We Need to Talk About "Maxwell"

The end of "The End." Please Stand by....

We Need to Talk About "Maxwell"

Postby Paul S. » Thu Jul 24, 2008 7:50 pm

...and, no, I'm not suggesting "Maxwell's Silver Hammer" for the soundtrack...

I am talking about the assertion that we have seen here in the forums -- that I cited when I opened my talk in Las Vegas, that I referred to in the "Response to RHull" also posted elsewhere in the forums -- that James Clerk Maxwell's fundamental formulas of electromagnetic theory are ... incomplete.

The subject is suddenly pertinent because I'm re-reading Chapter 50, "Structure of Space," and it mentions Maxwell, and the Michelson Morley experiment, and examines of the foundations of modern electrical science.

On re-reading, it looks to me like Chapter 50 is where, if some sort of "flag" has to be planted with regard to Townsend Brown's own departure from acceptable, mainstream electro/physical logic.

We are, in other words, looking for the hole in Maxwellian theory that might be large enough to drive a time machine through.

So I seriously need the focused and concentrated help of everybody within the sound of my keystrokes to help me get at the root of this idea that Maxwell is... incomplete. Because the problem I'm having with that notion is that, whenever I try to nail it down, I wind up coming back to the same source: Tom Bearden. What I need now -- in the manner of Woodward and Bernstein -- is "confirmation from another source."

Somebody here attributed the modification of Maxwell's original equations to Oliver Heaviside. See what happens if you Google "maxwell heaviside." If you get the same results that I got, then about five entries down the page you'll get this fairly succinct summary of the controversy:

http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?nam ... e&sid=1656

In the 1880s, several scientists - Heaviside, Gibbs, Hertz etc. - strongly assaulted the Maxwellian theory and dramatically reduced it, creating vector algebra in the process. Then circa 1892 Lorentz arbitrarily symmetrized the already seriously constrained Heaviside-Maxwell equations, just to get simpler equations easier to solve algebraically, and thus to dramatically reduce the need for numerical methods (which were a "real bear" before the computer). But that symmetrization also arbitrarily discarded all asymmetrical Maxwellian systems - the very ones of interest to us today if we are seriously interested in usable EM energy from the vacuum.

So anyone seriously interested in potential systems that accept and use additional EM energy from the vacuum, must first violate the Lorentz symmetry condition, else all his efforts are doomed to failure a priori.

We point out that quaternion algebra has a higher group symmetry than either vector algebra or tensor algebra, and hence it reveals much more EM phenomenology and dynamics than does EM in vector or tensor form.

Today, the tremendously crippled Maxwell-Heaviside equations - symmetrized by Lorentz - are taught in all our universities in the electrical engineering (EE) department. Note that the EE professors still dutifully symmetrize the equations, following Lorentz, and thus they continue to arbitrarily discard all asymmetrical Maxwellian systems. Hence none of them has the foggiest notion of how to go about developing an "energy from the vacuum" system, which is asymmetrical a priori.


Guess who wrote that? Bearden, of course.

In fact, most (if not all) of the links from the Google search produce a variety of references to Bearden, including at least one that dismisses him summarily as a "crackpot."

And what were we just saying about the three steps to the truth? Step 1: Ridicule...?

So, everybody, can we have a discussion about this? Can we find any other source that can credibly make the case that Maxwell is...(at best) incomplete?

And when I say everybody, I really mean everybody that's tuned in here. Langely and Nate, you guys are great researchers... what can you find. Trickfox, you've got as good a handle on the math that circulates through this stuff as anybody here. Andy... Mark Bean... you guys are hands on, what say you? Magic Bill and FM Fred... wasn't it one of you that first threw down this Maxwellian gauntlet? What have you got to go on besides Bearden?

And Mikado: especially. I know you are uncomfortable with the "moderated" format of these Second Draft forums, but I implore you to work around that and help us out here. I really did think about putting this into an "open" space, but opted for the "moderated" format so that we can at least try to avoid spinning off into other subjects. So, do you have any thoughts on the subject? Hard as it is sometimes to get past your irascible Internet persona, I value whatever you might have to offer here.

And, Linda, of course: what does your intuition tell you?

I guess what I'm leaning toward is the discovery that Chapter 50 (which was first written a few months after Las Vegas) is where I'm going to have to plant a very important flag. Throw down a pivotal marker. It's right after Townsend Brown went completely "black," and so it makes sense that this is where he would develop theories that would have put him at odds with the electromagnetic mainstream. And I need that to provide some kind of background for what else is going on in "Part II."

So... what can we find that might give us firm ground into which we can plant this flag?

--PS
Paul Schatzkin
aka "The Perfesser"
"At some point we have to deal with the facts, not what we want to believe is true." -- Jack Bauer
Paul S.
Sr. Rabbit Chaser
 
Posts: 1362
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 1:11 pm
Location: Psych Ward

Re: We Need to Talk About "Maxwell"

Postby htmagic » Thu Jul 24, 2008 8:29 pm

Paul,

As I understood it from FM, the Maxwell equations were complete. It was Heaviside that simplified them and threw out half of the equations. Then Lorentz picked up from there with the shortened equations.

MagicBill
Speeding through the Universe, thinking is the best way to travel ...
htmagic
Senior Officer
 
Posts: 661
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2008 7:46 pm
Location: People's Republic of Maryland

Re: We Need to Talk About "Maxwell"

Postby Mikado14 » Thu Jul 24, 2008 10:07 pm

What we really need to start this out is to get a copy of Maxwells "The Dynamic theory of Electromagnetism" or somewhat such title that I believe is from the 1860's. Also, if you research a bit on Kirchoff you will find similar equations but Kirchoff claimed that his were only for a current in a wire or a closed system even though his calculations were more extensive and applicable elsewhere.

Maxwell derived a good deal of his background from Faraday and Ampere, perhaps a study of these would be helpful as well.

I could be wrong but I believe Heaviside was attempting to simplify the algebra into vector and tensor analysis. The four basic equations that he derived originally came from ...maybe eight or more, can't remember but I am sure you can find it.

When you simplify equations, you are rounding as I put it and when you round numbers of any kind, accuracy is sacrificed......and so it is with Dr. Brown's work as well and the damn thing won't work.

Mikado
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy
Mikado14
Mr. Nice Guy
 
Posts: 2343
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2006 1:49 pm
Location: Somewhere in Pennsy

Re: We Need to Talk About "Maxwell"

Postby natecull » Fri Jul 25, 2008 12:29 am

Paul S. wrote:...and, no, I'm not suggesting "Maxwell's Silver Hammer" for the soundtrack...


But we *are* quizzical, studying pataphysical science in the home...

I am talking about the assertion that we have seen here in the forums -- that I cited when I opened my talk in Las Vegas, that I referred to in the "Response to RHull" also posted elsewhere in the forums -- that James Clerk Maxwell's fundamental formulas of electromagnetic theory are ... incomplete.


The thing about Bearden is, sure people laugh at him... but he may actually be a crackpot. I've struggled with his assertions in this regard before and got not very far. But my classical electromagnetics knowledge is slim, beyond a vague high-school understanding that 'voltage is pressure' and the right-hand rule.

I've done a little digging about quaternions, and though I don't really grok the subject at all, I find William Rowan Hamilton a very interesting chappie. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Rowan_Hamilton

As I understand it, he basically invented complex analysis as we understand it, and saw quaternions as the next obvious step of treating 3D coordinates as numbers. Only, this is the fun bit, the maths didn't work in 3D, he had to take it to 4D. Basically inventing spacetime before Einstein did. He spent I think his next 40 years trying to evangelise quaternions as The Answer To The Universe and nobody much listened. The problem with quaternions is they are noncommutative under multiplication: ie, the *order* you multiply them is significant. This was seen as a problem, so vectors were used instead in physics. They're less elegant, I think, but you can do almost anything with them. However, *maybe* the restrictions that appear using quaternions actually reveal some deep structure about the way spacetime works? Possibly using them would stop us from going down too many mathematical dead ends? Hamilton believed so. Doug Sweet - http://world.std.com/~sweetser/quaterni ... index.html - is another amateur physicist who is trying to restate Einsteinian physics in quaternions. It's still an open question, I think, if it will get anywhere.

Peter Guthrie Tait among others, advocated the use of Hamilton's quaternions. They were made a mandatory examination topic in Dublin, and for a while they were the only advanced mathematics taught in some American universities. However, controversy about the use of quaternions grew in the late 1800s. Some of Hamilton's supporters vociferously opposed the growing fields of vector algebra and vector calculus (from developers like Oliver Heaviside and Willard Gibbs), because quaternions provide superior notation. While this is undeniable for four dimensions, quaternions cannot be used with arbitrary dimensionality (though extensions like Clifford algebras can). Vector notation largely replaced the "space-time" quaternions in science and engineering by the mid-20th century.

Today, the quaternions are in use by computer graphics, control theory, signal processing and orbital mechanics, mainly for representing rotations/orientations. For example, it is common for spacecraft attitude-control systems to be commanded in terms of quaternions, which are also used to telemeter their current attitude. The rationale is that combining many quaternion transformations is more numerically stable than combining many matrix transformations. In pure mathematics, quaternions show up significantly as one of the four finite-dimensional normed division algebras over the real numbers, with applications throughout algebra and geometry.


I still can't yet get my head around what they are, geometrically. My math-fu is not strong. I can visualise complex numbers as a rotation and extension in a polar-coordinate plane space; if 'i' is a 90 degree out-of-plane rotation, then 'j' and 'k' presumably also are too, and one would think a quaternion would be three rotations in space and an extension in time, but that doesn't account for the noncommutativity, or does it?

Interestingly Hamilton develops the idea of mathematical sequence as primarily indicating *time*, not linear space, and the '90 degree rotation' of i,j,k as being spatial dimensions. Interesting to me that he prioritises time like that; it's the opposite of the normal intuition.

I think the 'Hamiltonian' which shows up in quantum mechanics has nothing to do with quaternions, but I'm not sure. The seem to have permeated Hamilton's thought pretty deeply.


http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?nam ... e&sid=1656

In the 1880s, several scientists - Heaviside, Gibbs, Hertz etc. - strongly assaulted the Maxwellian theory and dramatically reduced it, creating vector algebra in the process. Then circa 1892 Lorentz arbitrarily symmetrized the already seriously constrained Heaviside-Maxwell equations, just to get simpler equations easier to solve algebraically, and thus to dramatically reduce the need for numerical methods (which were a "real bear" before the computer). But that symmetrization also arbitrarily discarded all asymmetrical Maxwellian systems - the very ones of interest to us today if we are seriously interested in usable EM energy from the vacuum.

So anyone seriously interested in potential systems that accept and use additional EM energy from the vacuum, must first violate the Lorentz symmetry condition, else all his efforts are doomed to failure a priori.

We point out that quaternion algebra has a higher group symmetry than either vector algebra or tensor algebra, and hence it reveals much more EM phenomenology and dynamics than does EM in vector or tensor form.

Today, the tremendously crippled Maxwell-Heaviside equations - symmetrized by Lorentz - are taught in all our universities in the electrical engineering (EE) department. Note that the EE professors still dutifully symmetrize the equations, following Lorentz, and thus they continue to arbitrarily discard all asymmetrical Maxwellian systems. Hence none of them has the foggiest notion of how to go about developing an "energy from the vacuum" system, which is asymmetrical a priori.


Guess who wrote that? Bearden, of course.


Yes. However, Aspden argues much the same as Bearden does, only using different terms, about asymmetry being important. So I suspect there is something behind what they're both talking about, but it needs to be translated. That's probably a lot of work by people who understand the relevant math and science. And it's definitely in contradiction of some fairly fundamental assumptions of electromagnetics, so it's only crackpots or amateurs with no career to lose who will be open to doing it, but it's only well-trained scientists who stand a chance of constructing experiments to prove it.

The basic claim is something like 'electricity is not really caused by electron flow, rather it is caused by an underlying energy of space which is merely triggered by the electron flow' and that in particular visualising electron flow like water in a pipe, requiring a closed loop, is the Wrong Metaphor, and that creating closed electrical circuits actually mostly cancels out the underlying energy. I don't understand what the Right Metaphor is, however. Both Aspden and Bearden seem to be interested in circuits with 'free-floating grounds' and 'making the vacuum ring' by hitting it with a short resonant EM pulse and then looking for 'echoes' which manifest as alternating positive/negative charges on different sides of a circuit which we then extract as power. Sort of like the production of 'virtual particles' from cosmic rays, I think, but at much lower energy levels (where conventional theory would consider such virtual interactions impossible). There's a huge lack of fundamental theory here to explain their intuition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell_equations

Controversy has always surrounded the term Maxwell's equations concerning the extent to which Maxwell himself was involved in these equations. The term Maxwell's equations nowadays applies to a set of four equations that were grouped together as a distinct set in 1884 by Oliver Heaviside, in conjunction with Willard Gibbs.

The importance of Maxwell's role in these equations lies in the correction he made to Ampère's circuital law in his 1861 paper On Physical Lines of Force. He added the displacement current term to Ampère's circuital law and this enabled him to derive the electromagnetic wave equation in his later 1865 paper A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field and demonstrate the fact that light is an electromagnetic wave. This fact was then later confirmed experimentally by Heinrich Hertz in 1887.

The reason that these equations are called Maxwell's equations is disputed. Some say that these equations were originally called the Hertz-Heaviside equations but that Einstein for whatever reason later referred to them as the Maxwell-Hertz equations. see pages 110-112 of Nahin's book[4][5]

These equations are based on the works of James Clerk Maxwell, and Heaviside made no secret of the fact that he was working from Maxwell's papers. Heaviside aimed to produce a symmetrical set of equations that were crucial as regards deriving the telegrapher's equations. The net result was a set of four equations, three of which had appeared in substance throughout Maxwell's previous papers, in particular Maxwell's 1861 paper On Physical Lines of Force and 1865 paper A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field. The fourth was a partial time derivative version of Faraday's law of induction that doesn't include motionally induced EMF. [6]

Of Heaviside's equations, the most important in deriving the telegrapher's equations was the version of Ampère's circuital law that had been amended by Maxwell in this 1861 paper to include what is termed the displacement current.


Confusion over the term "Maxwell's equations" is further increased because it is also sometimes used for a set of eight equations that appeared in Part III of Maxwell's 1865 paper A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field, entitled "General Equations of the Electromagnetic Field" [1] (page 480 of the article and page 2 of the pdf link), a confusion compounded by the writing of six of those eight equations as three separate equations (one for each of the Cartesian axes), resulting in twenty equations in twenty unknowns. (As noted above, this terminology is not common: Modern references to the term "Maxwell's equations" usually refer to the Heaviside restatements.)

These original eight equations are nearly identical to the Heaviside versions in substance, but they have some superficial differences. In fact, only one of the Heaviside versions is completely unchanged from these original equations, and that is Gauss' law (Maxwell's equation G below). Another of Heaviside's four equations is an amalgamation of Maxwell's law of total currents (equation A below) with Ampère's circuital law (equation C below). This amalgamation, which Maxwell himself originally made at equation (112) in his 1861 paper "On Physical Lines of Force" (see above), is the one that modifies Ampère's circuital law to include Maxwell's displacement current.


We could start, I guess, by looking at 'General Equations of the Electromagnetic Field' and trying to see whether these eight (or twenty) equations are in fact identical to the modern Heaviside versions.

Bearden points at Lorentz as introducing the symmetry he hates. Deyo points at the Lorentz force as being crucial to the operation of flying discs. Lorentz force is also the component shared by toroidal magnetic field systems such as cyclotrons, magnetrons, calutrons and tokamaks. Is there something about this force which is misunderstood in the modern interpretation?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_force_law

Hendrik Lorentz introduced this force in 1892.[5] However, the discovery of the Lorentz force was before Lorentz's time. In particular, it can be seen at equation (77) in Maxwell's 1861 paper On Physical Lines of Force. Later, Maxwell listed it as equation "D" of his 1864 paper, A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field, as one of the eight original Maxwell's equations.


Although this equation is obviously a direct precursor of the modern Lorentz force equation, it actually differs in two respects:

* It does not contain a factor of q, the charge. Maxwell didn't use the concept of charge. The definition of E used here by Maxwell is unclear. He uses the term electromotive force. He operated from Faraday's electro-tonic state A,[6] which he considered to be a momentum in his vortex sea. The closest term that we can trace to electric charge in Maxwell's papers is the density of free electricity, which appears to refer to the density of the aethereal medium of his molecular vortices and that gives rise to the momentum A. Maxwell believed that A was a fundamental quantity from which electromotive force can be derived.[7]


[/quote]Despite its historical origins in the original set of eight Maxwell's equations, the Lorentz force is no longer considered to be one of "Maxwell's equations" as the term is currently used (that is, as reformulated by Heaviside). It now sits adjacent to Maxwell's equations as a separate and essential law.[1][/quote]

Hmm. Interesting. If the Lorentz force is not part of the Maxwell equations, maybe we have a chance at splitting it off and attacking it separately.

Interesting also that Maxwell was working from an ether conception of a 'vortex sea'. If we return to that kind of idea, do we get closer to understanding something he saw which has been lost in the modern restatements? Why did he not have a concept so fundamental as electric charge?
It's a big ball of wibbly-wobbly timey-wimey stuff.
natecull
Senior Cadet
 
Posts: 273
Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2008 10:35 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: We Need to Talk About "Maxwell"

Postby natecull » Fri Jul 25, 2008 2:36 am

Mikado14 wrote:What we really need to start this out is to get a copy of Maxwells "The Dynamic theory of Electromagnetism" or somewhat such title that I believe is from the 1860's. Also, if you research a bit on Kirchoff you will find similar equations but Kirchoff claimed that his were only for a current in a wire or a closed system even though his calculations were more extensive and applicable elsewhere.


Hmm, Kirchoff?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustav_Kirchhoff
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirchhoff%27s_circuit_laws

Kirchhoff's circuit laws are a pair of laws that deal with the conservation of charge and energy in electrical circuits, and were first described in 1845 by Gustav Kirchhoff. Widely used in electrical engineering, they are also called Kirchhoff's rules or simply Kirchhoff's laws (see also Kirchhoff's laws for other meanings of that term).

Both circuit rules can be directly derived from Maxwell's equations, but Kirchhoff preceded Maxwell and instead generalized work by Georg Ohm.


For reference:
Rex Research seems to have collated a bunch of the links here (with introduction by Bearden): http://www.rexresearch.com/maxwell.htm

Sweetser on Maxwell's equations (but the Heaviside-Gibbs ones) in quaternions here:
http://world.std.com/~sweetser/quaterni ... xwell.html

Another history of quaternions in physics here: http://www.valdostamuseum.org/hamsmith/QOphys.html
It's a big ball of wibbly-wobbly timey-wimey stuff.
natecull
Senior Cadet
 
Posts: 273
Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2008 10:35 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: We Need to Talk About "Maxwell"

Postby htmagic » Fri Jul 25, 2008 3:00 am

natecull wrote:Interesting also that Maxwell was working from an ether conception of a 'vortex sea'. If we return to that kind of idea, do we get closer to understanding something he saw which has been lost in the modern restatements? Why did he not have a concept so fundamental as electric charge?

Nate,

And this is exactly what Kozyrev describes and "torsion fields" and/or "torsion waves".

http://www.divinecosmos.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=95&ltemid=36 wrote:Many of Kozyrev’s experiments showed that the direction of the detector’s movement was very important in creating measurable weight changes. He determined that a gyroscope that was vibrating, heating or conducting electricity would substantially decrease its weight when it was rotated in a counter-clockwise motion, whereas it would remain unchanged if it were rotated in a clockwise motion.

Kozyrev concluded that this was caused by the “Coriolis effect,” where an object will indeed show a rotational movement as it is dropped towards the surface of the Earth. Ultimately, this is due to the subtle spiraling pressure of torsion that is imparted to the flow of aether (gravity) as it rushes into the earth, upholding the existence of all its atoms and molecules.

In 1680 Newton and Hook confirmed that the Coriolis effect was real by dropping objects down long mine shafts, and the experiment was repeated many times thereafter.

The Coriolis effect causes counter-clockwise movement in the Northern Hemisphere and clockwise movement in the Southern Hemisphere, and is considered the major force behind the movement of weather systems. It also has to be factored in when firing long-range cannons at a specific target, which was a very confusing military problem before the Coriolis effect was discovered. It is another little-known fact of science that most people are unaware of.

We remember that Kozyrev would first vibrate, heat or electrify his gyroscope in order to see his anomalous effects. Under these conditions, he would then move the gyroscope in either a clockwise or counter-clockwise motion. If the vibrating gyroscope is moved in a counter-clockwise direction in the Northern Hemisphere, then it is moving in unison with the counter-clockwise current of the Coriolis effect.

This causes the object to absorb some of the energy that would normally be pushing it down, and a small but definite decrease in its weight is then measured.

The work of G. Hayasaka and S. Tekeyuchi, which we mentioned above, independently confirmed the same anomalous result. When their gyroscope was rotated counter-clockwise it would fall slower than expected, whereas if it were rotating clockwise they could detect no changes, thus verifying Kozyrev’s findings. Naturally, Japan is also in the Northern Hemisphere.

Kozyrev also found that additional torsion would be introduced in these experiments if his gyroscope was not kept 100% horizontal, which suggested to him that gravity, which moves straight down, is somehow joined with torsion waves, as later theorists confirmed. Without the existence of an aether and the phenomenon of dynamic torsion, none of these results would even be remotely possible.


I think this is the reason Tesla liked his spiral pancake coils. They were designed to capture this spiraling energy and convert it into electrical flow.

MagicBill
Speeding through the Universe, thinking is the best way to travel ...
htmagic
Senior Officer
 
Posts: 661
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2008 7:46 pm
Location: People's Republic of Maryland

Re: We Need to Talk About "Maxwell"

Postby Mikado14 » Fri Jul 25, 2008 3:00 am

This is the last ping.

Paul,

At this point I really don't understand where you are headed so let me throw something down.

Stick to Maxwell and eventually you will see that his original paper from the 1860's had two parts - possibly three, can't remember. In one of those he emphasized the dielectric nature of the aether and not the vortex nature. He should have stayed a little more on the molecular vortex nature which if I recall, he referred to these as sinks and sources(?) ....damn memory thing.

I also remember something about the Ampere Circuital Law where a positron and electron are in the same orbit. If the electron is the recepient of the aether and the positron is the source than the aether will flow from the positron to the electron. I believe that Maxwell utilized this Law (Ampere)in deriving one of his own theories.

Essentially, if your looking for Maxwell, look for Maxwell. After you find him, then look to see how the others changed him. Stop looking at Heaviside and Lorentz etc for if you don't know completely what Maxwell wrote originally, how the hell are you going to recognize what it is they changed? Somebody must be a better psychic then I if you can pull that off.

I will now give you the ping. My research, to this date, indicates that both concepts are correct, that is that the aether exhibits both a dielectric quality and a molecular vortex the reason I say this is due to Coriolis since it is recognized in both Maxwell's original equations and in Lorentz's equations. I am not Maxwell and am not professing to be even in the same park as him but I will exploit what he has shown us.

Good Luck, this is what I remember, cut and paste to your hearts content.

Mikado
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy
Mikado14
Mr. Nice Guy
 
Posts: 2343
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2006 1:49 pm
Location: Somewhere in Pennsy

Re: We Need to Talk About "Maxwell"

Postby Rose » Fri Jul 25, 2008 4:41 am

Does this help, Paul?

Electromagnetic Theory
The Foundation of Physical Science
Nigel Cook



Maxwell's 1865 claim to have discovered the equation for the speed of light has been accepted by science as a major unification of physical phenomena (Faraday had already unified electricity and magnetism by his discovery of electromagnetic induction). However, all is not black and white. Catt, Davidson, and Walton point out that engineer-mathematician Oliver Heaviside discovered from experimental studies on Morse code pulses in long wires around 1875 that what Maxwell had calculated, his ratio, was the speed of electricity. The significance is that the ratio is invariant, so Einstein's special theory of relativity applies to electricity and matter. Light only has a similar speed because it is emitted by matter with the invariant speed 300,000 km/s. Ivor quotes Einstein admitting in 1949 thus:

"The special theory of relativity owes its origin to Maxwell's Equations of the electromagnetic field." (A. Einstein, p62 in P.A. Schilpp, editor, "Albert Einstein, Philosopher-Scientist", Library of Living Philosophy, 1949.)

Einstein never knew that Oliver Heaviside, who had first "popularised" Maxwell's equations, had experimentally found using a long cable that the invariant-speed transverse electromagnetic wave is the mechanism of electricity.

So suppressed was this that it was only in May 1976 that Catt, Davidson and Walton applied Heaviside's wire TEM wave to supposedly "static" charge, finding that trapped TEM wave energy (in a charged wire or capacitor) reciprocates in all directions, cancelling out all the magnetic fields, because the curls around the direction of equal energy flow in each opposing direction cancels the other opposing magnetic curl, while the electric fields which are radial scalars add up. Hence, as they conclude, "a capacitor is a transmission line", ie, all apparently static matter is actually oscillating electromagnetic energy, always in 300,000 km/s motion.

This "capacitor is a transmission line" conclusion directly contradicts Maxwell, Article 610:
"One of the chief peculiarities of this treatise is the doctrine which asserts, that the true electric current, I, that on which the electromagnetic phenomena depend, is not the same thing as i, the current of conduction
,

http://www.wbabin.net/physics/cook.htm

or this:

"Maxwell's constant had been almost forgotten and the velocity of Light was firmly in place as the fundamental constant. The fact that the photon resulted without mass was not questioned as absurd as it should be, but was reluctantly accepted instead as another proof that light was a wave

Why, in all this years the error has not been discovered and corrected?....

the photon has a non zero rest mass and many concepts in modern Physics will have to be reviewed, Relativity included.

The only remaining problem is to confirm experimentally the value of Maxwell's constant. The latest reference I could find for the direct determination of the ratio of the units is around 1905, when the available experimental techniques were not precise enough as to stablish a difference.

The direct measurement of the Ratio of the Units using modern technology will prove that the product ( m0 * e0 ) is different than the value of c-2 and this will make a big impact in our understanding of matter. Once we accept the photon having rest mass, the relationship between the rest mass of all known stable particles becomes evident and their structure can be established in function of a single elementary particle, the fundamental building block from what everything is made of, from atoms to the largest celestial body, including of course, all forms of life."


http://dgleahy.com/dgl/fob.htm (Note, probably this source won't help, it would be perceived as being in the Bearden credibility range)

So try this one:

The constancy of light velocity is a consequence derivable from the application of the relativity postulate to Maxwell's equations. Therefore, Lorentz and Poincaré felt no necessity for introducing the light-velocity postulate independently of the relativity postulate. On the other hand, Einstein, who had already developed the theory of light quantum, knew the inadequacy of Maxwell's electromagnetic theory in the microscopic sphere.


http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=15063878

I can probably dig up some more if you need them. Let me know.

rose
Strange travel suggestions are dancing lessons from god.
Rose
Senior Cadet
 
Posts: 297
Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 4:56 pm

Re: We Need to Talk About "Maxwell"

Postby Paul S. » Fri Jul 25, 2008 4:27 pm

OK, I've read it all... can't say I've absorbed it all but I've read it all.

There seems to be some consensus that Heaviside and Lorentz had some role in "simplifying" or "rounding off" Maxwell's original equations.

However, it also seems that Maxwell's original work has been around just as long and as well, and has not been "suppressed" by any stretch of the imagination. So it would seem hard to argue that there is really anything "missing" or "incomplete." Just... different pieces hidden under different rocks.

I'm not inclined to get really technical with all this, I just want to make the point that.... well, Mikado puts it well in each of his posts, in his signature: that "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

Chapter 50 seems like a good place to lay that particular stepping stone, i.e. by sowing some doubt about the completeness of what most practitioners have accepted as gospel.

If, indeed, such a case can be made with corroboration from other sources that don't all trace directly back to Bearden.

--PS
Paul Schatzkin
aka "The Perfesser"
"At some point we have to deal with the facts, not what we want to believe is true." -- Jack Bauer
Paul S.
Sr. Rabbit Chaser
 
Posts: 1362
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 1:11 pm
Location: Psych Ward

Re: We Need to Talk About "Maxwell"

Postby Linda Brown » Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:07 pm

You have left me all so much in the hallway, I can barely understand what you all have said here.

Thats why I hold on to my "intuition" as the thing that can contribute because my knowledge of science got really lost somewhere during all of those moves from school to school. So looking to that I do notice this statement ( Thanks Rose, I believe its from something that you posted)

""Maxwell's constant had been almost forgotten and the velocity of Light was firmly in place as the fundamental constant. The fact that the photon resulted without mass was not questioned as absurd as it should be, but was reluctantly accepted instead as another proof that light was a wave

Why, in all this years the error has not been discovered and corrected?....

the photon has a non zero rest mass and many concepts in modern Physics will have to be reviewed, Relativity included.

People keep talking about " noting the anomalies" but nobody it seems to me ever really gets around to getting things in gear and really investigating them. Maybe because it puts their credibility at risk when they start asking questions of the masters. But you see, when you are like me, so horribly technically challenged, I don't recognize these " masters of science" so its easier for me to say ....." WHAT?"

Here is an off the wall thought and really maybe needs to be somewhere else. But if you go to Kozyrev that jumps me to " intelligent aether" and then I have a question. Why would a scientist who specializes in quantum physics be interested then in the human DNA?

.I am just so thankful that you all are there to help Paul and to discuss this thread. Don't mind the kid in the hallway! I'll just speak up when I hit an oddity. Linda
Linda Brown
Resident Mystic
 
Posts: 653
Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2008 5:16 pm

Re: We Need to Talk About "Maxwell"

Postby Junglelord » Fri Nov 28, 2008 3:33 pm

Hey gang, I started the same journey over at the Thunderbolts forum a year ago.
Its something I do understand. 20 Quaternions from Maxwell, 4 vectors from Heaviside.
DUMBDOWN.

Vortex and Dielectric are only two componets.
Aether is a quantum 2 spin Rotating Magnetic Field
Tesla is the origin of Rotating Magnetic Field Technology.
If you want to cause inductive resonance, then you need the same field.
Rotating Magnetic Fields can couple to Aether for Aether is a Rotating Magnetic Field.
Aether Physics Model.

The work by Buckminster Fuller will directly link to the 20 Quaternions.
There is a lot of information out there. You need the comparative methodology to grab it all into one place.

One should investigate Faraday Inductance over Maxwells...hint, hint, hint.
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla

Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Junglelord
Space Cadet
 
Posts: 87
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2008 2:26 am


Return to Defying Gravity: The Second Draft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron