself creates more 'power' by increased current at the same voltage.

process A destroys matter(generates heat), and in the process can do other useful work.
process B creates matter(consumes heat), and in the process can do other useful work.

It would seem to me, that there's a complete energy loop available that you can 'do work' on both sides of the conversion.

This is like part 4 of a series... this one though really bring in a lot of other things, and my require some of the other videos...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QLJQHqu_KY

---
Let's presume that the 'previous civilation' had  'clean' energy, and it was all endothermic, and non-explosive and 'in harmony with nature' but that sort of thing will lead to 'global-freezing' ... they probably blamed it on the orbit of the earth changing so the earth was further from the sun, not that they were using up all the heat producing matter (electrons even, not even nesscarily full protons).  Our current situtation is of course the opposite, we use only exothermic energy (well, except wind/solar, which also absorb entropy/heat from their systems) which is leading to global warming.

---
14Billion years... that's a really small number; feeling nearly as ridiculous to me as 'we were created 6000' years ago.
The current theory says that 'photons last FOREVER'... in an infinite universe (or at least one that has existed more than 14B years) we would be blinded by all of the photons hitting us from infinite points... but they have applied 'oh well, space stretches so they lose energy' ... that idea is a skew of the value between time and space, when really it could all be projected on a time axis, and say 'oh,photons only say linear and energetic for 14Billion years, then they scatter and become part of the background heat of the system.

Measuring the pressure of a casmir cavity probably is very similar to what our CMBR would look like 14B years from now 14B light years away.

But now I'm way WAY off the map, "WHAT? Space doesn't warp!?  Blashpemy, of course we are the most important thing in the universe, it was created 14Billion years ago!"

----

I can find evidence and references for everything I've stated... but I don't really know where to go from here either....


At this point, I'm 'in a class of my own' or rather 'I seem to be the only one involved in this class, and the teacher doesn't know jack shit' (the teacher of the class is also it's only student)

https://phys.org/news/2020-08-black-silicon-photodetector-efficiency-limit.html[/size]


1 photon creates 1.3 electrons... '130% efficient' though I doubt they measured the loss of heat to the panel... a really good solar panel shouldn't get hot.

the circuit I used was a mazilli/royer - the drive coil is split with a central power source, which was behind an inductance of its own; a good amount of inductance is good there, there is a point where too much and it doesn't really support the power levels you're feeding it.


THe tests were just signal->current coil-> (and then a split)  to the test coil, which goes to a cap to ground (limiting the amount of current and getting the most pulse)
      and on the other side of the split - to load - but that didn't really demonstrate anything since the flat solenoidal - just gathered into a ring but definitely don't cross through a magnet loop... which reminds me - that video just came up.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGQbA2jwkWI ( here he uses a plastic bag to show 'the surface of a field from a loop of wire'  which the mobial coils violate. )


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4dXXnUMHbQ (just a review of classical magnetism)

Two magnets want to reduce the effective curvature between their poles.

south->north is a direction... all magnets want to make other magnets orient the dot product of the south to north vector in the same direction.

They, in a sense, reduce the curvature between one magnet and another.


They make the angle always the same, if they are opposing is the worse case scenario, next to equal opposition from both poles at once....   

It's always a twist around a axis between the two nearest axial points of the field... if you have two lines in space, (assuming they're not parallel) have at least one closest point, between them is a right angle to both lines, and that line would be the axis of rotation of the magnets.


beyond that... where currents and electrons are involved...
we have to assume that electrons spin, and that rotating pole of a magnet past them causes them to react... , sending them off spinning in a new direction.




Edit: I prefer to use south to north, not because I'm a 'north hemispherian', but by convention of math, in a right handed system, that direction aligns with existing math.


Magnets can of course align sideways, where their actual poles are 'stable' and low energy even opposed... 1) there is a short gap on both ends in that situation, and is aided by the geometry.  If there is no 'edge' magnets will always continue to align at poles and not on an equator.

I think it was both of them, which is why we name them together in science.
i.e. Maxwell/Faraday theorems, and the Maxwell-Faraday equation (one of 3 of Maxwell’s equations)
its clear by the progress he made in the field that he did not merely copy his peers but learned from them and combined the knowledge into an all encompassing theorem.


Much in the same way that Einstein did.
But we dont hear anyone calling Einstein a plagurist....


In any case: Maxwell’s 3 equations are the best description of electromagnetism that we have available to us.

As I said, I read most of Faraday's lectures and his description of Maxwell's demon predates it by many years. Just as Einstein did not discover relativity and De Broglie's work predates it by many years.

You cannot just Google this, lol,  you have to actually read all the literature written in the authors own words and follow the time lines. However that would require work and due diligence which seems to be lacking in this new age of alternative facts.

For example, did you know Faraday actually described how free energy could work and basically nailed it?. Did you know Faraday also gave a very detailed description of what Gravity is and how it works?.

Sounds like you boys need to do a little more reading and a little less googling. I would also point out google is a joke, it gives the most popular links not the most accurate. This is not a popularity contest.

You owe it to yourself to read Faraday and Amperes original work. These guys were absolutely brilliant and laid the foundation for electrodynamics and free energy. Weber's work also includes the longitudinal force which Faraday and Ampere could not reconcile in there work.

Regards

Gerhard Beier ,Engineer ( and seemingly ex-GDR-spion, alias Vita " Werner Wendt")

DE102018008797
C.O.P. 10 by graphene nano plates ?

https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=0&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=20200514&CC=DE&NR=102018008797A1&KC=A1


translated :
http://translationportal.epo.org/emtp/translate/?ACTION=abstract-retrieval&COUNTRY=DE&ENGINE=google&FORMAT=docdb&KIND=A1&LOCALE=en_EP&NUMBER=102018008797&SRCLANG=DE&OPS=ops.epo.org/3.2&TRGLANG=en


description translated :


http://translationportal.epo.org/emtp/translate/?ACTION=description-retrieval&COUNTRY=DE&ENGINE=google&FORMAT=docdb&KIND=A1&LOCALE=en_EP&NUMBER=102018008797&OPS=ops.epo.org/3.2&SRCLANG=de&TRGLANG=en