FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups 
 ProfileProfile   PreferencesPreferences   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics » Electromagnetics
O.T. -- Re: Hidden Richness in Electromagnetism
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 3 of 67 [993 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ..., 65, 66, 67 Next
Author Message
Scottie
science forum beginner


Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 3

PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 6:42 pm    Post subject: Re: Hidden Richness in Electromagnetism Reply with quote

I'm so tired hearing about scalar waves without solid proof
and the mainstream just rejecting out of hand in a kinda bias
manner.

Does anyone know where to get mobius (?) coils in which
the magnetic vector can be made to cancel producing this
so called scalar waves or alternative circuits where the
magnetic field can cancel??

I'd like to do experiments by raining this alleged scalar
wave on rats everyday for a month and seeing if there is
a difference in their behavior or health compared to
control subjects.

If there is an effect, then it requires further study.

Prescott


Bohl wrote:
Quote:
To those studying the exotic forms electromagnetisms can take or
its hidden richness. Which of the following do you think is
possible and which is just plain impossible and why.

"What I call "scalar waves" are pure longitudinal EM waves (LW).
Per a nice paper by R. Ziolkowski, whenever an EM wave starts to
form, both the transverse and longitudinal waves start to form.
However, the transverse wave has a function, which cancels the
longitudinal wave. So if that function persists, we get the
familiar EM wave. Now when we cancel the normal wave, we cancel
the component that had cancelled the LW. So we get out a LW.

A normal old EM wave is comprised of photons (or so we can
consider it, if we wish). Now a photon is a piece of angular
momentum. So it's a piece of energy welded to a piece of time,
with no seam in the middle, so to speak.

What the "pieces of energy" represents, in the dynamic
oscillating wave, is a dynamic oscillation of the energy density
of 3-space. Now here physics does an odd thing. It just ignores
the dynamics of all those "time pieces". In other words, not only
is the spatial energy structured and dynamic, but so is the flow
of time (I discovered the mechanism that generates the flow of
time when I was at grad school at Georgia Tech). Physicists just
visualize the "observer time" flowing smoothly, and ignore the
fact t hat the EM wave carries time dynamics as well as energy
dynamics.

When you make what is CALLED a transverse wave you ignore (or
have a component that cancels) that time-density variation. That
is a normal transverse wave; considered as an oscillation of the
energy density of three-dimensional space, with a structureless,
free-flowing time stream.

When you make a longitudinal wave, by definition it cannot vary
the energy density in 3-space. That is fixed. So it can only vary
the time-density dynamics. In other words, a longitudinal EM wave
is a time-density oscillation. That is, it oscillates the rate of
flow of time itself, about some steady median value.

We cannot measure time; we see that as a spatial change. So we
observe it as a velocity-modulated wave. It seems to be
increasing and decreasing its speed about some median speed.
That's what I have been calling a scalar EM wave. It is now
recognized in the literature.

A pure longitudinal EM wave has infinite energy and infinite
velocity. We don't make those. Instead, we make a
pseudo-longitudinal wave; i.e., a "pretty good" longitudinal wave
that still has some low-level transverse component.

A pseudo-longitudinal EM wave has finite energy and finite
velocity, but its velocity may be less than or greater than the
velocity of light in free space. When it's subliminal, it's
called an "EM particle". Nimtz and his colleagues have also
transmitted Mozart's 40th symphony down a waveguide at speed
4.7c, and clearly listened to it on the other end. This blows the
tar out of the old saw that "information cannot be transmitted
superluminally". In fact, quantum tunneling has been known to
permit superlumin al communication, for some decades.

When Maxwell wrote his theory, everyone (all 35 or so of the good
electrodynamicists; that's all there were!) assumed the material
aether (a material fluid filling all space). In other words, they
thought that there was no place in all the universe that was
devoid of mass. Period. So all the EM entities are DEFINED as
mass entities: Electrodynamicists today do not actually have
anything to say - anything at all! - about the form of EM
entities in mass-free space. Even the scalar potential's
magnitude at a p oint is defined as the energy in joules
collected upon an intercepting point Coulomb at that point. In
other words, they have confused the magnitude of the
water-collected in/on a standard bucket from a raging river, as
the magnitude of the water in the river at the dipping point! The
scalar potential itself isn't even a scalar entity! It's a
multiwave, multivector entity. It's a bunch of bi-directional
rivers of EM energy, flowing in both directions at once. Of
course, how much of that flo w is diverged by (collected upon) an
intercepting Coulomb, is a scalar value! But that has nothing to
do with the magnitude of the potential itself, just the magnitude
of how much is dipped from it by a standard bucket.

So EM theory is thoroughly and seriously flawed, from the ground
up.

Now let's see what happens when you transmit and receive a signal
(simplest case).

First, in the transmitter you perturb the Drude electron gas,
which being embedded in a violent interaction with the active
vacuum, perturbs the active vacuum. In other words, the mass
perturbations in turn perturb the spacetime. Then that SPACETIME
perturbation propagates to the receiver, where it interacts with
the waiting Drude electrons, perturbing the Drude gas (the mass).

Rigorously, we have a MASS-TO-SPACETIME TRANSFORM, followed by a
SPACETIME-TO-MASS TRANSFORM. Neither of those appears in
electrodynamics.

Instead, by assuming the material there in the space, Maxwell and
others assumed a MASS-TO-MASS TRANSFORM (INTERACTION). As we saw,
what he wrote actually consists of two hidden transforms, the
mass-to-ST transform and the ST-to-mass transform, in serial
order.

The vacuum/spacetime is just a big old scalar potential (an
active virtual particle flux, and a very intense one). It is
comprised of longitudinal EM wave pairs, by Whittaker 1903. By
Whittaker 1904, those vacuum perturbations (spacetime
perturbations) are just two potential functions - each of which
is just LW functions. So the entire thing in the vacuum is just a
bundle of LW functions.

Now here's the giant leap in physics, a real revolution! We
always told you that scalar waves were electrogravitational. And
so they are.

Look at the two "hidden transforms" that are really involved.
Well, they are nothing but just Wheeler's general relativity
principle! In short, "mass interacts upon spacetime to curve it,
and curved spacetime interacts back upon mass to move it or form
forces.

So INFOLDED INSIDE MAXWELLIAN ELECTRODYNAMICS HAS ALWAYS BEEN
FULL GENERAL RELATIVITY! But a really marvelous GR.

Between two electrons, the E-force is on the order of 1042 times
as strong as the weak G-force. So since the EM force is used in
this case as the agent of ST curvature, this is a far, far more
powerful GR force and ST curvature than is made by the weak
little G-force that the astrophysicists mostly track, and have to
go to the stars, lots of cumulated mass, etc. in order to get
enough ST curvature to measure. For that reason, gravitation has
remained a non-laboratory science.

By making the proper assembly of LWs, we can alter spacetime
directly, and powerfully, because we are using a far, far larger
ST curvature force than the physicists now ordinarily use. And we
can engineer it on the bench, or in devices.

Think of any effect on matter that you desire. Anything at all.
In GR terms, that effect requires the formation of "vacuum
engines" or "spacetime engines", -- i.e., inter-nested clusters
of ST curvature. Those vacuum engines/spacetime engines are
precisely what can be built by assembling and using longitudinal
EM waves.

I'm in process of filing a long tech paper to the U.S. patent
office, followed by several patent applications. Want to
transmute elements? Just flip one quark in one nucleon, and
bingo! You have an isomer (either one element up the chain, or
down it). You can make multiple jumps, etc.

In cold fusion, e.g., what is REALLY going on is the inadvertent
formation of such ST engines. Now time waves are not shieldable
by Faraday cages. So they go right through the electron shells,
into the atomic nuclei. Get the picture? Now you can put
specialized EM-GR fingers right down into the nucleons, etc.
Since there are lots of H ions, H3O ions, etc. in a liquid, the
possibilities for "nuclear engineering" with determinism rather
than staid old random statistics, is breathtaking. Those fellows
are gett ing lots of new nuclides, without yet controlling the
basic action, which is electro-nuclear, but in the new sense I
just described.

So, if you'll just substitute the more modern term "longitudinal
EM wave" for the term "scalar wave", and realize that you are in
an engineerable electro-gravitational theory, you will have it in
a nutshell. "
Back to top
Ceriel Nosforit
science forum beginner


Joined: 18 Mar 2005
Posts: 18

PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 6:42 pm    Post subject: Re: Hidden Richness in Electromagnetism Reply with quote

On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 22:08:17 GMT, Dan Bloomquist
<public21@lakeweb.com> wrote:

<snip>

Quote:

You are missing the point. These guys are claiming 'trivial' observable.
Yet all the countless grads and under grads at all the universities for
one hundred years have never made these observations.

Oh. Yes, that's certainly a good point. However, that means many of
the videos they have on that site are a downright forgeries.

Can't say if those 'flyers' are fake. I've seen so many installments
of them as to deem forgery not plausible.

Quote:
On a side-note, I've now properly read what Bohl originally posted,
and there are some really interesting points in the text. Especially
about the assumptions Maxwell made when constructing his theory and
his peers made when reviewing it.
Our radio hosts really are in a sense broadcasting over the "aether"
like they claim. Hehe.

I say it is fine to think outside of the box, insight can follow. There
is a Lorentz Ether Theory that makes the same predictions as SR. But
without an observable for the extra baggage, what good is it?

I'm not certain, but it appeared to me Bohl's text presented a
slightly different view on the subject. Applications are mentioned, so
I guess it's not useless if correct.

Quote:
But Bearden goes beyond that. He claims a simple observable that goes
unsubstantiated. I've shown you good reason why that claim is bogus. If
like he claims, he has something he wants to share with the rest of the
world, why hasn't he spent just one day demonstrating this phenomena
where it would count? A university lab.

From what I've seen, with a clear idea of what to do and a cunning
diversion in one of our labs at the polytechnic I go to I could build
this thing myself before anyone caught me. If no more effort than that
is required I should be able to easily prove if his machine works or
not and would not have to rely on second-hand information. Getting
help in acquring 'a clear idea' is however a bit hard since everybody
conciders Bearden a nut and cry bloody murder at the mere mention of
his name...
Again, the opening post of this thread does help a bit in giving
something to test, so that's a start.

Hope I don't bore you with this stuff. I just do find it rather
entertaining.

--
Over on the mountain
Thunder magic spoke,
"Let the people know my wisdom,
Fill the land with smoke."
Back to top
Uncle Al
science forum Guru


Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 1226

PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 6:42 pm    Post subject: Re: Hidden Richness in Electromagnetism Reply with quote

Ceriel Nosforit wrote:
Quote:

On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 17:36:54 -0800, Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net
wrote:

Bohl wrote:

To those studying the exotic forms electromagnetisms can take or
its hidden richness. Which of the following do you think is
possible and which is just plain impossible and why.

"What I call "scalar waves"
[snip crap]

Dead on Arrival.

An autopsy, kind sir?

What Bohl is probably trying to figure out is what all the strange
things over at http://jnaudin.free.fr/ are about. While the usual
champion of this subject, Tom Bearden, is the subject of many a heated
and emotional debate, these people are apparently doing _something_.
In order to understand the nature of what they are doing, research is
required. Unfortunately, despite att these strange and _working_
applications, they are usually the subject of prejudice and simply
dismissed, as if reality would go away by doing so.

Any theory that contradicts empirical observation is wrong. Bearden
is trivially wrong by an astounding number of demonstrations and is a
typical psychotic crackpot for demanding his delusions in counterpoint
to trivial falsification.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
Back to top
Bjoern Feuerbacher
science forum Guru


Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 395

PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 6:42 pm    Post subject: Re: Hidden Richness in Electromagnetism Reply with quote

Ceriel Nosforit wrote:
Quote:
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 13:02:00 +0100, Bjoern Feuerbacher
feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote:


Bohl wrote:

To those studying the exotic forms electromagnetisms can take or
its hidden richness. Which of the following do you think is
possible and which is just plain impossible and why.

The stuff below are the rantings of a crank.



"What I call "scalar waves" are pure longitudinal EM waves (LW).

Impossible if our current theory of electromagnetism (described
by Maxwell's equations) is right. I.e. almost certainly impossible,
since that theory has been tested and used for 140 years now.


Having briefly looked at Whittaker's 1903 paper,

What paper do you mean?


Quote:
it appears to me that
the problem is that his results are correct; for Newtonian Law.
However, Newtonian Law is probably not applicable in this particular
case. - A unified theory of gravity and EM would be required for it.

Why?


Quote:
I'd still like to quickly add that Maxwell was also pre-Relativity, so
his equations are no holy cow either.

Non sequitur, since Maxwell's equations are automatically Lorentz
invariant, and SR was even developed based on that Lorentz invariance!

So saying that Maxwell's equations could be wrong due to a possible
conflict with SR (that's what you were saying, right?) makes no sense
at all.


Quote:
They should probably not be treated as such.

Err, I don't treat them as "holy cow". I said "almost certainly
impossible", not "clearly", "certainly", "absolutely" etc. impossible.

And I pointed out *why* I am so sure about that: because they had been
tested and used for 140 years now.




Quote:
Beware! Musings:
Maybe if every other field was revised when one advances we could see
a more rapid progression of our major fields. Say EM _was_ revised
after Relativity,

Why on earth should it have been, in light of the fact that the
development of SR was *based* on Maxwell's theory?

And, if you did not notice: Maxwell's theory *was* reconsidered in
a sense after the development of SR. Nothing was changed in its
main statements (since, as already said, SR is essentially *based*
on these statements), but a new way was found to *write* the
equations. You could try reading up on "field strength tensor"
or "four-potential", for starters.



Quote:
the revision would require QM to be revised into accordance.

Err, why?


[snip]


Bye,
Bjoern
Back to top
Dan Bloomquist
science forum addict


Joined: 05 May 2005
Posts: 94

PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 6:42 pm    Post subject: Re: Hidden Richness in Electromagnetism Reply with quote

Ceriel Nosforit wrote:
Quote:

What Bohl is probably trying to figure out is what all the strange
things over at http://jnaudin.free.fr/ are about. While the usual
champion of this subject, Tom Bearden, is the subject of many a heated
and emotional debate, these people are apparently doing _something_.

If they were doing 'something' in the sense you imply, the observations
would be trivial, there would be no 'dismissing' it. As no one beyond
the claimants seem to be able to make these observations it would seem
the claimants are not doing the 'something' they claim.

On the other hand, they are very likely accumulating funds from folks
that don't understand how science is done. The 'something' they are
doing is bilking marks.

Best, Dan.
Back to top
Ceriel Nosforit
science forum beginner


Joined: 18 Mar 2005
Posts: 18

PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 6:42 pm    Post subject: Re: Hidden Richness in Electromagnetism Reply with quote

On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 09:32:38 -0800, Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net>
wrote:

Quote:
Ceriel Nosforit wrote:

On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 17:36:54 -0800, Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net
wrote:

Bohl wrote:

To those studying the exotic forms electromagnetisms can take or
its hidden richness. Which of the following do you think is
possible and which is just plain impossible and why.

"What I call "scalar waves"
[snip crap]

Dead on Arrival.

An autopsy, kind sir?

What Bohl is probably trying to figure out is what all the strange
things over at http://jnaudin.free.fr/ are about. While the usual
champion of this subject, Tom Bearden, is the subject of many a heated
and emotional debate, these people are apparently doing _something_.
In order to understand the nature of what they are doing, research is
required. Unfortunately, despite att these strange and _working_
applications, they are usually the subject of prejudice and simply
dismissed, as if reality would go away by doing so.

Any theory that contradicts empirical observation is wrong. Bearden
is trivially wrong by an astounding number of demonstrations and is a
typical psychotic crackpot for demanding his delusions in counterpoint
to trivial falsification.

I won't confirm or deny what you just said, but rather ask you to
bring your attention back to the original topic.

Wether to mention Bearden or not was something I contemplated, as I
knew doing so could promote a strong emotional responce. Doing so does
however bring a bit of context, even if the trumendeous thunder it
potentially brings easily drowns the actual worthwhile debate. I
suspect this is often the case in matters such as this, which is sad
to say the least.

--
Over on the mountain
Thunder magic spoke,
"Let the people know my wisdom,
Fill the land with smoke."
Back to top
Ceriel Nosforit
science forum beginner


Joined: 18 Mar 2005
Posts: 18

PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 6:42 pm    Post subject: Re: Hidden Richness in Electromagnetism Reply with quote

On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 17:46:37 GMT, Dan Bloomquist
<public21@lakeweb.com> wrote:

Quote:


Ceriel Nosforit wrote:

What Bohl is probably trying to figure out is what all the strange
things over at http://jnaudin.free.fr/ are about. While the usual
champion of this subject, Tom Bearden, is the subject of many a heated
and emotional debate, these people are apparently doing _something_.

If they were doing 'something' in the sense you imply, the observations
would be trivial, there would be no 'dismissing' it. As no one beyond
the claimants seem to be able to make these observations it would seem
the claimants are not doing the 'something' they claim.

On the other hand, they are very likely accumulating funds from folks
that don't understand how science is done. The 'something' they are
doing is bilking marks.

Best, Dan.

I'm getting the impression from the site that there is a lot of
duplication of these experiments by other people. Could you please
take a look at it and post your opinion?

--
Over on the mountain
Thunder magic spoke,
"Let the people know my wisdom,
Fill the land with smoke."
Back to top
Dan Bloomquist
science forum addict


Joined: 05 May 2005
Posts: 94

PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 6:42 pm    Post subject: Re: Hidden Richness in Electromagnetism Reply with quote

Ceriel Nosforit wrote:
Quote:
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 17:46:37 GMT, Dan Bloomquist
Ceriel Nosforit wrote:

What Bohl is probably trying to figure out is what all the strange
things over at http://jnaudin.free.fr/ are about. While the usual
champion of this subject, Tom Bearden, is the subject of many a heated
and emotional debate, these people are apparently doing _something_.

If they were doing 'something' in the sense you imply, the observations
would be trivial, there would be no 'dismissing' it. As no one beyond
the claimants seem to be able to make these observations it would seem
the claimants are not doing the 'something' they claim.

On the other hand, they are very likely accumulating funds from folks
that don't understand how science is done. The 'something' they are
doing is bilking marks.

I'm getting the impression from the site that there is a lot of
duplication of these experiments by other people. Could you please
take a look at it and post your opinion?

I have looked at this stuff in the past. Here is what I mean by, 'the
observations would be trivial'. If just one of these claims were true,
all that would have to be done is demonstrate the phenomena at any
University in the world. There would be no hiding it, there would be no
end to the excitement. All hell would break loose.

As all hell hasn't broken loose, the claims are baseless. It is really
that simple.

Best, Dan.
Back to top
Ceriel Nosforit
science forum beginner


Joined: 18 Mar 2005
Posts: 18

PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 6:42 pm    Post subject: Re: Hidden Richness in Electromagnetism Reply with quote

On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 20:52:26 GMT, Dan Bloomquist
<public21@lakeweb.com> wrote:

Quote:


Ceriel Nosforit wrote:
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 17:46:37 GMT, Dan Bloomquist
Ceriel Nosforit wrote:

What Bohl is probably trying to figure out is what all the strange
things over at http://jnaudin.free.fr/ are about. While the usual
champion of this subject, Tom Bearden, is the subject of many a heated
and emotional debate, these people are apparently doing _something_.

If they were doing 'something' in the sense you imply, the observations
would be trivial, there would be no 'dismissing' it. As no one beyond
the claimants seem to be able to make these observations it would seem
the claimants are not doing the 'something' they claim.

On the other hand, they are very likely accumulating funds from folks
that don't understand how science is done. The 'something' they are
doing is bilking marks.

I'm getting the impression from the site that there is a lot of
duplication of these experiments by other people. Could you please
take a look at it and post your opinion?

I have looked at this stuff in the past. Here is what I mean by, 'the
observations would be trivial'. If just one of these claims were true,
all that would have to be done is demonstrate the phenomena at any
University in the world. There would be no hiding it, there would be no
end to the excitement. All hell would break loose.

As all hell hasn't broken loose, the claims are baseless. It is really
that simple.

Best, Dan.

But that proof relies on the abscence of evidence. I should not accept
that.
Yes, it is rational, but in abscence of proof has not been accepted as
an argument.

On a side-note, I've now properly read what Bohl originally posted,
and there are some really interesting points in the text. Especially
about the assumptions Maxwell made when constructing his theory and
his peers made when reviewing it.
Our radio hosts really are in a sense broadcasting over the "aether"
like they claim. Hehe.
--
Over on the mountain
Thunder magic spoke,
"Let the people know my wisdom,
Fill the land with smoke."
Back to top
Dan Bloomquist
science forum addict


Joined: 05 May 2005
Posts: 94

PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 6:42 pm    Post subject: Re: Hidden Richness in Electromagnetism Reply with quote

Ceriel Nosforit wrote:
Quote:
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 20:52:26 GMT, Dan Bloomquist
Ceriel Nosforit wrote:
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 17:46:37 GMT, Dan Bloomquist
Ceriel Nosforit wrote:

What Bohl is probably trying to figure out is what all the strange
things over at http://jnaudin.free.fr/ are about. While the usual
champion of this subject, Tom Bearden, is the subject of many a heated
and emotional debate, these people are apparently doing _something_.

If they were doing 'something' in the sense you imply, the observations
would be trivial, there would be no 'dismissing' it. As no one beyond
the claimants seem to be able to make these observations it would seem
the claimants are not doing the 'something' they claim.

On the other hand, they are very likely accumulating funds from folks
that don't understand how science is done. The 'something' they are
doing is bilking marks.

I'm getting the impression from the site that there is a lot of
duplication of these experiments by other people. Could you please
take a look at it and post your opinion?

I have looked at this stuff in the past. Here is what I mean by, 'the
observations would be trivial'. If just one of these claims were true,
all that would have to be done is demonstrate the phenomena at any
University in the world. There would be no hiding it, there would be no
end to the excitement. All hell would break loose.

As all hell hasn't broken loose, the claims are baseless. It is really
that simple.

-----

Quote:
But that proof relies on the abscence of evidence. I should not accept
that.

It is not a proof. And, you are welcome to believe what you want.

Quote:
Yes, it is rational, but in abscence of proof has not been accepted as
an argument.

You are missing the point. These guys are claiming 'trivial' observable.
Yet all the countless grads and under grads at all the universities for
one hundred years have never made these observations.

Quote:
On a side-note, I've now properly read what Bohl originally posted,
and there are some really interesting points in the text. Especially
about the assumptions Maxwell made when constructing his theory and
his peers made when reviewing it.
Our radio hosts really are in a sense broadcasting over the "aether"
like they claim. Hehe.

I say it is fine to think outside of the box, insight can follow. There
is a Lorentz Ether Theory that makes the same predictions as SR. But
without an observable for the extra baggage, what good is it?

But Bearden goes beyond that. He claims a simple observable that goes
unsubstantiated. I've shown you good reason why that claim is bogus. If
like he claims, he has something he wants to share with the rest of the
world, why hasn't he spent just one day demonstrating this phenomena
where it would count? A university lab.

Best, Dan.
Back to top
Ceriel Nosforit
science forum beginner


Joined: 18 Mar 2005
Posts: 18

PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 6:42 pm    Post subject: Re: Hidden Richness in Electromagnetism Reply with quote

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 13:02:00 +0100, Bjoern Feuerbacher
<feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote:

Quote:
Bohl wrote:

To those studying the exotic forms electromagnetisms can take or
its hidden richness. Which of the following do you think is
possible and which is just plain impossible and why.

The stuff below are the rantings of a crank.


"What I call "scalar waves" are pure longitudinal EM waves (LW).

Impossible if our current theory of electromagnetism (described
by Maxwell's equations) is right. I.e. almost certainly impossible,
since that theory has been tested and used for 140 years now.

Having briefly looked at Whittaker's 1903 paper, it appears to me that
the problem is that his results are correct; for Newtonian Law.
However, Newtonian Law is probably not applicable in this particular
case. - A unified theory of gravity and EM would be required for it.
I'd still like to quickly add that Maxwell was also pre-Relativity, so
his equations are no holy cow either. They should probably not be
treated as such.

Beware! Musings:
Maybe if every other field was revised when one advances we could see
a more rapid progression of our major fields. Say EM _was_ revised
after Relativity, the revision would require QM to be revised into
accordance. That in turn would reflext back on Relativity and EM. Etc.
ad nausem...


--
Over on the mountain
Thunder magic spoke,
"Let the people know my wisdom,
Fill the land with smoke."
Back to top
Guest






PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 6:42 pm    Post subject: Re: Charging a gas? Reply with quote

Quote:
for a given flow and won't have sparks coming off
everything.

If it's all encased and I'm not moving anything
flammable, I'm not going to worry about sparks.

For some time I have been thinkig of this issue and I just get the
feeling, that while high voltages might work, this is probably not
going to be the best approach. This would be fairly dangerous and in a
flight scenario might end up simply consuming more electricity than the
turbine can provide? Since today's engines are required to be more fuel
efficient and quieter, reving up the engines would not be a solution.
Maybe encasing the charge within a electromagnetic field? - I lack
understanding to know if this is at all possible.


I can't help but to think that there might be something that static
electricity (a lot is built up on the surface of an aircraft in flight)
or magnetic fields could help out with. Somehow, I just feel that
something is going to reveal itself as being obvious after the
discovery and I am not even approaching the notion of perpetual motion.
It will probably be more along finding the natural energy flows that
nature has to provide, much in the same way a sail ship finds the wind
or boat goes down river. Unfortunatly it is at one of those stages
where the gut feeling is there, but the science is not.

Andre
Back to top
GB
science forum beginner


Joined: 13 Jun 2005
Posts: 3

PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 6:42 pm    Post subject: Re: mesh choice for fdtd calculations Reply with quote

DharmaFog wrote:
mike wrote:

Quote:
A while ago I posted a message in this newsgroup discussing a very
simple 1d implementation of a finite difference time domain (fdtd)
code that I am playing with. Earlier today I was talking to a friend
of mine about it and was telling her about the "leap frog" Yee-cell
mesh that is used as standard in these types of algorithms. She asked
me why I had done it this way and to be honest my first answer was
"because thats the method used in all the books."

Needless to say she wasnt very impressed so I have been doing some
reading around and the best answer I can come up with at the moment is
that the two interpenetrating grids are a necessary consequence of
using central difference approximations to the partial derivatives and
it is these approximations that give us improved accuracy. Can anyone
tell me if this reasoning is correct or should I have waited until
later in the day to think about this when my brain had warmed up a
little.

That's it. The equation for any given point has dependancies 1/2 deltaX
away as opposed to deltaX if they weren't inter-meshed. The width of
the central difference approximation is cut in half by using the
leap-frog scheme. Also, what would you do with that annoying orthogonal
field at the point you're computing?

E H E
Back to top
mully
science forum beginner


Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 5

PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 6:42 pm    Post subject: Re: Source for Helmholtz Coils Reply with quote

Thanks for the information. Yes, the sensors are sensitive to the
Earth's field as well as other stray fields, thus the 3-axis
requirement.
Back to top
Josef Matz
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 255

PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 6:42 pm    Post subject: Re: Überlichtgeschwindigkeit, Spinfluß, Magnetdispersion mit Formeln ! und Referenzen ! Reply with quote

"Roland Leyser" <rol.leyser@tiscali.de> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:cttmah$1o4r$1@ulysses.news.tiscali.de...
Quote:
Man sollte mit dem Postulat der Überlichtgeschwindigkeit sehr vorsichtig
sein!

Die Erklärung des Nimtz-Experimentes von Hendrik van Hees erscheint mir
dagegen sehr einleuchtend.
http://theory.gsi.de/~vanhees/faq/nimtz/index.html


Roland Leyser



Antwort:

Nimtz selbst besteht darauf, daß seine Messungen
Überlichtgeschwindigkeitsmessungen der Gruppengeschwindigkeit
sind.

Im Gap zwischen den Prismen is Luft, dessen Eigenschaften denen des Vakuums
sehr ähnlich sind. Daher wird das
Überlichtgeschwindigkeitssignal das den Vakuumgap zwischen den Prismen
passiert nich verändert ( keine Dispersion im Gap ).
In den Prismen selbst gibt es wohl Signalverformungen, aber diese kann Nimtz
eliminieren, indem er die Prismen
zusammenschiebt. Insgesamt kann das Signal einwanfrei detektiert werden.

Ich habe daher keine Zweifel an dem Nimtzschen Interpretation, daß er
Gruppen - Überlichtgeschwindigkeiten mißt.
Im Gegenteil: Was er mißt kommt aus der vervollständigten Theorie des
Brechungsindex heraus !
Darum geht es in einem Teil dieses von mir angebotenen Artikels.

Gruß

Josef Matz
Back to top
Google

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 3 of 67 [993 Posts] Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ..., 65, 66, 67 Next
View previous topic :: View next topic
The time now is Wed Aug 16, 2017 9:52 pm | All times are GMT
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics » Electromagnetics
Jump to:  

Similar Topics
Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
No new posts Some general Hidden Markov questions kox Prediction 0 Wed Feb 22, 2006 3:51 pm
No new posts Karl Hess (hidden variables) Pieter Kuiper Research 4 Mon Nov 14, 2005 10:33 pm
No new posts Any hidden variables ? contra@tdcspace.dk New Theories 1 Sat Sep 17, 2005 7:32 am
No new posts Electromagnetism and str - what's wrong in my formulas? Ken S. Tucker Electromagnetics 11 Sun Jun 19, 2005 7:54 am
No new posts Some Electromagnetism questions EMy Electromagnetics 4 Sat Jun 11, 2005 10:50 pm

Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
Other DeniX Solutions sites: Electronics forum |  Medicine forum |  Unix/Linux blog |  Unix/Linux documentation |  Unix/Linux forums  |  send newsletters
 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
[ Time: 0.0403s ][ Queries: 16 (0.0051s) ][ GZIP on - Debug on ]