[Physics] "Real" time

Wed Nov 2 18:48:18 CET 2016

Hi Ruud,

    I think what is comes down to, is the two different conceptions of
magnetism put forward by Maxwell and Einstein. Maxwell believed that
Faraday's magnetic lines of force were real, and that it was like a vortex
loop in an ideal fluid. The Maxwellian laws of magnetism are thereby based
on fluid dynamics, and they work in predicting electromagnetic phenomena,
in fact it was through this rationalization that Maxwell discovered that
light was a transverse electromagnetic wave, See:
http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Maxwell/MaxwellOnPhysicallines.pdf
    However, if space is filled with this ideal fluid, and magnetic lines
of force are real vortices in this fluid, then it must be stationary in a
single absolute frame of reference (i.e. the Lorentz ether). Magnetic lines
of force would be exactly like the vortex filaments of a superfluid.
However, if Einstein's proposition were correct, then magnetic phenomena
would arise only by the relative motion of observers, there would be no
such thing as a magnetic field existing in an absolute frame of reference.
This is why the Faraday Paradox experiments are important, because they
suggest that magnetic induction can occur without the counter-movement of
observers, but rather, simply by rotation with respect to an absolute frame
of reference. If you find this difficult to believe, then you should check
out Tonomura's excellent video on visualizing magnetic lines of force using
electron micrography:

http://vega.org.uk/video/programme/66

He actually was able to visualize bundles of magnetic lines moving on the
surface of superconductors, and doing amazing things like annihilating each
other! It is a fascinating watch. It is hard not to see magnetic lines as
real, physical entities, after watching this!

My short article on it:
http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Lorentz/Lorentzforce.html

Doug

On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 1:07 AM, Ruud Loeffen <rmmloeffen at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello Doug.
>
> What intriges me is that you presume: *Again, it brings us back to the
> idea that an "absolute frame of reference" has a physical meaning.*
> Can you explain how/why your experiments  relate to an absolute frame of
> reference. Could you detect or deduce some parameters about that reference
> frame? That could be of high importance for understanding basic physic
> phenomena (as gravitation).
>
> Best regards.
>
> Ruud Loeffen.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 2:16 AM, Doug Marett <dm88dm at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi James - glad you liked it - I did try running it inside a big
>> Helmholtz coil to cancel out the magnetic field at one point, and it didn't
>> appear to make a difference, probably because the Earth's magnetic field
>> was about 160x smaller than the solenoid field I was using. But perhaps it
>> would behave differently at higher altitudes, I think it would have to be
>> made more sensitive for that because right now the voltages generated are
>> tiny.
>>
>> thanks for watching - Doug
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 12:45 PM, James Rose <integrity at prodigy.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Doug,
>>>
>>> Fascinating experiments.  Question:  Have you -- or, Can you -- run the
>>> same experiments at different -altitudes-, to see if there is a difference
>>> in the values generated?
>>>
>>> I have a suspicion you will generate different values - because - you
>>> are generating effects of interaction with the earth's magnetic field, and
>>> the values generated will be different at alternative altitudes.  It would
>>> be fascinating to propose and run miniaturized sample runs inside the ISS,
>>> International Space Station as well.   Then aboard a 'stationary orbit"
>>> satellite, versus on the moon, versus at Legrange points.     (these later
>>> locations being for the future to run, :-)  )
>>>
>>> Jamie Rose
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>> *From:* Doug Marett <dm88dm at gmail.com>
>>> *To:* General Physics and Natural Philosophy discussion list <
>>> physics at tuks.nl>
>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 1, 2016 9:29 AM
>>> *Subject:* Re: [Physics] "Real" time
>>>
>>> Thanks Ruud!
>>>
>>>     What is so interesting to me about it is that the research suggests
>>> that magnetic induction can occur without even the counter-movement of a
>>> magnet and a conductor, or even a changing magnetic field. Rather, all that
>>> is necessary is the rotation of a magnet/conductor together with respect to
>>> "the fixed stars". Again, it brings us back to the idea that an "absolute
>>> frame of reference" has a physical meaning.
>>>
>>> Doug
>>>
>>> On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 8:59 AM, Ruud Loeffen <rmmloeffen at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Doug.
>>>
>>> Congratulations to you. I hope you will gain recognition for your work.
>>> It's pretty difficult for me to understand, but it seems to me accurate and
>>> convincing. Good luck! Thumps up!👍
>>>
>>> Ruud Loeffen
>>>
>>> On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 9:22 PM, Doug Marett <dm88dm at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Everyone,
>>>
>>>     Just wanted to share with you my latest research testing one of
>>> Einstein's ideas. This is the explanation of the Faraday Paradox / unipolar
>>> dynamo.
>>>  The just released Youtube video is here:
>>>
>>> https://youtu.be/c5wgmTGi5pU
>>>
>>> Seems that the evidence is in and there are some very strange things
>>> happening with magnetic induction! Check it out!
>>>
>>> The part 1 of the video is here, for context: https://www.youtube.com/watch?
>>> v=gduYoT9sMaE <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gduYoT9sMaE>
>>>
>>> Doug
>>>
>>> On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 5:15 PM, Ilja Schmelzer <
>>> ilja.schmelzer at googlemail.com > wrote:
>>>
>>> 2016-10-30 19:30 GMT+01:00, Thomas Goodey <thomas at flyingkettle.com>:
>>> > The above statements are not expressed in space-time terms.
>>>
>>> Indeed.  But this does not make them wrong.  I do not doubt that they
>>> can be translated into spacetime language, but see no advantage from
>>> this.  In fact, they become weaker in this way.
>>>
>>> >> Another important
>>> >> class is related with causality:  If event A has causally
>>> >> influenced event B, then when A has happened before B has
>>> >> happened.
>>>
>>> > This statement is also subject to the same clarification as
>>> > I have given above.
>>>
>>> With statements about causality the weakening becomes even more
>>> obvious.  As far as a translation of causal statements into spacetime
>>> language is possible at all, it has to be formulated in a language,
>>> which does not lead into contradictions if applied to solutions with
>>> causal loops, like the Goedel universe.
>>>
>>> So I doubt that "clarification" is the appropriate word here.
>>>
>>> ______________________________ _________________
>>> Physics mailing list
>>> Physics at tuks.nl
>>> http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/ma ilman/listinfo/physics
>>> <http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ______________________________ _________________
>>> Physics mailing list
>>> Physics at tuks.nl
>>> http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/ma ilman/listinfo/physics
>>> <http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> *Ruud Loeffen*
>>> Paardestraat32
>>> 6131HC Sittard
>>> http://www.human-DNA.org <http://www.human-dna.org/>
>>>
>>> ______________________________ _________________
>>> Physics mailing list
>>> Physics at tuks.nl
>>> http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/ mailman/listinfo/physics
>>> <http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Physics mailing list
>>> Physics at tuks.nl
>>> http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Physics mailing list
>>> Physics at tuks.nl
>>> http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Physics mailing list
>> Physics at tuks.nl
>> http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> *Ruud Loeffen*
> Paardestraat32
> 6131HC Sittard
> http://www.human-DNA.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> Physics mailing list
> Physics at tuks.nl
> http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.tuks.nl/pipermail/physics/attachments/20161102/9df8d8f7/attachment.html>