December 2006

Vol. 1 No. 2
www.seattlelym.com/dynamis

EDITORS IN CHIEF
Peter Martinson
Riana St. Classis

ASSISTANT EDITOR
Jason Ross

ART DIRECTOR
Chris Jadatz

LaRouche Youth Movement
Offices:

Boston, MA
617-350-0040

Detroit, MI
313-592-3945

Houston, TX
713-541-2907

Los Angeles, CA
323-259-1860

Oakland, CA
510-251-2518

Seattle, WA
206-417-2363

Washington, D.C.
202-232-6004

For submissions, questions, or
comments, please email
peter_martinson@hotmail.com
- or -
riana@u.washington.edu


On the Cover
Myron, 5
th
century B.C.
Lancelotti Diskobolos.
The infinitesimal, caught in
the act.






2

4


15


18


25
From the Editors

Mapping Whats Invisible
By Aaron Halevy

On How to Do a Stereographic Projection
By Ricardo Lopez

Are You Living An Imaginary Existence?
By Rachel Brown

A General Theory of Earths Magnetism
By Carl Friedrich Gauss

















God, like one of our own architects, approached the task of constructing
the universe with order and pattern, and laid out the individual parts
accordingly, as if it were not art which imitated Nature, but God himself had
looked to the mode of building of Man who was to be.
Johannes Kepler
Mysterium Cosmographicum


!"#$%& Vol. 1, No. 2 December 2006
From the Editors

This issue of !"#$%& goes to print during one of the most
dynamic periods in the political history of the United States. On
November 7, the Democratic Party received an unexpected
landslide victory in the mid-term congressional elections.
Observing how the Democratic national leadership campaigned,
milquetoast, in the period leading up to the pivotal vote, one
must wonder what generated such a sweeping victory. As
Lyndon LaRouche characterizes it in his breakthrough paper,
The New Politics, What was done by the LPACs LYM in
catalyzing the 18-35 surge among young Americans in crucial
sections of the voting population, was to employ the dynamic
method of organizing creatively, around ideas, in such a way
that a relative handful of the population was able to evoke a
mass effect, consistent with Shelleys principle the
Renaissance principle within significant regional clusters of
the generation between 18 and 35. These ideas, so put into
circulation in a dynamic way, led to the simple decision to go
and vote your conscience.
1


LaRouches Youth Movement takes full credit for that victory.
In the few months prior to the election, the LYM engaged itself
in several key activities: First, they targeted the nations
campuses with an LaRouche Political Action Committee
pamphlet, exposing the original Get LaRouche taskforce of
John Train, who paired up with Lynne Big Sister Cheney, in
their role of creating a campus Gestapo, which actively
prevented serious discussion of politics among university
students and professors.
2
Second, they developed their
improving mastery over Bel Canto choral singing, and used it as
a sharp political organizing weapon. And, third, they launched
into a focused study of the worlds first experimental
astrophysicist Johannes Keplers major discoveries, which was
spearheaded by a small group of pioneers, who spent several
months cracking open Keplers New Astronomy, and who then
produced the first-ever series of pedagogical animations to
illustrate the most important parts of the work. These activities
were the tools the LYM used, to spark the creative discussions
on the campuses, breaking the students and professors from
Cheneys new campus McCarthyism.

A bit more on the second point. Lyndon LaRouche has stated
that, the most important work of the LYM is their Florentine Bel
Canto voice training, through daily vocal warm-up exercises and
a study of the emergence of the Pythagorean Comma in,
particularly, Bachs Jesu, Meine Freude motet, and Mozarts
short piece Ave Verum Corpus. The residue of the
oligarchical attempt to quiet the fire of human cognition, in the
form of the separation of Art from Science, soils our society
today. Science is thus regarded as the cold, logical
investigation, by computers, of how an imaginary, non-frictional
universe works, while Art is the existentially lawless expression
of the most embarrassing emotions. Of course, there are
variations of both views, and there have also been strange
attempts to remove the separation, such as contraptions like
math rock. But, true Science and Art are really no longer
studied. LaRouche offers the correction, that what should be
termed physical science is the study of the physical principles
of the universe, while classical artistic composition is the
study of the physical principles of human social processes.
Both must be studied for a complete understanding of either.

Singing is the study of how people communicate those ideas of
social organization that correspond to Universal Physical
Principles. Thus, singing is one of the most powerful weapons
of mass political organizing, as we saw, for example, in our San
Antonio special election campaign, where we won yet another
race that Coward Dean and the DNC tried to ignore. Singing
beautifully catches peoples attention and sparks the curiosity.
What are they singing about? When someone walks away from
the LYM, having heard the singing, they walk away with a
higher part of themselves activated.

But, theres more. Recently, LaRouche explained the
importance of the experience of the Pythagorean Comma in the
Bel Canto choral work: instead of having a broad sense of
this, plus this, plus this, plus this, it's better to have a narrow
focus [in physical science]. Because you want the individual
human mind to focus on the subject. And you will not get that
individual human mind to focus unless you also have the kind of
intensity of work on choral music that we have with the Jesu,
Meine Freude. Because, unless you force people to recognize
that the comma corresponds to the same thing as the
infinitesimal in physics, the comma is the social equivalent of
the infinitesimal in the mathematic domain. And therefore, if
you cannot feel the idea, you don't have it! And the big
problem, is people who can explain the idea, but they don't feel
it.

This brings us to the third key LYM activity the work on
Kepler. As the LYM was launched, during the early onset of
the Bush Administration disaster, LaRouche got them started by
establishing an educational curriculum centered on Carl Gauss
doctoral dissertation of 1799. Mastering this paper unleashed a
science driver process, and the studies broadened to include the
elements of Pythagorean sphaerics (emphatically, Archytas
construction of the doubled cube), the origins of Algebra, the
work of Leibniz and Bernouilli on the Catenary, and branched
out into studies of Gaussian curvature, and the beginnings of
Riemanns work on Abelian functions and acoustical
shockwaves. The intent, always, was not to pump out a bunch
of know-it-alls, but to create a cadre of educators, who could do
the work of reviving a truly scientific culture. This work acted
like a yank by the bootstraps of the 18-25 generation, which
now has a small hard core of emerging scientific leaders.

In beginning the next phase of the education, the application of
Riemannian hypergeometries to economics, in the form of
economic animations, it became clear that the educational work
2
!"#$%& Vol. 1, No. 2 December 2006
needed some reorganization. [O]ne of the ways this thing
got into motion, LaRouche said, is, I just saw the animations
work was not getting to the point of animations. It was too
much illustration, and not enough presentation of ideas. And so
therefore, we had to get this question of ideas clarified, what is a
scientific discovery, how do you make it? What's the difference
between that and just simply an illustration? Gauss was rarely
explicit in how he made his discoveries, instead presenting his
discoveries as finished products.

Therefore, LaRouche reoriented all focus to Kepler, for a true
insight into how a human mind functions during scientific
investigation. Now, with the work of Kepler, that's your
foundation of all modern science Kepler. And therefore, this
work on Kepler has to be the central focus of all work on
science. And you have everything leading into that. There is no
writer, there is no scientific mind in modern history, who is
more thorough in exposing exactly what his mind is doing, in
making the discoveries, than Kepler. So that the training in the
mind, by Kepler, exceeds that of Gauss.

This training of the mind was the crucial factor in these
elections. First, the study of how Universal Principles organize
the universe, and, second, applying Universal Principles to
organize social processes. The large, unexpected turnout of the
youth to vote on November 7, was the result of a crucial
experiment run by LaRouche and the LYM. Now, the
revolution has begun.

The LYM is now on a focused path in science. The current
track was launched by the initial mastery of Keplers discovery
of the principle that generates the orbit of Mars, Universal
Gravitation, in his New Astronomy, which is currently being
followed up by a study of how this principle expresses itself in
the harmonic organization of the Solar System, in Keplers
Harmony of the World. Next, there will be work animating
Carl Gauss discovery of the orbit of the asteroid Ceres, and his
study of the perturbations of the second asteroid Pallas. The
subsequent phase of work will be the capstone, with Bernhard
Riemanns discoveries in physical hypergeometry.

Thus, !"#$%& is issuing a call for material. The next few issues
will focus exclusively on the work of the LYM in reliving
Keplers discoveries. Read LaRouches A Design for
Legislation: Saving the U.S. Economy
3
for a look at what
ideas, from Kepler, are necessary for the next 50 years of
economic development. Every discovery, in this context, that
the LYM required for understanding how Kepler thought should
be reported. What were the crucial concepts Kepler wrestled
with in making his breakthroughs? For example, we could use
some good demonstrations of LaRouches attacks on statistical
mechanics, using material from Keplers work. How is the
principle of dynamics used by Kepler? How does Kepler
develop the idea of physical cycles? How does Kepler crush the
Cartesians and future Newtonians? Or, what is the relationship
between the actual principle, and what the senses perceive, as
demonstrated by Kepler? How does Kepler discover the
infinitesimal? How does Kepler lay the foundations for an Anti-
Euclidean geometry? What exactly is the Kepler Problem? It is
this kind of discussion that must take place, so the movement
can rapidly hone in on Keplers discovery of Universal
Gravitation, and then carry this over into the domain of Physical
Economics, and the crafting of National Economic policies. If
your insight is useful, submit it to !"#$%&.

This issue of !"#$%& presents material from the work the LYM
has done on Gauss, particularly his work on physical curvature.
The articles should be read as observations, by the LYM, into
the mind of a scientist who was steeped in Kepler. Gauss
teacher, Abraham Kstner, in defending Gottfried Leibniz from
the attacks unleashed in Europe following his death, revived
Keplers method, explicitly, in launching the epistemological
battle around Anti-Euclidean Geometry. Gauss, the product
of Kstner and his circles, thence laid the foundations from
which Riemann established the first truly anti-Euclidean
geometry, freed from all assumptions.

The first article, by Aaron Halevy, is an account of the history
of mapping, leading up to the work of Gauss, and puts it into the
context of LaRouches work on Physical Economy. (This was a
response to a challenge question from the Los Angeles LYMs
Curvature Group.) The second, supplementary article, by
Ricardo Lopez, is an example of a particular conformal map, the
Stereographic projection, which figures heavily in Gauss work.
The third article, by Rachel Brown, develops Gauss concept of
the Complex Domain, how it was elaborated by Riemann, and
gives an application to economics. And, finally, Tarrajna
Dorsey issues a translation of the opening paragraphs of Gauss
General Theory of Earths Magnetism. This work formed a
basis for Gauss concept of physical potential, which would lead
into the work of Riemann on Abelian functions and physical
hypergeometry.

As in all useful scientific work, there are leaps of development.
This issue of !"#$%& is a snapshot in time of the beginnings of
a scientific renaissance. It will be looked back upon from a
future organization of society, which was thus shaped by a
youth generation who had been led onto the stage of history by a
growing cadre of true scientists.

Peter Martinson
Riana St. Classis
Editors


1
Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., The New Politics, EIR, December
8, 2006

2
Is Joseph Goebbels on Your Campus? LaRouchePAC
pamphlet, October 2006. www.LaRouchePAC.com

3
Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., A Design for Legislation: Saving
the U. S. Economy, EIR, November 24, 2006
3
Mapping Whats Invisible
Halevy
!"#$%& Vol. 1, No. 2 December 2006
Mapping Whats Invisible

Aaron Halevy
1


Not too many years into the 1700s, the Ptolemaic clouds once
again descended on science. The formalists Euler, LaGrange,
DAlembert, et.al., who were haters of the great genius and
universal humanist, G.W. Leibniz, had, through Venetian tricks,
taken science into the Ivory Tower, where only the elites were
allowed. They were holding her in a confinement cell, with no
trial, somewhere in Europe, to torture out of her, Dick Cheney
style, any of the hope she had left. These analysts and their like
had brushed over almost all scientific investigation to that time,
with a Euclidean-smelling style of formalism, a formulism that
reduced great scientific discoveries to mathematical equations,
and reduced mans creative spark to smoldering ash. This
sinister attack on science reeked across Europe and froze all real
progress in its wake.
2


This was not a coincidence of events - it was a deliberate
conspiracy from the anti-human Oligarchs of Europe
collaborating with the remnants of the Venetian Empire. The
intention of this was to keep from the masses, or as they thought
of them, human cattle, all real science. This attack had been
waged in the schools and intellectual circles, from 1714-1853
for the purpose of eliminating the positive classical humanist
renaissance in thinking and culture that had been sparked by the
great minds of Cusa, Kepler and Leibniz, a renaissance whose
foundations lay in the concept that each human is a creative
force who can know, through rigorous scientific and
philosophical investigation, the powers that govern the universe,
the truths which lie beyond the senses, and with this knowledge
have the power to willfully change the entire universe.

This very same attack on the minds of the people generally, has
been the method of the ruling elites since the time of ancient
Greece, as proven in Aeschyluss story of Prometheus Bound,
where Zeus has Prometheus chained to the rocks to be tortured
by the elements and have his liver picked out by a vulture every
day for eternity. Why? Because Prometheus gave man fire, or,
more precisely, knowledge.

This battle rages on still. Any honest persons investigation into
the operation, of both the 1960s Congress for Cultural
Freedom and the Lynne Cheney-led takeover of the American
educational institutions, will show that this is the reality of
today. At this moment, Lynne Cheney and her cohorts are
trying to vector the development of young Americans into
becoming total Neo-Con zombies, zombies who not only cannot
argue against war, torture, and genocide, but even logically
accept it and promote it in some cases.
3


It is therefore crucial, from our standpoint today in modern
history, that we gain the weapons of truth and scientific rigor, to
fight this old dragon of intellectual suppression of the youth. It
is necessary that we engage in an honest discussion with our
peers and younger siblings, on necessary questions of
worldwide importance. The current crisis, that of dealing with
the mortgage collapse and the derivatives market breakdown, in
the US and therefore the global economy, requires us today to
deal with the question, What is economics science, or scientific
economics? What is the way to think about the organization of
policy, such that we do not end up with a potential dark age on
our doorstep as we have today? This essay is devoted to such
questions.

What is the Universe that Humans Can Know It?

Imagine an Ancient poet, before the Oligarchy had brainwashed
him to assume that everything came from myths or self
evidently true textbooks. Imagine the wonder at his first
observations of the nighttime sky, not looking up at the stars in a
romantic fantasy, but imagining the causes, and trying to
discover what was the reason he was there. At first, it looks like
a million beautiful sparks or dots on a black background. But
the more time he spends watching those dots, the more he
begins to develop an idea in his mind about the changes in the
positions of those dots. After one full night of observing and
contemplating these dots, he realizes that all of them are
moving. And after many days of this observation, he sees that
some of these dots are moving differently over time in the
opposite direction of the nightly motion. And then, after the
winter, summer and back to winter, his observations bring him
to understand whole cycles of these backwards moving dots.
It becomes for him a set of very complex motions, some slow,
some fast, but definitely now, he sees a lot more, in his mind,
than he thought he could see before.

This is described in Platos Timaeus, These sparks that paint
the sky, since they are decorations on a visible surface, we must
regard, to be sure, as the fairest and most exact of material
things, but we must recognize that they fall far short of the truth,
of the movements, namely of real speed and real slowness in
true number and in all true figures both in relation to one
another and as vehicles of the things they carry and contain.
These can be apprehended only by reason and thought, but not
by sight
4
Thus, the stars and their motions aid the mind in
the study of these invisible realities. You observe the
phenomenon with your senses, and develop a concept of the
causes of these changes, never being able to see the cause of this
phenomenon, but knowing it to be more real than the former.

And so, our poet, thinking like every creative man has before
and after him, realizes that he needs to communicate this to
other people, and to people yet unborn. He will need something
more than just a mental picture; he cant do too much with his
vivid memories. He needs a means of describing it, a way
4
Mapping Whats Invisible
Halevy
!"#$%& Vol. 1, No. 2 December 2006
anyone can understand what he sees in his mind to be clear. He
needs a map.

As Lyndon LaRouche puts it, The principle problem posed by
thisis, broadly speaking, whether or not it is possible to bridge
the projection of the real world upon the perceptual world, since
our sense- perceptions know only the latter? In other words,
putting the same point in a more fruitful form, can we
understand the bounding-principle of visible space adequately?
Can we understand that bounding principle sufficiently well,
that we can translate appearances back into the real form of the
occurrences which cause the appearances? Once we have
succeeded in making such a translation, can we prove that such
a translation affords us an improved mastery of nature, a quality
of improved mastery not achievable without aid of that
particular choice of translation? How, then, can we define the
bounding principle itself, in a manner adequate to the objective
we have just stated?
5


It is this method, embedded in all great scientific discoveries,
which must become now a self conscious process in the mind of
every student and every economic policy maker, if were to
survive this historical crisis.

If youre outside at night and you point to a star and call out to
your friend, look at that one, its not so obvious which one
you are pointing to, because your friend is standing somewhere
else. If you move over to him, and stand where he is, the star is
still in the same spot it was before; if youre in a car while
driving along a unswerving road, unlike the trees and mountains
around you, the stars are staying in the exact same place;
somehow you seem to be at the center of this sparkling tapestry
wherever you go. So why cant your friend see which star
youre talking about when you point it out? You must describe
to him where this star is in a set of actions; beginning from the
spot you both independently share, the zenith (directly above
you). While you both face the same direction, the first motion
of your arm, is coming from the top-down, to the same height as
the star; secondly, you move your arm, now, right or left,
depending on the direction that that star is. He sees it! Now,
what is this double motion you have done with your arms? What
could you represent this as? We know from before that it is
irrelevant where you stand to see these stars, and also to
describe any of the stars positions, you need these two angular
directions. So what is this? How can you communicate it as a
concept? Instead of a memorized answer, you have discovered
something new, something you from now on can call a sphere.
To map this out you immediately have a few problems. One,
you dont have a big sphere to carry around with you, and two,
its not so easy to make a perfect sphere of infinite radius. You
must discover a way to make sure that all is correctly translated
from the sphere onto the plane. In your celestial sphere,
youre at the center, above is your zenith, and every star is at an
intersection of the two types of angles (see Figure 1). These co-
ordinates can be thought of generally, as a net of circles all over
the sphere that intersect at 90. Call these circles longitude and
latitude. The latitude circles are a series of circles parallel with

the horizon that become smaller toward the top, but the
longitude circles are all the same length. These longitude circles
also all pass through the same two poles, top and bottom; the
center of each of these types of circles is at the center of our
sphere. Thus, because you are at the center, when you draw a
line on your celestial sphere to connect any two stars, that line is
actually a part of one of these types of circles, one can call these
circles great circles. To have a good map, it must maintain the
angles that are on the sphere, and the distances must be
proportional.

Since you are at the center of your own celestial sphere, your
first attempt to map this might be, to draw a line from you,
through the sphere, to an imaginary plane sitting above the
sphere, tangent to the zenith point.
6
This map is called a
Gnomonic Projection (see Fig. 2). Looks good, are there any
problems with this?


Figure 1

5
Mapping Whats Invisible
Halevy
!"#$%& Vol. 1, No. 2 December 2006

Figure 2 The Gnomonic Projection

What must we map from the nighttime sky? The pole, the
horizon and everything in between. As the night goes on, unless
youre at the North Pole, youre going to see some stars move
out of your visible sphere, and new ones come in. If we think of
a thin spherical sheet on top of our celestial sphere with all the
stars painted on it, throughout the night it will look as if this
sheet is spinning, pivoting around a single point, the north star
Polaris.
7
This pivot point, of our celestial sphere, which differs
to the observer at different latitudes, is for us here, at 35 above
the horizon. You notice also, night after night, all the planets
are rising in the same place along the horizon, and later the sun
and the moon rise near there too. Think of this as a belt around
your celestial sphere -it is called the ecliptic pathway.
8


Look back to our first map, the Gnomonic Projection. Where is
the horizon in this projection? Is it placed far outward on the
plane? No, even further, this procedure shoots the horizon circle
to infinity not very useful.


Figure 3 The Second Projection

Try another map. This time we will project from the zenith,
through the latitude circles, on to the plane. This projected map
on the plane gives you nothing in the middle, an exact mapping
of the horizon, and all coordinates above this horizon are going
to grow as you move further and further out. Look at the
intersection of the projected horizon with the lines coming from
the center; they intersect at 90, just as they do on the sphere,
when these lines come down the side to touch the equator at 90.
Or again, if you imagine a triangle on the sphere, drawn from
the latitude line as the base, and the equator as the point of
intersection; the spherical triangle, whose internal angles are
more than 180 becomes a triangle, on the plane, made of
curved lines, equaling also, more than 180. This quality is
called equal angular projection, something very important for a
map.
9
But, this time your zenith point will be at the infinity of
your plane (Fig. 3). Again, not a useful map.

The first projection gave us the zenith and all coordinates
around it accurately, but, it did not include the horizon. The last
projection gave us a map with equal angles, the projected
horizon was exactly the same size as it was on the sphere, but
the zenith was unmappable. Because we are on a sphere, its
safe to say there is another half on the other side of our horizon.
Why not project from the exact opposite zenith (Nadir) to the
horizon plane? (Fig.4)


This particular type of projection is called a stereographic
projection, in Greek, stereo - solid and graphic- to write.
10
This
gives us all we need! The zenith becomes the center, the horizon
is the same size as in the sphere, and the ecliptic, with all it
encompasses, can also be mapped onto our plane. This is the
one we want for our map. Now construct it geometrically!

Take a slice of your sphere and look at it from the side (Fig. 5).
In this projected slice, you see the equator/horizon of the sphere
and the ecliptic both are transformed into lines (they are great
circles in fact, so they become lines on this plane).

Now draw several lines, each starting from point N, extending
to the zenith, the pole, the ends of the horizon, and the ends of
the ecliptic. And make sure every line is followed till it touches
the horizon line. What youve now done, is translated the lines
and circles to be proportional. Some have shrunk in size and
others have grown, but now they are all relative to your horizon
plane. The next step is to take those points and use them to
draw a new map, below this one.


Figure 4 The Stereographic Projection
6
Mapping Whats Invisible
Halevy
!"#$%& Vol. 1, No. 2 December 2006

Figure 5 Projection Construction of Stereographic Map

In the picture, you see that all the lines, in the original map,
became circles in the new one, and the circle became a line. We
are looking at the original map now, from the top-down. Map
the projected horizon, zenith, pole star and ecliptic pathways
onto this new map. Compare the two in your mind, do you see
the original sphere as implicit?

Figure 6 Side View of Stereographic Projection

Now continue this same process for all the spheres latitude
circles, from our horizon downward to the 40 latitude circle,
and again upward to the Zenith (Fig. 6).
11
Once you have
completed that draw all the lines from the zenith in 20
increments to represent the longitudinal lines. This is the
stereographic projection; it is a projection without any angular
distortions.
12
All you have to do now, is take measurements of
the night sky with some instrument, and place those stars, in
their places, on your map.
13


There is no trace of who actually discovered this map. Thales
is sometimes named the discoverer of the method of the
Gnomonic Projection -but not the stereographic projection. A
clear picture of who discovered the stereographic projection, is
contested among many different sources in academia. Most
likely, it is attributed to Hipparchus (160-125 B.C.), while
others cite the illustrious Ptolemy.

What is even less discussed, but definitely more important, on
this topic of maps, is the question of why this projection was
developed. What was the culture, philosophy or the political
state of mankind at this time, that this conceptual breakthrough
was possible? As all tools are created for some acting purpose,
so too must it be with this projection. It survives today with us,
only as a noetic fossil, or a cognitive artifact.

The sphere and the plane are two totally different species of
surfaces, this stereographic projection gives you a truthful map
of their relationships. This new map doesnt look like a sphere
anymore, but it effectively is a sphere, in terms of its
relationships and actions. As you projected the sphere to the
plane, so does the universe project its actions to your visual
sphere. The task now, for science and economics, is to create a
map that reflects the invisible.

Think of Eratosthenes, who was alive in Greece 200B.C.,
measuring the angles created by the suns rays, on the same day
(the summer solstice) at two cities, 200 miles apart. This is how
he discovered his highly accurate measurement of the
circumference of the entire earth, proving it to be spherical. He
calculated the circumference of the earth, to be 25,000 miles;
modern measurements reveal this circumference to be 24,860
miles. Eratosthenes efficiently mapped the invisible. Until the
1960s U.S. Apollo project, no one in mankind had seen the
spherical shape of the earth, yet Eratosthenes, 2100 years
earlier, saw it with his mind!

Discovery vs. Definition

In circa 260 B.C., the Greek sophist Euclid, a librarian at the
library of Alexandria, had taken all the discoveries out of
science and put all the answers in his Elements. For example,
keeping in mind the way we had discovered the sphere before,
here is how Euclid defines it, in the 11
th
book of his Elements,
Definition 14: When a semicircle with fixed diameter is carried
round and restored again to the same position from which it
began to be moved, the figure so comprehended is a sphere. It
was these Thirteen Books of castrated geometry, which became
the fatal cause for the blocked outlook of so many scientists,
philosophers, and people generally up until today. A method of
thinking without the thinking: an assumed set of self-evident
7
Mapping Whats Invisible
Halevy
!"#$%& Vol. 1, No. 2 December 2006
axioms to be taken as truth no matter what the consequences.
Much like a University textbook today.

Science became, then, chained in the prisons of formulas not to
be fully released for at least 1200 years. This degeneracy in
thinking expressed itself during the dark ages; governed by the
Oligarchy controlled church, science had become more about
accepted belief and faith. It was as if people had thrown away
the scientific method, and began to believe in magic once again;
they gave the causes of the phenomenon they observed to some
unknowable force, never to be explained and not worth thinking
about. For example, people believed that the Earth was at the
center of the universe, and all the phenomenon, the motions of
stars and planets in the heavens, could be explained by the self
evident truth that the Earth was at the center and everything
moved around it. Another example is from Cosmas and Isidore
of Seville, who shaped their geographic maps on their strict
accordance to the bible, and made the earth out to be completely
flat.
14


Maps became the mere entertainment of Oligarchs and paranoid
idiots alike, who would, for the lack of knowledge of the content
of this or that area on the map, would simply place a big ass sea
dragon, or a monster.

If you wanted a very detailed map of a town or state, and you
wanted it as accurate as possible, how would you do it? Here
also, we are dealing with the same principles of projection from
before; to map all the land and water the same as in reality, you
would need a giant sphere. Most people fudged it a little here
and there, which is possible when youre dealing with smaller
areas, but if you want to map the whole world, you begin to
have some serious difficulties. Thus there is a need again for a
map similar in smallest parts
15
.

The requirements for making a map conformal are two; equal
angles, as on the sphere, and lines mapped proportionally. The
stereographic map we made above is a conformal map, but there
are many other types that were developed after it.

For example, if you want to map the sphere on to a plane, you
can map the sphere to something else first, and then map that to
the plane. As Gauss proves in his General Investigations of
Curved Surfaces, the plane has the same amount of curvature as
the cylinder and the cone.

Take a piece of paper and draw anything on it, a face or a line,
and then roll it up into a cone, then into a cylinder. What
happens to the picture? Is it stretched or distorted in any way?
This shows, that as far as curvature is concerned, there is no
difference between these surfaces.

With another type of projection, called conical projections,
developed by the Greeks, you can take a cone and place it on
top of the sphere and project the lines of latitude into circles
along the cone, and the longitudinal arcs become straight lines
(Fig. 7).
16


Gerardus Mercator (1512 -1594), once a young member of the
Brotherhood of the Common Life, became one of the main
contributors to the developments of mapmaking. His map of
1569 is titled, New and Improved description of the lands of
the world, amended and intended for the use of navigators.
This map has the property of conformal shape, different from
conformal angles.


Figure 7 Conical Projection

His map deals with a special type of cylindrical projection (Fig.
8). To understand the difference, between the cylindrical
projection and Mercators projection, first, imagine a sphere,
with the point of projection at the center, projecting outward
onto a cylinder. With the cylinder touching the sphere, only on
the equator, this makes the projected equator the only part that is
exactly the same in scale to the sphere. Right away you can see
that the North Pole of our globe here is going to be projected to
infinity.

Now, examine the
limits within this
method of projection.
On the sphere, all the
meridian lines are
equally spaced out at
their intersection of the
equator, but they all
come together to a
point at the North Pole.
Not so in our
projection, all the
meridians stay an equal
space from each other;
staying parallel from
the equator up. On the
sphere, the latitude
circles are getting
proportionally smaller
as you go up to the
North Pole; on our projection the latitude circles all become
lines, equal in length to the equator, and the distance between
them is geometrically increasing as you tend towards the
projected pole at infinity.

Figure 8 Cylindrical Projection

8
Mapping Whats Invisible
Halevy
!"#$%& Vol. 1, No. 2 December 2006

Mercators map (Fig. 9) is not exactly this cylindrical
projection, for he saw the same problems that we just did and
corrected for them. He made it such that the degrees of latitude
and longitude in the map maintain the same proportions of those
on the surface of the globe; that is, to make the relationship of
the ascending space between the latitudinal lines proportional to
the change of the meridian lines.
17



Figure 9 Mercators Projection

But, you still have a problem with the scale, your equator is the
same length as your 60 latitude line. Now examine the map
some more, did you know that Greenland is as wide as Africa?
To account for this Mercator created a changing scale: the
further you went up, the longer the latitudinal lines became, (i.e.
1 in. = 1000 miles at the equator and 4 in. = 1000 miles at the
70 latitude.)

So what is the use of this map, if the area is so skewed?
Mercator wanted to produce a chart with which a navigator
could draw a straight line between two points and immediately
determine the constant course he must steer in sailing between
those two points. This was the property of Mercators map: to
get from one city to another, you draw a line with a ruler on the
map, and if you make sure that every time you pass a
longitudinal line with your boat, you are at an equal angle as
before, you will always get to the destination. This creates what
was called a Rumb line. On the map draw a line from South
Africa to New York, if you extend this line in the same direction
it will go to the top of the map. On the globe, the line you just
drew looks like a small pitched spiral. This is called on the
sphere a loxodrome, and any line on the map will, on the sphere,
spiral to one of the poles every time. Mercator sought to
convert the curving rumb line to a more easily plotted straight
line.
18


A neighbor of Mercators said, Mercator set out to describe the
world, most accurately, projecting the globe onto a flat plane by
a new and convenient device, which corresponded so closely to
the squaring of the circle that nothing, as I have often heard
from his own mouth, seemed to be lacking except formal
proof.
19


The problem is that scientific geniuses did not spring from
Mercators method. He had no explicit investigation into the
nature of the human mind in the universe, or the individual
humans place as a creative force. He did come up with a useful
discovery, but he would not be able to tell you how he made that
discovery. For this reinvestigation into science as a science, we
must look toward a new generation 200 years after Mercator.

Shadows vs. Substance

In 1777 Carl Fredrick Gauss was born to two peasant parents in
the small German town of Brunswick. At the age of 14, Gauss
was swept up into the humanist networks of Duke Carl Wilhelm
Ferdinand, who was building an army of intellectual youth, in
the tradition and intention of G.W.Leibniz before him.
20
He
went to several schools in Germany which had been set up by
Leibniz and his collaborators, such as the Volksschule, the
Collegium Carolinum and finally Gttingen University, where
Gauss and other students were taught by leading German
intellectuals, such as E.A.W. Zimmerman and Abraham
Kstner, who regard[ed] themselves as carriers of a new
culture, of the freer and nobler education of the taste and the
heart.
21


Gauss had made many discoveries from his youth to his mid
20s, ranging from geometry, to mathematics, to astronomy and
physics. He was vigorously in pursuit of not just a non-
Euclidean mathematics, but an anti-Euclidean mathematics,
with no-assumptions, but completely based on knowable truths.
A mathematics derived from physics so to speak; a method for a
mathematics of change, with which man could measure and map
the changes in that universe. In his hunt, Gauss took up the
challenge of Geodesy in 1822-1832. In a letter to his friend
Olbers, Gauss wrote of Geodesy, The most refined geometer
and the perfect astronomer; these are the two separate titles
which I highly esteem with all my heart, and which I worship
with passionate warmth whenever they are united.

Looking back to the question of conformal mapping, Gauss
turned the question on its head in his Copenhagen Prize Essay.
The opening paragraph says, General Solution of the Problem
to so represent the Parts of one Given Surface upon another
Given Surface the representation shall be similar, in its Smallest
Parts, to the Surface represented.
22
Here he did what we did
above with the sphere and plane, but now with any two surfaces,
transforming them mathematically with complex numbers. In
the paper, he focuses on the development of curvature as a more
general method, i.e. less on the shapes themselves and more
towards the measure of the curvature of space, in and of itself.
Trying to map any surface boils down to this concept: the
9
Mapping Whats Invisible
Halevy
!"#$%& Vol. 1, No. 2 December 2006
lengths of all shortest lines,
23
emanating from a point on the
first surface, must be proportional to the corresponding lines in
the second surface, and that the lines that connect these lines
will have equal angels of intersection on both surfaces.

Remember, this is exactly like our stereographic projection; the
lengths on the plane were proportional to the sphere and the
angles of intersection of the projected lines were also equal. On
our celestial sphere, any star can be located on our sphere, with
two angles -one for latitude and one for longitude - call these
angles t and u respectively. Now think of any surface: it must
also have two variables, no matter how irregular it is. To
discuss curvature, it is only a matter of figuring out the equation
that describes those variables for whatever surface you have.
Gauss takes these variables t and u that one can determine for
any surface, and creates a universal description for any line on
any surface:

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
) ( ) ( 2 ) ( du c b a du dt c c b b a a dt c b a ! + ! + ! + ! + ! + ! + + +


This is important because now you can find the line equation for
any two surfaces, and find an action, or function, to map the first
surface onto the second surface. And after this mapping, now
you can look at the changes that took place between the
transformation of the two surfaces. As in our Sphere to plane,
the great circles, longitudinal lines, became straight lines on the
plane and the latitudinal circles became a set of exponentially
growing circles. Or think of it inversely, you can take a plane
and map it onto the sphere; what was once infinity for the plane
is now the zenith pole on the sphere.


Figure 10 Gauss Geodetical Measurements.
(This picture was once on Germanys 10DM bill.)

In 1826 Gauss was tasked to geometrically survey the entire
Kingdom of Hanover. This proved a good opportunity to take
on a practical problem, something he could use to flesh out his
higher geodesy. He worked strenuously on this project. He
took 3,000 coordinates personally, and at the toughest times, he
was only getting 2-3 hours of sleep every day. Gauss said never
before had he worked so hard and received so little (Fig. 10).
After the years worth of measurements, and diligent work, he
produced his General Investigation of Curved Surfaces in
1828. With this paper, Gauss revived the method of the Greeks
and Sphrics explicitly, where he begins to look at the
measurement of curvature (invariance), in relation to a sphere
with a fixed curvature. He takes the change of the pathways on
any surface and maps that (the curvature) onto the sphere; then
looks at the change in curvature itself.
24
Gauss later defines the
general equation of a shortest line, a line that is as a string that is
tightest to the surface as the combination of several differential
coefficients. It begins with the equation above,

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
) ( ) ( 2 ) ( dq c b a dq dp c c b b a a dp c b a ! + ! + ! + ! + ! + ! + + +


which was the equation of the shortest lines on any surface
(here, t = p and u = q), then he takes the coefficients,

(a!+b!+c!) = E , (aa + bb + cc) = F, and (a! + b! c!) = G

then
2 2
2 dq G dq dp F dp E + +


is your general form for lines and, later, shortest lines, in
Gausss Curved Surfaces paper.
25


These shortest lines and Gausss method of curvature prove to
be the crucial stepping stones for Riemann and his revolutionary
breakthroughs.
26


2000 Year Old Shackles on Science

Bernhard Riemann (1826 - 1866), a student of Gauss, was
transferring from student to teacher in 1854 when he presented
his axiom-shattering paper, On the Hypotheses which Lie at the
Foundations of Geometry.
27
This paper would prove to be the
necessary blow to formalism in science, and pave the way for a
real scientific approach, one which LaRouche has used for his
developments in the science of economics. Riemann had the
guts to come out publicly with what Gauss had been working
on, in silent, for his whole career: a purely anti-Euclidean
system of mathematical physics.

He writes, It is well known that geometry presupposes not only
the concept of space but also the first fundamental notions of
space as given in advanceThe relation of these [assumptions]
is left in the dark; one sees neither whether and how far their
connection is necessary nor whether it is possible From
Euclid to Legendre, to name the most renowned of modern
writers on geometry, this darkness has been lifted neither by the
mathematicians nor the philosophers who have labored upon it.

This is a clear trumpeting declaration, that Euclidean geometry
assumes the nature of the universe a priori, with no grounds to
do so and therefore one must re-discover the nature of space
without any assumptions. This should be seen by the reader as
the same thread of method employed by the Greeks, Cusa,
Kepler and Gauss, to make their scientific breakthroughs.

10
Mapping Whats Invisible
Halevy
!"#$%& Vol. 1, No. 2 December 2006
Think about the universe, not the universe of science fiction
movies, but as the entire universe is reflected everywhere and in
everything. To determine a concept, the mind has to develop a
multiplicity of actions into a one, as temperature is a concept of
heat and time. Riemann discusses more generally this method,
by replacing Euclidian assumptions with an n-dimensional
manifold, where space is a special case of a triply extended
manifold. Without previous assumptions, think of the manifold
you are in as defined by physical space itself, just as you
determined the sphere to be the manifold/surface you were
observing, not through assumptions, but with experimentation.

Riemann also defines the distinction between the beginning of
the investigation itself, i.e. where is it taking place? Notions of
quantity are possible only where there exists already a general
concept which allows various modes of determination.
According as there is or is not found among these modes of
determination a continuous transition from one to another, they
form a continuous or a discrete manifold; the individual modes
are called in the first case points, in the latter case elements of
the manifold.

After defining the concept of the n-fold extended manifold, he
poses the problem of measuring relations in the different
manifolds. there follows as second of the problems
proposed above, an investigation into the relations of measure
that such a manifold is susceptible of, also into the conditions
which suffice for determining these metric relations. In
determining such measurements, Riemann uses Gauss shortest
lines from his curvature and geodetic work for the
measurements for any surface.
28


In this paper, Riemann uses an n-manifold type of Geodesic,
incorporating now, not only a surface with two variables, (p and
q before) but now an infinite number of variables are possible.
He says, if the location of a point in the n-dimensional
manifold be expressed by n variable quantities, x
1,
x
2
, x
3
, and so
on to x
n
, then the determination of a line will reduce to this, that
the quantities x be given as functions of a single variable. This
becomes the line element,
2 2
3
2
2
2
1 n
dx dx dx dx ds + + + + = L and later it becomes more
generally,
!
=
2
dx ds .
29


The Fraud of Globalization

LaRouche elaborates the task of mapping an economy, in his
book So, You Wish to Learn All About Economics. He writes,
For us as for Riemann, experimental physics centers upon
those unique experiments which prove mathematical
(geometrical) hypotheses pertaining to the continuous manifold
by means of experimental observations made in terms of the
projected images of the discrete manifold. This possibility
depends upon a geometrical principle of topology, invariance.
In first approximation, invariance identifies those characteristic
features of the geometry of a continuous manifold which are
preserved through the process of projection as characteristics
of the images of the discrete manifold. In sound approximation,
higher-order invariances identify those changes in the
continuous manifold which are carried over into the discrete
manifold as transformations in the invariance of the discrete
manifold. Relativistic transformations in the metrical
properties of action in the discrete manifold belong to this
second, higher order class of projective invariances.
30


The pinnacle of mapping the invisible and a mathematical-
physics of principles today is Lyndon LaRouches LaRouche-
Riemann Method. To begin to grasp an approximation of this,
take what LaRouche said above, and apply it first to the simple
idea of the difference between a line, surface and solid. (Fig.
11) These are completely different types of geometrical
concepts; they each have a different
power in their creation and are entirely
different in each of their extension
processes. For example, the method of
doubling the line is inferior to the
doubling of the square, and the doubling
of the cube is ontologically different than
both of the former. The line exists in the
square and also in the cube, such as the
square exists by itself and also in the
cube. What, then, is the difference? Are
they the same lines? No. They cant be,
because of what was done before, in their
individual process of doubling. We are seeing invisibly a
total change in topology from one geometry to another, yet it
looks the same in each case. You can see that the only thing
that remains the same is the appearance.

View this question once more in the context of Gausss 1799
paper, New Proof of the Theorem That Every Algebraic
Rational Integral Function In One Variable can be Resolved
into Real Factors of the First or the Second Degree.
31
By the
end of his paper, Gauss has developed a solution to algebraic
functions, not in an algebraic solution, but using geometrical
surfaces, each with unique specifications to an equation. For
example, take the equation x! - 3x + 5. Gauss splits this into
two equations, two complex functions, which describe a
physical geometry
1) r!cos2" - 3rcos" + 5
2) r!sin2" 3rsin"
These become two similar surfaces which cut curves into the
zero plane; these curves intersect each other and at this
intersection the solution to the equation is given.

Now more deeply, all surfaces of the x! species will have 2
humps, cutting out 2 curves, moving above and below the plane
(Fig. 12). These are the boundary conditions in every equation,
which ever numbers you please, (e.g. 27 932
11
352
2
+ + x x )
as long as the x is to the power of two, it will always give you
two, two humped surfaces, which cut out curves on the plane,
and intersect only twice. When a new power is added, e.g. if
the exponent is raised to the 3
rd
power, x# + Ax! + Bx + M, the
entire geometry changes as shown here (Fig. 13). The boundary

Figure 11
11
Mapping Whats Invisible
Halevy
!"#$%& Vol. 1, No. 2 December 2006
condition has changed; you now have 3 humps per surface.
Now add one more power, x
4
(Fig. 14).

These surfaces are each a certain manifold, characteristically
defined by the power of the equation, not by their particulars.
Now think of an economic process, if you add revolutionary
ideas to the manifold that all the interaction takes place on, it
changes the entire manifold and reorganizes all of the
relationships in it. Or, think inversely, that the removal of these
ideas in practice of the economy, results in a collapse, as we are
experiencing now with the destruction of the Auto sector and
the stupefying of the American population. Like FDRs
infrastructure projects, or the American Revolution, the new
developments in economy change all of mankinds relationships
to each other, and more fundamentally, mankinds relationship
to the universe as a whole. The introduction of new cultural
ideas or new technology, willfully, is the subject of economic
science. Truly, the science of science. What was once
impossible, has now been discovered to be a potential
pathway to take.

An increase in the quality of living and maximum capacity of
the humans living in a region, is now a physical boundary,
determined by the
ideas that are being
exercised in that
economy. It
becomes clear that
the universe
responds to our
scientific
understanding of
these economic
principles.

These changes in
potential, in internal
geometry, of the
continuous manifold,
are reflected
(projected) upon
the mirrored
appearances of the discrete manifold, as relativistic changes in
the lawful composition of action, as action is reflected as a
phenomenon upon the discrete manifold.

In between those critical points of relativistic phase-change in
processes, the consistent local lawfulness of action within that
interval is relevant to physics fundamentals only as this
empirical datas analysis describes that localized lawfulness. It
is the comparison of the difference between two such sets of
local laws, for successive phase-states of relativistic
transformation, which is the most interesting feature of such
local laws, interesting because of the way such local laws are
defined from the standpoint of reference to the critical
transformation. Physics is thus viewed as the matter of willfully
orchestrating desired changes in the local laws of the universe.

This is, broadly speaking, the map we require for attacking our
problem of defining negentropic functions in economic
processes.
1) The net work characteristically accomplished by the
universe is an increase in the potential of the universe.
This is a negentropic transformation, equivalent to an
increase in the universes energy-flux density. The
power to accomplish this work is the proper definition
of energy.
2) It is the introduction of new singularities to an
economic process, to the effect for introducing phase-
changes representable as increased energy-flux density,
and thus raising the potential expressed as the
characteristic action within the economy as an
integrated entirety, which expresses this energy in
the economic process.
3) The most interesting, most powerful form of such
transformations in potential of an economic process,
are those new technologies which are themselves based
on relativistic physics.
32


This question of mapping is directly related to communicating
ideas of all types;
what is music and art
but a sensual
representation of that
idea, provoking your
mind to hypothesize
the original idea of
the individual artist?
And such it is with
the composer of the
universe - to know
his art, is to know his
mind and how his
mind creates.

Where would
mankind be with out
maps? Is it possible
to know a change in
a process at all without a map of the changes? Could man first
know anything about the different seasons without a map of the
changes in the suns pathways? More simply, even today, when
a person is lost, a map is crucial to getting home, or back on the
right direction; the same is such with a nation or a culture.

References

1
johnnystich@hotmail.com

2
David Shavin, The Courage of Gauss (unpublished 2004
manuscript)

3
Is Joseph Goebbels on Your Campus? LaRouchePAC
pamphlet, October 2006. www.LaRouchePAC.com.

Figure 12 x
2
Surface Figure 13 x
3
Surface Figure 14 x
4
Surface

12
Mapping Whats Invisible
Halevy
!"#$%& Vol. 1, No. 2 December 2006


4
Plato, Timaeus, (Rep. 529e-530b), The Collected Dialogues,
(Princeton University Press, New Jersey)

5
Lyndon H. LaRouche Jr., Mathematical Physics from the
Starting-Point of Both Ancient and Modern Economic Science,
EIR Special Report, January 1984, (p. 23)

6
Most of these early projections incorporated cones, where
these cones mimic the circles of latitude.

7
This phenomenon is caused by the earth rotating around itself,
something that was not so self evident to anyone (unless you
can feel, while completely sober, that the earth is moving).

8
Also, here are all the constellations for the zodiac, which were
developed, not as pagan mystical symbols, but as something
behind the wandering stars (planets), to be mapped against, so
one can map the change.

9
In Gausss Copenhagen prize essay there is a mathematical
proof for this - it is called later the Cauchy-Riemann Equation.

10
Richard Knox, Experiments in Astronomy for Amatures
(New York : St. Martin's Press, 1976)

11
Here is shown only the top part of the sliced piece, the reader
should construct the rest on his/her own.

12
NB: If you place the relative distances of your concentric
circles on a linear graph, you will find the potential birth of
transcendental functions.

13
These paradoxes have been carried over through the history of
astronomy. This map is called the Astrolabe.

14
David Greehood, Down to Earth: Mapping for Everybody,
(Holiday House: New York, 1944, 1951)

15
Gauss in 1822 discovered and named this, more specifically, a
conformal map.

16
However, practically all conics in use are mathematical,
rather than shadow casting jobs.- Greenhood, Mapping. See
also Apollonius Conics

17
Although Lagrange doesnt say the name Mercator in his
paper, On the Construction of Geographical Maps, from 1779,
he does say in order that, when the degrees of longitude are
supposed constant on the map and that on the globe these are the
degrees of longitude which remain constant, it is necessary that
on the map, the degrees of latitude increase in the same ratio of
the cosines of the latitude, or which is the same thing, in direct
ratio to the secants of the latitude; by which one can conclude
by integral Calculus that the distance between the equator and
any parallel has to be proportional to the logarithm of the

tangent of the half-compliment of the latitude of this parallel;
this is the basis for understanding scale-maps.

18
Mercators friend and collaborator, Abraham Ortilius, made
the first modern map book and called it an atlas, named after the
Greek God with the world on his shoulders, in 1570 called,
Theatrum, with more than 70 maps. (Greehood, Mapping)

19
John Noble Wilford, The Mapmakers, p 75 (Vintage 2001)

20
You yourself in your supreme wisdom are well aware of the
intimate and necessary bond that unites all sciences among
themselves and with whatever pertains to the prosperity of the
human society. -Gauss to the Duke, July 1801

21
Dr. G.W. Dunnington, Carl Friedrich Gauss: Titan of
Science, A Study of His Life and Works, (Exposition Press,
New York, 1955).

22
Carl F. Gauss, On Conformal Representation, 1822
(Allgemeine Auflsung der Aufgabe die Theile einer
gegebenen Flche so abzubilden (the famous "Copenhagen
Prize Essay") (1822), pp. 189-216. & In English: A Sourcebook
in Mathematics (Dover Publications, Inc.: New York 1959)

23
e.g. take any surface, say a summer squash, and place a string
taught on it, this is a shortest line.

24
See elaboration of this in Riemann For Anti-Dummies #44
48, located at http://www.wlym.com

25
Gauss, after this work had moved to more physical
applications of his method, in electrodynamics, magnetism, etc.
See Tarrajna Dorseys translation elsewhere in this issue.

26
Einstein said on the topic, The best that Gauss has given us
was likewise an exclusive production. If he had not created his
geometry of surfaces, which served Riemann as a basis, it is
scarcely conceivable that anyone else would have discovered it.
I do not hesitate to confess that to a certain extent a similar
pleasure may be found by absorbing ourselves in questions of
pure geometry.- Carl Friedrich Gauss: Titan of Science, p
350

27
The reference to the work of Bernhard Riemann, is to
Riemann's 1854 habilitation dissertation, ber die Hypothesen,
welche der Geometrie zu Grunde liegen, in Bernhard
Riemanns Gesammelte Mathematische Werke, ed. by H.
Weber (Stuttgart: B. G. Teubner Verlag, 1902), and reprinted by
Sndig Reprint Verlag (Vaduz, Liechtenstein) pp. 272-287
(English Translation in A Sourcebook in Mathematics, op cit.)

28
These can also be called least action pathways. For
example, on our celestial sphere, the measurement between any
two stars is a part of a great circle; the shortest line or least
action on that surface was this type of line.
13
Mapping Whats Invisible
Halevy
!"#$%& Vol. 1, No. 2 December 2006


29
There must be some experimental proof, which
demonstrates, in a measurable way, that a certain crucial
experimental occurrence requires us to construct one kind of
mathematical physics, rather than some other. This
demonstration must have such unique significance. Riemann
points to three hints, on which he has relied for elaborating the
general quality of yardstick we require for that kind of
measurement. Lyndon H. LaRouche Jr., Leibniz from
Riemanns Standpoint, FIDELIO magazine, Vol. X, No. 3,
Fall 1996.

30
Lyndon H. LaRouche Jr., So, You Wish To Learn All About
Economics?, 1984, p. 55-59, (EIR Publications, Feb. 1984)

31
This paper of C.F. Gauss, is often referenced as the
Fundamental Theorem of Algebra, Demonstratio nova
theorematis omnem functionem algebraicam rationalem
integram unius variabilis in factores primi vel secundi gradus
resolvi posse. (Helmstedt: C.G. Fleckeisen, 1799.) For more,
one can find pedagogicals written by the LaRouche Youth
Movement at http://www.wlym.com
32
LaRouche, Mathematical Physics p. 33

Special thanks to Peter Martinson, Nick Walsh, and my dearest
love Shawna M. Rodarte.
14
On How to Do a Stereographic Projection
Lopez
!"#$%& Vol. 1, No. 2 December 2006

On How to Do a Stereographic Projection

Ricky Lopez
1


For most people, the necessity of abstract geometrical ideas
are either useless or, doesnt concern their specialized field.
As passionate as one might attempt to tout such an idea, it can
never be true. I shall attempt to show people how to create a
stereographic projection of a sphere onto a plane in this essay;
the importance of which can be discovered in dept simply by a
study of cartography and great mathematicians such as Bernard
Riemann.
2
The main intention of the author is for the reader to
have fun!

Looking at One Surface In And Of Itself

Before one can map one surface onto another, perhaps one
might investigate a few things about surfaces. Since this piece
involves mapping a sphere onto a plane, one should investigate
some characteristics of these two surfaces. Given the nature of
the task, one must first become conscious of how a point is
located on each surface. To begin with, one can investigate the
plane.

Now, to locate any point on the plane, or to take an action that
results in some type of displacement, one can rotate and extend
on a plane.


When one investigates the sphere, any point on the sphere is
located with two angular displacements, as seen in the diagram
with angles t and u.

The Moment of Crisis

Perhaps one found that locating points on a surface wasnt at all
difficult, but rather comfortable. The challenge now is to map
every single point on the sphere onto the plane; how can every
point on the plane
represent every
point on the
sphere? Without
prior knowledge
on how to
accomplish such
a task, one should
experience the
frustration of
being completely
ignorant of what
to do! What type
of mathematical
language must be
used to accomplish this task? How can one teach others to
empirically construct this map, for without being able to teach
others how can one be so sure one has even been successful in
accomplishing this task? Where does one begin? Solely placing
the sphere on the plane may aid in accomplishing the goal,
although the problem is not resolved.

One Thing As A Function of The Other

In order to tackle the problem, the author has decided to define
some idea of what a function is. The author defines a function as
a process in which elements in the process depend upon one
another; for example, yellow teeth are a function of the amount
of times the teeth have been brushed. To give another example,
having a dumb political leader is a function of the amount of
idiots that tolerate such a leader. In the geometrical problem in
this essay, one must cause the amount extended and rotated
from the origin on the plane depend upon an angle t (which in
this example represents the movement down from the north pole
on the sphere) and an angle u (which is the amount one might
have rotated after moving down from the north pole) on the
sphere.

To begin with, one can look at a mapping of points with a
triangle that connects one point on the sphere to a point on the
plane.


15
On How to Do a Stereographic Projection
Lopez
!"#$%& Vol. 1, No. 2 December 2006




To understand the importance of this triangle and to understand
its properties, (which may lead to representing every point on
the sphere, on the plane) investigating a cross section of this
diagram shall be useful.


The amount extended on the plane shall be denoted by the letter
R and the amount one has moved down from the north pole
shall be denoted by the angle t. The triangle here is formed by
the diameter of the sphere, the extension R, and the line
connecting the North Pole to a point on the sphere (the one
being mapped on the plane) and a point on the plane (the one
representing the point on the sphere). Half of the task of
mapping shall be completed once R has become a function of t,
for the problem of making extension a function of one of the
angles will only leave the problem of making rotation on the
plane a function of the other angle, that is, the angle u.

The Mechanics

As painful and unexciting actual mathematical calculations are
to most human beings, the author has reached a point where he
must unfold some mathematical calculations. First, various
angles and lengths must be examined in order to get the relevant
formulas and functions. The relevant lengths and angles shall be
shown through diagrams and explanations.

One of the relevant angles is the angle !, the angle nigh the
north pole .

To derive another important angle one must extract the isosceles
triangle in the diagram.



In Triangle B the angle ! represents the angle nigh the North
Pole. The angle t in this diagram is cut in half and, therefore,
Triangle A and Triangle B definitely contain within them an
angle that is the same, id est half of the angle t. Another angle
that both triangles contain within them that are identical, is a
right angle - for they are both right triangles. Therefore,
16
On How to Do a Stereographic Projection
Lopez
!"#$%& Vol. 1, No. 2 December 2006

Triangle A must also have ! as an angle for the plane-triangles
contain two identical angles and, therefore, the third must also
be identical.

Now, one must examine two important triangles in the
important geometric construction below:

Examining the triangles more closely one shall be one step
closer to making R a function of t!


Now some important relationships must be laid out:

! "
! "
cos
sin
2
=
R
,
therefore,
!
!
cos
sin
2
=
R
,
hence,
!
!
cos
sin
2" = R ,
and, therefore,
! tan 2" = R .

One more thing must be done to make R a function of t, for one
probably noticed that R is a function of the angle !, not t, in the
above formulation. This problem is easily solved by looking
back at the Isosceles triangle examined above. For ! can easily
be made into a function of t:

t = ! " # 2 180
0


0
180 2 ! = " ! t #

0
90
2
+ ! =
t
" .
Now one can simply substitute -t/2 + 90 for ! and finally R is a
function of t: ) 90
2
tan( 2
0
+ ! " =
t
R .

The Other Half of the Problem!

Now that the angle t has been made a function of extension on
the plane (and vise versa), half of the task of creating a map has
been accomplished. Now, one must make the other angle u a
function of rotation on the plane.

The author has come up with the bright idea of making the angle
u on the sphere a function of the angle " on the plane (amount of
rotation) with the formula u = "; hopefully the reader shall
appreciate the formula and conjecture the reasons why it is the
most reasonable.

Conclusion

The only thing left for the reader is to attempt to apply all that
was written in this short essay to see if it actually works; and to
continue to investigate similar subject matter to know that
physical-space time wasnt wasted actually reading this short
essay.

1
socratespk@gmail.com

2
Bernard Riemann (Sept. 17 1826- July 20, 1866) was a
German mathematician whose discoveries paved the way for the
development of general relativity. He was a student of other
great mathematicians such as Carl Gauss, Jakob Steiner, Carl
Jacobi and Lejeune Dirichlet. See the online biography by
OConnor, J. J. and Robertson, E. F. Georg Friedrich Bernhard
Riemann, URL: http://www-history.mcs.st-
andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Riemann.html (1998)
17
Are You Living an Imaginary Existence?
Brown

!"#$%& Vol. 1, No. 2 December 2006

Are You Living an Imaginary Existence?

Rachel Brown
1


1. Approaching human relations from the standpoint of
another person's potential, rather than the lower
standpoint they might currently be operating from, is
equivalent to bringing a new principle to a manifold.
2. Approaching any collapsing economy, except from the
standpoint of bringing an added principle to the
process, is clinically insane. The dynamic relations of
an economy, if already in a collapse function, can
potentially act like a vacuum, where one factor
contributes to the hastened decay of another factor; for
instance, lack of health and sanitation infrastructure
contributing to the increase of disease.
3. The study of dynamic relations, as a measurable
physical science, was developed by Plato and Gottfried
Leibniz, and the foundations of the mathematics were
established in 1799 by Carl Friedrich Gauss.
2


Is it possible to know anything? How about in social processes?
Maybe its possible to know scientific truths, like gravity, but
when it comes to human beings, there are just so many factors
that come into play, whos to tell whats the cause of anything?
A murderer could have been born like that, or maybe he had a
bad childhood, or maybe it was the influence of video games,
who knows? A genius may have had good teachers, good
genes, or maybe worked a little harder. An economic
depression? It could have been a psychological reaction in the
markets, an adversarial market that was started somewhere else,
maybe a drought for your farms, or bad political decisions.
Again, there are an infinite amount of factors, so its impossible
to determine one cause, right?

There might not necessarily be one simple cause, but that
doesnt mean the manifold of causes is unknowable. Principles
can be isolated through a scientific method. Which scientific
method is the question - whats your method of measurement?
Maybe if you have a problem in the constancy of the matter
youre examining, you can find constancy in whats making the
change of the matter possible.

Listen to this excerpt from a report on the impact of fascist
banker Felix Rohatyns fiscal austerity policies in New York
City in the 1970s and 80s.

In 1975, New York City experienced a fiscal crisis
rooted in long-term political and economic changes
in the city. Budget and policy decisions designed to
alleviate this fiscal crisis contributed to the
subsequent epidemics of tuberculosis, human
immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection, and
homicide in New York City.

Because these conditions share underlying social
determinants, we consider them a syndemic, i.e., all
three combined to create an excess disease burden on
the population. Cuts in services; the dismantling of
health, public safety, and social service
infrastructures; and the deterioration of living
conditions for vulnerable populations contributed to
the amplification of these health conditions over two
decades.
3


The report describes how budget cuts, like an overall 33%
spending cut for the city from 1975 to 1982, laying off 20% of
the police force, eliminating the Addiction Services Agency,
cutting payroll at the Health and Hospitals Corporation 17%
between 1975 and 1978, and other similar measures broke down
the social and health infrastructure that are in place to prevent
epidemics. Also attributed as causes are deindustrialization,
loss of manufacturing jobs, loss of city jobs, and
suburbanization. Drug use and crime went up, police protection
went down, garbage was left in the streets, families were broken
up, guns and crack abounded, each factor contributing to the
other, each change slightly adjusting the boundary conditions of
the human potential existing in those given conditions. A
multiplicity of causes creating a unified effect. Still sound
impossible to determine? Thank goodness for Gauss, for
establishing the basis of the mathematics by which to measure
this type of process, which we call the complex domain.

The development of the complex domain represented a
breakthrough in epistemology, in what LaRouche identified as
"hypothesizing the higher hypothesis," because Gauss was not
just discovering a new idea. He was developing an infrastructure
on which to re-examine all past discoveries and a foundation on
which to generate new discoveries, in a drastically different
way. How can you distinguish the difference between the
complex domain and any previous methods? By the power of
ideas they are able to generate. What is the limit of an idea
contained in each system?

Gauss starts by examining the notion of so-called "positive,"
and "negative" numbers.

Positive and negative numbers can be used only
where the entity counted possesses an opposite, such
that the unification of the two can be considered as
equivalent to their dissolution. Judged precisely, this
precondition is fulfilled only where relations between
pairs of objects are the things counted, rather than
substances (i.e. individually conceived objects). . .
Here the concept of opposite consists of nothing else
but interchanging the members of the relation, so that
18
Are You Living an Imaginary Existence?
Brown

!"#$%& Vol. 1, No. 2 December 2006

if the relation of (or transition from) A to B is taken
as +1, then the relation of B to A must be represented
by -1.
4


One example of this would be two exponential spirals, each
starting at the same point, and identical in rates of rotation and
extension, but going in opposite directions.





Now each "number," or magnitude of each arm of the spiral
actually represents the same "length," for example, the length
x^2 appears in both spirals. This concept of number indicates
not a simple representation of an object, or as a negative
usually connotates, the lack of an object, but is instead a change
in a physical process. In this case, positive and negative are
only opposite directions of action from some given starting
point. This starting point can be either physically determined or
arbitrarily determined.



In a simple process of extension without rotation, the two
opposite directions would be represented as a line, the common
conception we know as the "number line."

This line is what Gausss student, Bernhard Riemann, would
call a simply-extended manifold, with the possibility of action in
only two directions, but along one basic pathway, which, as a
series, would have the principle of a simple transformation from
one term to the next, such as 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, in which there is no
change in the rate of change as the series progresses. Simple
extension in two directions.

But how would we explain another change in direction, like
leaving this series to go to another one, not located on this line?
We have to have some way to account for this additional change
in action. Gauss found a way to solve this paradox, by solving a
seemingly unrelated paradox: what is this square root of a
negative number? What can this "magnitude," the square root
of negative one, possibly mean, which arises consistently in
algebra, but has no physical explanation? Since what we have
established are not objects, but relations among magnitudes,
Gauss determines the "real" existence of this magnitude as
representing a change in the type of action from that which
generated the original "line." Now you have a set of relations
established which can describe the difference between the x and
y axes of the Euclidean plane.

Here is an example. If we call the unit on one side of our origin
+1, and an equal unit on the opposite side is called 1, the
19
Are You Living an Imaginary Existence?
Brown

!"#$%& Vol. 1, No. 2 December 2006

magnitude which is the geometric mean between these would be
called the square root of 1, and the geometric mean between
1 and +1 would be the negative square root of 1. The
algebraic expression for this geometric process would be
1/x=x/-1, so we find x
2
=-1 and x equals the square root of 1.
The negative square root of 1 would represent the opposite
direction from the square root of negative one, but maintain the
same geometric relation.



We have started to describe a geometric domain, for the so-
called imaginary numbers!

"Suppose however the objects are of such a nature
that they cannot be ordered in a single series, even if
unbounded in both directions, but can only be
ordered in a series of series, or in other words form a
manifold of two dimensions; if the relation of one
series to another or the transition from one series to
another occurs in a similar manner as we earlier
described for the transition from a member of one
series to another member of the same series, then in
order to measure the transition from one member of
the system to another we shall require in addition to
the already introduced units +1 and -1 two additional,
opposite units +i and -i. Clearly we must also
postulate that the unit i always signifies the transition
from a given member to a determined member of the
immediately adjacent series. In this manner the
system will be doubly ordered into a series of series.

"The mathematician always abstracts from the
constitution of objects and the content of their
relations. He is only concerned with counting and
comparing these relations; in this sense he is entitled
to extend the characteristic of similarity which he
ascribes to the relations denoted by +1 and -1, to all
four elements +1, -1, +i, -i.

"In forming a concrete picture of these relationships
it is necessary to construct a spatial representation,
and the simplest case is, where no reason exists for
ordering the symbols for the objects in any other way
that in a quadratic array, to divide an unbounded
plane into squares by two systems of parallel lines,
and chose as symbols the intersection points of the
lines. Every such point A has four neighbors, and if
the relation of A to one of the neighboring points is
denoted by +1, then the point corresponding to -1 is
automatically determined, while we are free to
choose either one of the remaining two neighboring
points, to the left or to the right, as defining the
relation to be denoted by +i. This distinction between
right and left is, once one has arbitrarily chosen
forwards and backwards in the plane, and upward and
downward in relation to the two sides of the plane, in
and of itself completely determined, even though we
are able to communicate our concept of this
distinction to other persons only by referring to
actually existing material objects.
5



20
Are You Living an Imaginary Existence?
Brown

!"#$%& Vol. 1, No. 2 December 2006


Thus, Gauss establishes the existence of "imaginary" numbers.


Rotational Action is Primary?

Now how do we know how to move in this new domain? Do
we have to come up with a whole new language and set of
directions? No! Those boring, stale, linear equations have way
more significance than that old TI-83 was ever able to
demonstrate. Each equation represents a series of actions.
Take the simple expression of x
2
. This means that we will begin
by taking our beginning magnitude designated as x, and
squaring its length while doubling its angle. For example,
square the length 2. As a unit, this expresses only extension and
no rotation, doubling an angle of zero is still zero. Squaring our
length, however, is possible, so we end up with 2*2=4. 4 is on
our original series, requires no action to deviate from it, so it is a
so-called real number. If you start from negative 2, your angle
here is not zero, but 180 degrees. Double that, you get 360, so
you are also back at 4, but you took a different action to get
there.

If our beginning magnitude is not on the original series, we start
to get into complex functions. We already had action implied in
our real numbers, but we could not actually see the continuous
manifold that they were part of without the imaginary, or
complex realm. Take now for our unit the term 2+i. 2+i
represents a magnitude off our real number line, so now we can
see the rotational nature more clearly. Lets square this
magnitude.

(2+i)(2+i)=3+4i
Then do it again.
(2+i)(3+4i)=2+11i
And one more time.
(2+11i)(2+i)=-7+24i.

We start to see a process of spiral action, specifically,
logarithmic spiral action. A method that was limited before, is
now unlimited. What was unknowable as a physical process
before, in the dead language of infinite straight lines, is now an
expression of a universe that is finite and unbounded, as
Einstein expressed, or in the words of Lyndon LaRouche, finite
and self-bounded.
6
Now we start to see the real power of
powers, and maybe an idea of how the visible domain is not
merely what we see, but actually the result of a knowable,
lawful process.

A Change in Manifolds

Now say we want to examine a change in the geometry created
by adding a principle to a given manifold. Take this plane as
Gauss developed, and apply the squaring function to every
point on the manifold. What happens to your square-bounded
surface? What happens to the straight lines?



21
Are You Living an Imaginary Existence?
Brown

!"#$%& Vol. 1, No. 2 December 2006

The lines remain harmonic, or orthogonal, but their geometry is
changed. They become a series of intersecting parabolas. So
you have added a principle, and changed the nature of action on
a surface. Youre still going to take right turns everywhere you
go, but now the places you can travel are much more interesting.
Each time you add a principle, you add a new type of action,
and a new possibility.

Does this apply then, to other subjects which we usually
approach in linear terms? Lets see now, whether this method is
really universal. How about if we take population density as
our expression of magnitude, and a hunter-gatherer society as
our linearly, or simply-extended manifold? This manifold is not
representing any power, it is simple. Human beings are using
limited capabilities of mind, to wander about, picking up objects
and consuming them. Are they acting any differently than
animals? Now, if one of these humans makes a sovereign
discovery of a principle, there is a change in every point in the
manifold, every previous relation will now be changed. For
example the discovery of planned agriculture, planting a food
crop in a given area to be harvested, instead of simply
wandering about, increases the yield and decreases the amount
of time spent acquiring food, thus feeing up time for other
pursuits, like developing tools.

This is a measurable change, whose unit of measurement is the
amount of human beings that can be supported in a given land
area. Whereas before something like 1 person for every 3
square miles could be sustained with adequate food sources,
now 10 people can be supported on these same 3 square miles.
So we have applied a principle, and increased the power that
human beings hold.

Or, you can imagine a colony being developed. What types of
people would you need first to occupy the desired territory?
You would definitely need skilled construction workers, or your
housing situation would be pretty uncomfortable, and subject to
higher rates of disease. This would be one boundary you were
defining: What is the level of safety provided by your housing?
Also, of course you would need to eat. Food providers define
the boundary between life and death. In order to increase food
supply, you would need tools, so miners and metalworkers
would be very important. A transportation system would speed
up the process of transporting raw ore to the place of
manufacture, thus, engineers would soon be needed. How fast
you are able to transport goods is another boundary

22
Are You Living an Imaginary Existence?
Brown

!"#$%& Vol. 1, No. 2 December 2006

condition,another degree of freedom. We are changing the
dynamic relations that affect each individual, or each household.
What is the potential of each household to increase its ability to
make discoveries, based on the infrastructure it's provided with?
Since these boundaries are created by new discoveries, we can
view the input-output relations of the society as being ultimately
determined and bounded by the amount of discoveries being
made.
Once these discoveries have been implemented, it is not the
objects that are changed, but the relations between the objects.
If we build the Eurasian Landbridge network of high-speed rail
corridors, we are opening up new potentials. For example, in
the
hinterlands (vast land-locked inland region) of Eurasia, you
could open up new raw material deposits, and stations of
processing and manufacturing these raw materials along the
way, creating the
necessity for new cities or creating new economic opportunities
for existing cities. New markets would be opened up, with the
transportation lines directed between Russia, Western Europe,
India and on to North Africa, and Asia.
A good example is Central Asia, strategically located between
Russia, Europe and Asia, with a population of over 53 million.
It also has some of the richest raw material deposits in the
world, including oil reserves, natural gas, bauxite, chrome ore,
silver, gold, tungsten, and major water sources provided by the
Amudar'ya and Sydar'ya river systems, along with the once
large Aral Sea. Kazakhstan alone has significant concentrations
of nearly every chemical element in the periodic table. After the
collapse of the Soviet Union, these countries were left with
independence, but little economic sovereignty, having had their
economies largely dependent on monoculture cotton production,
especially the agricultural economies of Uzbekistan,
Turkmenistan, and Tajikistan. Despite being the source of
cotton production, the textile production took place in Moscow,
thousands of kilometers away.

Going back to the beginning, let's think of this in terms of
adding a principle to the manifold, the Eurasian Landbridge
principle of strategic infrastructure development.
7
A
transportation route would allow high technology machine tools
to better extract the raw materials, and access to new markets.
A revitalized space program would increase the demand for
technology and specialized equipment, using the array of
elements and resources, and the established scientific cadre
(Kazakhstan was the location for the Soviet space program).
Large infrastructure projects, like water canals, will help solve
the problem of the shrinking Aral Sea, provide for more food
production for the population, and create a demand for more
machine tools, which could be produced in the area.

A broader range of goods could be available at a faster rate,
speeding up the process of production. Easier travel will
provide for a more relaxed social process, with more access to
human-to-human relations. This is crucial to have higher level
discussions of important ideas regarding economics, science,
music, art, education, and the nature of man. Each human being
implicitly has a higher level of relationship with every other
human being. A child being born, has a higher potential of
making more profound discoveries.

Think now, to the young person in todays culture. In a society
like this, with a future of debt, forcing yourself through
strenuous but anti-cognitive classes to get good grades, thinking
there are no other options, living through a politically impotent
period of American history, in a culture based on momentary
pleasure rather than truth, might they not be so pessimistic?
This is the importance, of actually studying Gauss discovery of
the complex domain, and not simply settling for an imaginary
existence.


References

1
rbrownandleibniz@gmail.com

2
New Proof of the Theorem That Every Algebraic Rational
Integral Function in One Variable can be Resolved into Real
Factors of the First or Second Degree, by Carl Friedrich Gauss,
1799, available on www.wlym.com under Classics-Gauss-
Fundamental Theorem.

3
The Impact of New York Citys 1975 Fiscal Crisis on the
Tuberculosis, HIV, and Homicide Syndemic; Freudenberg,
Nicholas; Fahs, Marianne; Galea, Sandro; Greenberg, Andrew;
American Journal of Public Health.

4
On the Metaphysics of Complex Numbers; by Carl Friedrich
Gauss; translated from Gausss Werke, Vol. 2, pp.171-178, by
Central Asian Rail Lines

23
Are You Living an Imaginary Existence?
Brown

!"#$%& Vol. 1, No. 2 December 2006


Jonathan Tennebaum, translation available in Spring 1990
edition of 21
st
Century Science and Technology.

5
Ibid

6
The Principle of Power, by Lyndon LaRouche, December 23,
2005 EIR, Vol. 32 No.49

7
EIR Special Report: The Eurasian Landbridge, The New Silk
Road locomotive for worldwide economic development;
January 1997
24
A General Theory of Earths Magnetism
Gauss
!"#$%& Vol. 1, No. 2 December 2006
A General Theory of Earths Magnetism

Carl Friedrich Gauss

Carl Friedrich Gauss (1777-1855), like Gottfried Leibniz and
Johannes Kepler, established the foundations for more fields of
study than most professionals today can even name. Though he
was politically silenced after 1799 by Napoleon Bonapartes
academic Gestapo, led by Lagrange, he still blazed the way for
the first truly Anti-Euclidean geometry, which exploded from
Gauss own student, Bernhard Riemann, in 1854.

Key in this, was Gauss work on Magnetism and Potential. In
1828, Gauss attended the opening convention of the Berlin
Geographical Society, where he was hosted by Alexander von
Humboldt. Humboldt showed Gauss his own instruments for
measuring the magnetic field of the Earth, and expressed his
wish for a network of magnetic observatories around the
planet. Gauss built the first of these observatories in 1833, in
Gttingen, with the help of his collaborator Wilhelm Weber, and
subsequently established the international Magnetischer Verein
(Magnetic Union), to organize a global study of the Earths
magnetism. In 1840, the U.S. Exploration Expedition of Lt.
Charles Wilkes discovered the south magnetic pole, quite close
to where Gauss predicted it would be.

We present here the introduction to his 1838 Allgemeine
Theorie des Erdmagnetismus, which lays the foundations for
not only all future studies of planetary magnetic fields, but also
for Gauss crucial work on Potential Theory. This translation
was made by Tarrajna Dorsey, with help from Daniel
Grasenack-Tente.
*



Introduction

The restless fervor in recent times with which people strive to
explore the direction and magnitude of the magnetic force of the
earth on all parts of its surface is a delightful occurrence, insofar
as the pure scientific interest is thereby visibly brought forth.
Indeed, as important as the fullest possible knowledge of the
divergent line is for navigation, its demand of the latter does not
extend any further, and what lies beyond it [the divergent line
translator] remains almost irrelevant for navigation. However,
although science may well further material interests, it is not
restricted to them, but rather demands equal exertion for all
elements of its investigations.

It is customary that the bounty of magnetic observations is
represented on the map of the earth with three systems of lines,
which have been well-named the isogonal, isoclinal, and
isodynamic. These lines change their form and position so
considerably with the passage of time, that a depiction of them
shows merely the condition of the appearances for a certain
point in time. Halleys declination map is very different from
Barlows 1833 representation; and Hansteens inclinations map
for 1780 already differs very strongly from the present position
of the isoclinal line; the endeavors to represent intensity are still
too new to reveal similar changes, yet with the passage of time
they will doubtlessly cease to remain hidden. All of these maps
are still more or less incomplete, or partially unreliable: it
remains to be hoped however, that, although such completeness
cannot be wholly attained, due to the inaccessibility of some
parts of the earths surface, it will draw nearer with quickening
steps.

Considered from the higher standpoint of science however, the
most complete compilation of the phenomena by way of the
observations is not itself the real goal: by this one has made only
a resemblance, like the Astronomer, for example, when he has
observed the apparent path of a comet on the celestial sphere.
One has only building blocks, not the building, so long as one
has not made the intricate phenomena submissive to a principle.
And like the Astronomer, whose main task actually begins after
the stars have removed themselves from his vision, relying on
the laws of gravitation, calculates the elements of the true orbital
path from these observations, and through these calculations is
even able to present the positions of the rest of its journey with
certainty; the physicist should also pose the problem to himself
in this way, at least in so far as the differing and partly less
favorable circumstances will permit, to investigate the form of
action and the values of magnitude of those fundamental powers
[german: Grundkrfte] which bring forth the phenomena of
earths magnetism; to submit the observations, as far as they
reach, to these elemental characteristics, and to thereby
anticipate the phenomena for those regions in which as of yet
the observations have not been able to penetrate at least to a
certain degree of sure approximation. In any case it is good to
have this highest goal before ones eyes, as well as to attempt to
render the path toward it traversable, even if currently its
incompleteness allows for no more than a distant approximation
of this goal.

It is not my intention to mention those earlier unsuccessful
attempts, where some held the opinion that this great puzzle
could be guessed without any physical foundations. One can
only admit to be named physically founded, such attempts as
those which look upon the earth as a real magnet, and
subordinate calculations to the proven type of action which a
magnet has at a distance. However, all previous attempts of this
sort were similar, in that some, instead of firstly investigating
how this great magnet must be structured in order to correspond
adequately with the phenomena no matter how simple or how
very complex a structure might be seen to emerge, they departed
at the outset from a fixed simple structure, and attempted to see
if the phenomena agreed well with such a hypothesis.
Meanwhile, repeating itself within all of this, is solely what the
25
A General Theory of Earths Magnetism
Gauss
!"#$%& Vol. 1, No. 2 December 2006
history of astronomy and natural sciences reports from the
beginnings of so many of our discoveries.

The simplest hypothesis of this kind is, to assume only a single
very small magnet in the middle point of the earth, or rather (as
hardly anyone seriously believed in the actual presence of such
a magnet), to presuppose the magnetism to be distributed within
the earth, so that the total outward effect is equivalent to the
effect of a fictitious, infinitely small magnet, in approximately
the same way as gravitation acting upon a homogenous sphere is
equal to the attraction of a mass of the same-size concentrated in
the midpoint. In this presupposition, both of those points where
the continuation of the magnetic axis of those central magnets
cuts the earths surface, are the magnetic poles of the earth,
whereupon the magnetic needle stands vertical, and where at the
same time the intensity is greatest; the inclination will = 0 at the
greatest circle midway between both poles (the magnetic
equator) and the intensity will be half so great as at the poles;
between the magnetic equator and a pole inclination as well as
intensity depends on its distance from that equator (the magnetic
width), and indeed in such a way, that the tangent of the
inclination is equal to the doubled tangent of this width; lastly
the direction of the horizontal needle everywhere coincides with
the direction of a great circle drawn toward the north magnetic
pole. However, nature only agrees with all of these necessary
consequences of this hypothesis in gross approximation; in
reality the line of diminishing inclination is no great circle, but
rather a line of double curvature; one does not find equal
intensity at equal slopes; the directions of the horizontal needle
are far from all converging towards one point, etc. So even
superficial contemplation is enough, to show the rejectionable
nature of this hypothesis: although one does employ one of the
above expressions as an approximation, to derive the position of
the line of receding inclinations from such observations as have
been made at a distance, with moderate inclinations.

Eighty years ago, Tobias Mayer departed from a similar
hypothesis, with the only modification, that he did not place the
infinitely small magnet in the midpoint of the earth, but rather
off-set from it by about a seventh of the earths radius: yet he
maintains, presumably in order to avoid greater complication of
the calculation, the actually completely arbitrary constraint, that
the plane perpendicular to the magnets axis goes through the
midpoint of the earth. In this way he found, at an admittedly
very small number of locations, the observed divergences and
inclinations to be highly concordant with his calculations.
However, an extended test would soon have shown, that one can
not represent the whole of the phenomena of both these
elements much better with this hypothesis, than with the first
mentioned. It is well known that the determination of intensity
was not known at all at that time.

Hansteen had gone one step further, in that he tried to fit the
hypothesis of two infinitely smaller magnets of unequal position
and strength to the phenomena. The decisive test of
admissibility or inadmissibility of an hypothesis will always
remain the comparison of the results contained within it, with
the experiences. Hansteen had compared his own with the
observations at 48 different locations, of which however only 12
are found, where the intensity is also determined, and overall
only six, where all three elements are found. Here we are still
met with discrepancies between the calculation and observation,
which climb to nearly 13 degrees with the inclination.

If one now finds such great divergences to be inadequate of the
demands which must be made of a sufficient theory, then one
cannot avoid but conclude, that the magnetic form of the earths
body is not one, for which a concentration in one or a couple of
infinitely small magnets can stand as a representative. With this
it is not being denied, that with a greater number of such
fictitious magnets a sufficient overlap could at last be reachable:
an entirely different question is, if such a form of solution to the
problem is advisable; it seems indeed, that the already extremely
difficult calculations for two magnets would, with a reasonably
greater number, set insurmountable difficulties against
practibility. The best will be to completely leave this path,
which is inarbitrarily reminiscent of the explanation of the
planetary movements by a heaping of ever more epicycles.

In the present treatise I will develop the general theory of earths
magnetism, independent from all particular hypotheses of the
distribution of the magnetic fluid in the earths body, and at the
same time share the results, which I have attained from the first
implementation of this method. As incomplete as these results
may be, they will yet be able to give a grasp, of what one might
hope to reach in the future, when a refined and repeated
elaboration of the latter will first be able to have reliable and
complete observations from all regions of the earth underlying
it.

*
tarrajnadorsey@hotmail.com,
daniel.grasenack.tente@googlemail.com

A difference of over 20 degrees was once found with the

declination: however it is reasonable to account the error of
calculation not to the number of degrees of declination, but
rather to the real inequality between the calculated and observed
direction, where it amounts to 11! degrees at the location being
discussed.
26