| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Bohl" |
| Date: |
18 Mar 2005 04:38:45 PM |
| Object: |
Hidden Richness in Electromagnetism |
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. "
.
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Hidden Richness in Electromagnetism |
18 Mar 2005 07:36:54 PM |
|
|
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.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ceriel Nosforit" |
|
| Title: Re: Hidden Richness in Electromagnetism |
19 Mar 2005 06:58:49 AM |
|
|
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.
--
Over on the mountain
Thunder magic spoke,
"Let the people know my wisdom,
Fill the land with smoke."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Hidden Richness in Electromagnetism |
19 Mar 2005 11:32:38 AM |
|
|
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.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ceriel Nosforit" |
|
| Title: Re: Hidden Richness in Electromagnetism |
19 Mar 2005 12:16:32 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 09:32:38 -0800, Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net>
wrote:
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."
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dan Bloomquist" |
|
| Title: Re: Hidden Richness in Electromagnetism |
19 Mar 2005 11:46:37 AM |
|
|
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.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ceriel Nosforit" |
|
| Title: Re: Hidden Richness in Electromagnetism |
19 Mar 2005 12:22:14 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 17:46:37 GMT, Dan Bloomquist
<public21@lakeweb.com> wrote:
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."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dan Bloomquist" |
|
| Title: Re: Hidden Richness in Electromagnetism |
19 Mar 2005 02:52:26 PM |
|
|
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.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ceriel Nosforit" |
|
| Title: Re: Hidden Richness in Electromagnetism |
19 Mar 2005 03:26:32 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 20:52:26 GMT, Dan Bloomquist
<public21@lakeweb.com> wrote:
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."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dan Bloomquist" |
|
| Title: Re: Hidden Richness in Electromagnetism |
19 Mar 2005 04:08:17 PM |
|
|
Ceriel Nosforit wrote:
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.
-----
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.
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.
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.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bohl" |
|
| Title: Re: Hidden Richness in Electromagnetism |
21 Mar 2005 08:21:02 AM |
|
|
Dan Bloomquist wrote:
Ceriel Nosforit wrote:
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.
-----
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.
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.
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.
http://www.cheniere.org/books/efv/Chapter_1.pdf
There is a hidden richness in electromagnetism. The problem is
what it is.
About Bearden. I was hoping he would learn from his past mistakes
and learned. Currently. He has written a 977 page book called
"Energy from the Vacuum" that is becoming bestseller
worldwide with many participants from Europe. He shares Chapter 1
(total of 74 pages) for free.
http://www.cheniere.org/books/efv/Chapter_1.pdf
If he is 90% wrong. Then we have to restart from scratch to
dig this hidden richness in electromagnetism.
This holy week and holidays, let us read the 74 pages and analyze
where he got it wrong and avoid repeating the same mistakes in
the years ahead when we are going to derive the hidden richness
in electromagnetism.
Bohl
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ceriel Nosforit" |
|
| Title: Re: Hidden Richness in Electromagnetism |
19 Mar 2005 04:34:50 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 22:08:17 GMT, Dan Bloomquist
<public21@lakeweb.com> wrote:
<snip>
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.
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.
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."
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Hidden Richness in Electromagnetism |
20 Mar 2005 12:46:25 PM |
|
|
ROFL Sucker!
Harry C.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: Hidden Richness in Electromagnetism |
21 Mar 2005 06:02:00 AM |
|
|
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.
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.
What on earth is this supposed to mean? What do you mean with
"function" here?
So if that function persists, we get the
familiar EM wave.
Huh??? What do you mean with "the function persists"?
Now when we cancel the normal wave, we cancel
the component that had cancelled the LW. So we get out a LW.
And how is this cancelling supposed to work?
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.
No, it isn't. It *has* angular moment.
So it's a piece of energy welded to a piece of time,
What is "a piece of time" supposed to mean?
with no seam in the middle, so to speak.
That would be a rather strange way of speaking.
What the "pieces of energy" represents, in the dynamic
oscillating wave, is a dynamic oscillation of the energy density
of 3-space.
No, photons are not "dynamic oscillations of the energy density
of 3-space".
Now here physics does an odd thing. It just ignores
the dynamics of all those "time pieces".
Again: what on earth is "time piece" supposed to mean?
In other words, not only is the spatial energy
What is *spatial* energy?
structured and dynamic, but so is the flow of time
Unsupported assertion.
(I discovered the mechanism that generates the flow of
time when I was at grad school at Georgia Tech).
Rrrriiigggghhhht.
Physicists just
visualize the "observer time" flowing smoothly, and ignore the
fact that the EM wave carries time dynamics as well as energy
dynamics.
What on earth are "time dynamics" and "energy dynamics" supposed
to mean?
When you make what is CALLED a transverse wave you ignore (or
have a component that cancels) that time-density variation.
Plain wrong. Transverse waves *have* a time-dependent energy density.
And there is no "component" there which would cancel that!
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.
That's one of the strangest descriptions of a transverse wave
I've ever seen.
When you make a longitudinal wave, by definition it cannot vary
the energy density in 3-space. That is fixed.
Plain nonsense. For longitudinal waves, the energy density at every
single point varies periodically, just as for transverse waves.
So it can only vary the time-density dynamics.
What on earth is that supposed to mean?
[snip a *lot* more of that nonsense]
Bye,
Bjoern
P.S.: Cinquirer/Landle/Qion, is that you again?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ceriel Nosforit" |
|
| Title: Re: Hidden Richness in Electromagnetism |
21 Mar 2005 01:09:24 PM |
|
|
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, 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."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kevin G. Rhoads" |
|
| Title: Re: Hidden Richness in Electromagnetism |
24 Mar 2005 01:50:31 PM |
|
|
I'd still like to quickly add that Maxwell was also pre-Relativity, so
Maxwell's formulation correctly follows Lorentz transformation when
being recast from one inertial frame to another (as is required by
special relativity). In contrast, Galilean transform (consist with Newtonian
mechanics) is inconsistent with Maxwell's equations; but can be made consist
with E-M formulations pre-Maxwell which do not include the coupling
between electric and magnetic fields of both Ampere's and Faraday's Laws.
I.e., quasi-static approximations of E-M can be consistent with Newtonian/Galilean
mechanics, but when Maxwell added the displacement-current term, his equations
became inconsistent with Newtonian dynamics and required, at minimum,
special relativity for consistent dynamics.
(Above is a grossly simplified discussion of these matters.)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: Hidden Richness in Electromagnetism |
22 Mar 2005 04:37:47 AM |
|
|
Ceriel Nosforit wrote:
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
the revision would require QM to be revised into accordance.
Err, why?
[snip]
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
| User: "G=EMC^2 Glazier" |
|
| Title: Re: Hidden Richness in Electromagnetism |
22 Mar 2005 07:28:52 AM |
|
|
Had an idea that metal ships going through the ocean water could use
electromagnetism to collect gold that is in ocean water. The ships huge
propellers,and if the ship under water line was not painted it might get
plated with gold. It plating did not tale place I'm sure the
electricity would keep barnacles form gluing themselves on these
areas,and that would save a lot of bucks. bert
.
|
|
|
| User: "bz" |
|
| Title: Re: Hidden Richness in Electromagnetism |
22 Mar 2005 07:48:36 AM |
|
|
(G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote in news:20949-42401D94-391
@storefull-3178.bay.webtv.net:
Had an idea that metal ships going through the ocean water could use
electromagnetism to collect gold that is in ocean water. The ships huge
propellers,and if the ship under water line was not painted it might get
plated with gold. It plating did not tale place I'm sure the
electricity would keep barnacles form gluing themselves on these
areas,and that would save a lot of bucks. bert
nice troll.
--
bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.
bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ceriel Nosforit" |
|
| Title: Re: Hidden Richness in Electromagnetism |
23 Mar 2005 05:08:41 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 11:37:47 +0100, Bjoern Feuerbacher
<feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote:
Ceriel Nosforit wrote:
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?
Google.
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?
Says so in the paper.
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.
They do not disagree whith current observations. Current observations
are based on them. Wonder why they agree with observations?
What are the impliactions of this?
How does it stand in relation to Newtonian vs. Relativistic physics?
These are rethoric questions.
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.
Then you say one thing and do the other.
And I pointed out *why* I am so sure about that: because they had been
tested and used for 140 years now.
How long had Newton's been tested?
This is both a straight and a rethoric question.
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?
All of it?
You're leaving out important info.
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.
Not sure how I was supposed to notice that...
But I'll add those topics to my reading list.
the revision would require QM to be revised into accordance.
Err, why?
It follows the logic of the argument.
--
Over on the mountain
Thunder magic spoke,
"Let the people know my wisdom,
Fill the land with smoke."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: Hidden Richness in Electromagnetism |
24 Mar 2005 09:28:31 AM |
|
|
Ceriel Nosforit wrote:
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 11:37:47 +0100, Bjoern Feuerbacher
<feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote:
Ceriel Nosforit wrote:
[snip]
Having briefly looked at Whittaker's 1903 paper,
What paper do you mean?
Google.
"Whittaker 1903" gives 37 300 hits. Adding "scalar waves"
reduces that to 129.
Why don't you simply provide a link?
[snip]
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.
They do not disagree whith current observations. Current observations
are based on them.
Err, how do you base observations on a theory?
[snip]
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.
Then you say one thing and do the other.
Please point out where I treated Maxwell's equations as a "holy cow".
And I pointed out *why* I am so sure about that: because they had been
tested and used for 140 years now.
How long had Newton's been tested?
Longer. And they are still perfectly valid *within their range of
application*. Hint: I say the same about Maxwell's equations.
Saying that scalar electromagnetic waves exist would be like
saying that gravity obeys a 1/r law instead of an 1/r^2 law.
[snip]
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?
All of it?
All of what? Of the development? No.
You're leavig out important info.
No.
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.
Not sure how I was supposed to notice that...
I don't know what education you have. I simply assumed that before
someone starts spouting about "Maxwell's theory should have
been reconsidered after SR was developed!", he would have done
some research if that hasn't been already done.
But I'll add those topics to my reading list.
Good. Try any textbook on electrodynamics, e.g. Greiner or Jackson.
[snip]
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Prescott" |
|
| Title: Re: Hidden Richness in Electromagnetism |
19 Mar 2005 06:11:56 PM |
|
|
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:
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. "
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kevin G. Rhoads" |
|
| Title: O.T. -- Re: Hidden Richness in Electromagnetism |
24 Mar 2005 01:42:27 PM |
|
|
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??
<Giggle.> Wind them on a Klein bottle; be sure not to
accidentally use a projective plane.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: O.T. -- Re: Hidden Richness in Electromagnetism |
24 Mar 2005 02:35:23 PM |
|
|
"Kevin G. Rhoads" wrote:
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??
<Giggle.> Wind them on a Klein bottle; be sure not to
accidentally use a projective plane.
"8^>) At least there need be no worries about surface orientation...
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Hidden Richness in Electromagnetism |
20 Mar 2005 12:45:29 PM |
|
|
Prescott, there is no effect to be ovserved.
The people promoting the concept of 'scalar waves' have long been
demonstrated to be flim-flam artists selling baseless pseudo-scientific
fecal matter.
Isn't it obvioius to you that if their theories and claims had any
merit whatsoever, they would have been embraced by the world years ago?
My take on the subject is that Tom Bearden (just to focuse on one
person perpetrating a scam) has been actively involved in selling his
'Snake Oil' for well over 10-years. Evidently there are enough ignorant
suckers around to keep him in business.
The fact that in 2005 there are still people remaining who are so
naive/ignorant in science to make the scam profitable absolutely amazes
me. Then too, scams based on pseudo-science have been around
throughout recorded history. Like most con-games, their success is
built upon preying on personal greed. (Evidence, for example, the car
that could run on water as fuel.)
It's as simple as that.
Harry C.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Hidden Richness in Electromagnetism |
18 Mar 2005 06:33:20 PM |
|
|
In a nutshell, aren't all EM waves 'transverse'?
See for example:
"Introduction to Electromagnetic Fields and Waves", by Corson & Lorrain
"Classical Electrodynamics" by J.D. Jackson
See, I have this little problem with EM theories that don't correspond
with Maxwell's Equations, and "scalar waves" don't.
Harry C.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bohl" |
|
| Title: Re: Hidden Richness in Electromagnetism |
18 Mar 2005 07:36:14 PM |
|
|
wrote:
In a nutshell, aren't all EM waves 'transverse'?
Harry C.
Beats me. Well in medieval times, people don't know electromagnetic
waves (light) fill the air... so who knows.. perhaps other waves
fill the air too that is not EM transverse waves but its cousins
not yet detectable by present instruments.
Anyway. Let me just focus on the first paragraph. Can you show
what this means "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 (scalar wave). So we get
out a LW (scalar wave)".
What function is he talking about available in transverse wave
that cancel the longitudinal wave?
Bohl
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: Hidden Richness in Electromagnetism |
21 Mar 2005 06:03:06 AM |
|
|
Bohl wrote:
hhc314@yahoo.com wrote:
In a nutshell, aren't all EM waves 'transverse'?
Harry C.
Beats me. Well in medieval times, people don't know electromagnetic
waves (light) fill the air... so who knows.. perhaps other waves
fill the air too that is not EM transverse waves but its cousins
not yet detectable by present instruments.
Yes, maybe. So what? Idle speculations are not physics.
Anyway. Let me just focus on the first paragraph. Can you show
what this means "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 (scalar wave). So we get
out a LW (scalar wave)".
What function is he talking about available in transverse wave
that cancel the longitudinal wave?
How are we supposed to know what the words of a crank are supposed
to mean?
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory L. Hansen" |
|
| Title: Re: Hidden Richness in Electromagnetism |
19 Mar 2005 07:27:01 AM |
|
|
In article <1111196174.457106.322890@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
Bohl <aharanovbohm@yahoo.com> wrote:
hhc314@yahoo.com wrote:
In a nutshell, aren't all EM waves 'transverse'?
Harry C.
Beats me. Well in medieval times, people don't know electromagnetic
waves (light) fill the air... so who knows.. perhaps other waves
fill the air too that is not EM transverse waves but its cousins
not yet detectable by present instruments.
And perhaps invisible muffins fill the air. Ignorance is no reason to
prefer one particular unproven theory over another.
Anyway. Let me just focus on the first paragraph. Can you show
what this means "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 (scalar wave). So we get
out a LW (scalar wave)".
What function is he talking about available in transverse wave
that cancel the longitudinal wave?
It would be something novel. In free space, electromagnetic waves are
non-interacting and follow a simple superposition rule. E.g. a vertically
polarized wave can't turn a horizontally polarized wave into a vertically
polarized wave; they basically proceed independently as if the other
didn't exist. What he's talking about is an interaction term between the
transverse and longitudinal waves, one that has no theoretical or
experimental justification that I know of.
I'm not quite sure what he means by "longitudinal". If I didn't know he
has a thing for scalar waves, I'd assumed the longitudinal waves are
vector waves polarized longitudinally rather than transversely, which
is something that can happen only if the wave has mass. Which would imply
dispersion even in free space.
But I suppose he must mean scalar waves. The only analogy to scalar waves
that I can think of is sound waves. I don't think there's any scalar
analogy to, e.g., the photon or W bosons, so I can't say much about it off
the top of my head.
--
"Not that there's anything wrong with just lying around on your back. In
its way, rotting is interesing too... It's just that there are other ways
to spend your time as a cadaver." -- Mary Roach, "Stiff", 2003.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ceriel Nosforit" |
|
| Title: Re: Hidden Richness in Electromagnetism |
19 Mar 2005 07:57:37 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 13:27:01 +0000 (UTC),
glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
In article <1111196174.457106.322890@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
Bohl <aharanovbohm@yahoo.com> wrote:
hhc314@yahoo.com wrote:
In a nutshell, aren't all EM waves 'transverse'?
<snippeth>
But I suppose he must mean scalar waves. The only analogy to scalar waves
that I can think of is sound waves. I don't think there's any scalar
analogy to, e.g., the photon or W bosons, so I can't say much about it off
the top of my head.
Two years ago I annoyed the people at alt.sci.physics.acoustics about
this. The result:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.sci.physics.acoustics/browse_thread/thread/de8df7f1f5c5f29a/3b94631793f5f796?
--
Over on the mountain
Thunder magic spoke,
"Let the people know my wisdom,
Fill the land with smoke."
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fergus" |
|
| Title: Re: Hidden Richness in Electromagnetism |
19 Mar 2005 07:20:45 AM |
|
|
On 18 Mar 2005 16:33:20 -0800, wrote:
In a nutshell, aren't all EM waves 'transverse'?
Only at distances far from the source. And in homogeneous media.
Fergus
.
|
|
|
|
|

|
Related Articles |
|
|