AMS Ontology Extension: Resonant Field Geometry and Displacement Flow

AMS Ontology Extension: Resonant Field Geometry and Displacement Flow

1. Fundamental Clarification

Within the AMS framework, electrical phenomena are not treated as independent primitives
(electric field, magnetic field, current), but as observable modes of organisation of a
single underlying substrate.

The distinctions commonly made in classical electromagnetism correspond to measurement
projections, not separate physical substances.

2. Capacitive and Inductive Modes

AMS distinguishes two primary energy organisation modes:

2.1 Capacitive (Temporal Compression)

  • Energy stored as substrate tension across a boundary
  • Defined by time-variation of electric potential
  • Manifested as electrostatic (dielectric) field
  • Quantified in classical terms as capacitance

This mode localises energy primarily in temporal gradients.

2.2 Inductive (Spatial Circulation)

  • Energy stored as rotational coherence of substrate flow
  • Defined by spatial variation of electric potential
  • Manifested as magnetic field
  • Quantified in classical terms as inductance

This mode localises energy primarily in spatial circulation.

3. Displacement Current (Substrate Flow Velocity)

Displacement current is interpreted in AMS as:

The observable signature of time-varying substrate tension resulting in real energy flow,
independent of charge transport.

Key properties:

  • It is a genuine energy-transfer mode
  • It does not require particle motion
  • It is inseparable from capacitive field dynamics
  • It obeys conservation constraints identical to conduction current

Displacement current and conduction current are mode variants, not energy loopholes.

4. Resonance as Mode Exchange

Resonance is defined as a closed oscillatory exchange between:

  • Temporal compression (capacitive mode)
  • Spatial circulation (inductive mode)

At resonance:

  • Energy is neither created nor destroyed
  • Energy is periodically restructured between modes
  • Phase relationships describe reconfiguration order, not causality reversal

5. Distributed Geometry and Intrinsic Capacitance

All physical conductors exhibit both:

  • Inductance (spatial circulation capacity)
  • Capacitance (temporal compression capacity)

So-called “parasitic” capacitance is not parasitic within AMS, but an intrinsic geometric
property of spatial extension.

No physically real inductor is capacitance-free.

6. Tesla Coil Geometry (High-Q Impedance Transformation)

A Tesla coil is interpreted in AMS as a high-Q substrate impedance transformer characterised by:

  • Extremely high inductance
  • Extremely low distributed capacitance
  • Strong voltage gradients
  • Extended fringing electrostatic fields

The system converts:

  • Low-voltage, high-flow substrate motion
    into
  • High-tension, low-mass oscillatory modes

This transformation increases field intensity, not total energy.

7. Fringing Fields and Extended System Boundaries

High-gradient electrostatic fields necessarily extend beyond physical conductors.

Within AMS:

  • Fringing fields are boundary extensions, not energy leaks
  • The effective system boundary includes surrounding field volume
  • Non-contact energy coupling arises from field coherence, not extraction

An electrically “open” structure is not thermodynamically open.

8. System Closure and Conservation

Thermodynamic conservation applies to:

  • The complete field-extended system
  • Including conductor, surrounding substrate, and temporal cycle

Apparent energy anomalies arise when:

  • Spatial or temporal boundaries are incompletely defined
  • Mode conversions are miscounted
  • Stored and circulating energy are conflated with delivered power

9. Practical Implications

The AMS framework predicts that Tesla-type resonant systems can:

  • Produce extreme voltages
  • Enable efficient non-contact coupling
  • Reshape impedance landscapes
  • Reveal neglected displacement-current effects

It also predicts that:

  • High-Q systems resist sustained power extraction
  • Loading collapses resonance quality
  • Scaling voltage does not imply scalable energy throughput

These outcomes are geometric consequences, not experimental failures.

10. Ontological Summary

Tesla coils and resonant systems do not access external energy reservoirs.
They reorganise existing substrate flux through extreme geometric constraint,
revealing modes of energy flow obscured by simplified electrical models.

​

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Validation vs. Valuation

Validation vs. Valuation I recently found myself reflecting on the difference between validation and valuation , and I realised that although the words are often used interchangeably, they point to very different things. Validation, at its simplest and most innocent, is a form of support in the moment. It says: you’re seen , you’re heard , you’re not alone right now . In practical terms, validation is important — we validate work to ensure it’s safe, correct, or fit for purpose. In relationships, it can be reassuring and kind. But validation has a shadow side. When validation becomes something I need in order to feel whole — when my sense of self depends on it — it quietly shifts from support into something corrosive. In its more sinister form, validation can become manipulation, or an inadvertent tapping into a core wound: without your approval, I don’t exist . At that point, validation no longer supports identity — it erodes it. Valuation is something else entirely. Valuation ...
Read more

Newton, Einstein, and Gravity Revisited Through the Aetheric Magnetic Substrate

Newton, Einstein, and Gravity Revisited Through the Aetheric Magnetic Substrate I recently watched a video titled “There Is Something Faster Than Light.” The specifics of the argument aren’t the point here. What caught my attention was the familiar framing that followed: Newton versus Einstein, non-local versus local gravity, classical intuition versus modern physics. This framing is common. It’s also misleading. What follows is not a critique of either Newton or Einstein, but an attempt to understand what they were actually observing , why their descriptions differed, and how those observations can be unified under a single, coherent ontology — the Aetheric Magnetic Substrate (AMS) . Newton: Gravity as Non-Local Action Newton’s law of gravitation is often caricatured as “action at a distance,” and historically, Newton himself was uneasy with that implication. From a modern perspective, Newtonian gravity is described as non-local : Two masses influence one another instantly N...
Read more

Frame-by-Frame AMS Narratives of Basic Circuits

Frame-by-Frame AMS Narratives of Basic Circuits The following descriptions assume: The Aetheric Magnetic Substrate (AMS) is a continuous tension-bearing medium. Matter consists of vorton lattices embedded in AMS. A battery imposes a sustained AMS tension gradient between its terminals. “Current” is the rate of coordinated vorton slip/reconfiguration events that allow AMS tension to relax through a material path. Time is described in conceptual frames, not absolute units. 1) Battery + Resistor (DC) Frame 0 — Battery alone Inside the battery, chemical processes maintain a persistent torsional imbalance in the AMS. One terminal enforces higher AMS tension; the other enforces lower tension. No external relaxation path exists yet. Frame 1 — Circuit closed The conductor connects the two boundary conditions. The AMS immediately attempts to equalize tension along the conductor path. A longitudinal AMS tension gradient establishes itself almost instantaneously along the wir...
Read more