[Physics] Do longitudinal FTL "Tesla" waves exist and, if yes, how should they be modelled?
mikelawr at freenetname.co.uk
mikelawr at freenetname.co.uk
Sat May 9 01:28:24 CEST 2020
Arend,
I'm afraid you still don't quite get dimensionalities. You cannot change
them. They are what they are for each parameter. If you 'create' a new
parameter, you will find that it will have a dimensionality compounded
of those that we already know. And you can't arbitrarily define an
existing parameter as having a different dimensionality because the
actual values that will be observed will not be correct for its supposed
dimensionality. As I said, all the Planck values of all the parameters
are set by their dimensionalities (see the paper I attached previously)
and all the equations that use those parameters are consistent. Which is
why when you use an equation that has the same total dimensionality on
both sides, the mathematics and observations will be consistent and will
represent a law of nature.
Your attempt is to redefine charge. But you can't. It is one of the only
three fundamental properties of nature (mass, charge and volume).
Everything else is derived from motions of, relationships between,
these.
And if you effectively average a particulate nature into a flow, you
will not be looking at the most fundamental level and so will exclude a
comprehensive explanation for your observations.
Cheers
Mike
On 2020-05-08 20:02, Arend Lammertink wrote:
> Hi Mike,
>
> On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 4:08 PM <mikelawr at freenetname.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> Arend,
>>
>> Once again your comments are extensive, but miss the point.
>>
>
> I'm afraid the extensiveness comes with having an autistic mind...
>
> It seems to me you're also missing the point I'm trying to make,
> namely that the whole idea is to shift the dimensionalities of the
> electromagnetic domain such that they match the fluid dynamics domain.
>
>> I am not the one arguing with you over Maxwell. As long as the
>> equations
>> you use have the dimensionalities correct, then there is a chance they
>> may work. What I mean by dimensionalities, I have explained before,
>> but
>> will do so again for you.
>>
>> Dimensionalities are the properties which all parameters have.
>> Provided
>> that when you have an equation both sides of it have the same
>> dimensionalities, you will have a law of nature. It may not relate to
>> a
>> specific system that you try to impose it on, but it will for some
>> system.
>
> Agree to that.
>
> But what if you want to add a new "law of nature" that merely involves
> shifting the dimensionalities c.q. units of measurement of a number of
> parameters?
>
> So, besides the question of whether or not Maxwell's equations are
> correct, we have this shift in dimensionalities, which is unrelated to
> the question of wether or not the equations within Maxwell are
> correct.
>
>>
>> Examples of the laws it work on are whatever law you wish to consider.
>>
>> V=iR [Y^6 = Y^4 x Y^2]
>> F=Ma [Y^8 = Y^1 x Y^7]
>> ∇.ξ=σ/ε [Y^3 x Y^9 = Y^8/Y^-4]
>> ∇xξ=dB/dT [Y^3 x Y^9 = Y^7 /Y^-5]
>> ∇xB=u(J+ε dξ/dT) [Y^3 x Y^7 = Y^0 (Y^10 + Y^-4 x
>> Y^9/Y^-5)]
>> F=qξ+qvB [Y^8 = Y^-1 x Y^9 + Y^-1 x Y^2
>> x Y^7]
>>
>> I am not sure that the following parameter table will get through the
>> email system but I have included it:
>>
>> Parameter Symbol Dimensionality
>> Gravitational Constant G Y^0
>> Permeability u Y^0
>> Boltzmann’s Constant k_B Y^0
>> Angular Momentum h Y^0
>> Mass m Y^1
>> Magnetic Flux ϕ Y^1
>> Charge-mass qc Y^1
>> Velocity v Y^2
>> Resistance R Y^2
>> Momentum mv Y^3
>> Current i Y^4
>> Action m/L Y^4
>> Angular Frequency w Y^5
>> Frequency f Y^5
>> Energy E Y^5
>> Temperature K Y^5
>> Potential Difference ∨ Y^6
>> Acceleration a Y^7
>> Magnetic Inductance B Y^7
>> Magnetic Field H Y^7
>> Force F Y^8
>> Electric Field ξ Y^9
>> Viscosity η Y^9
>> Mass Density ρ Y^10
>> Current Density J Y^10
>> Power P Y^10
>> Pressure p Y^14
>> Energy Density ϵ Y^14
>> Charge q Y^-1
>> Conductance ς Y^-2
>> Moment mL Y^-2
>> Distance L Y^-3
>> Inductance L Y^-3
>> Permittivity ε Y^-4
>> Time T Y^-5
>> Area A Y^-6
>> Volume V Y^-9
>> Vector potential (usually ‘A’) Ш Y^4
>> Gradient operator (del) ∇ Y^3
>> Displacement Field D Y^5
>> Electric charge density σ Y^8
>> Electric Potential ∀ Y^6
>>
>> The point is that it is the dimensionality of the parameters that
>> produces a law of nature. If your set of dimensionalities is wrong,
>> then
>> the equation is not correct. I gave the example of your
>>
>> f=q/m
>>
>> which in dimensionality terms says Y^5 = Y^-1 / Y^1 which is wrong.
>
> Yes, at first glance it is, but one can also see that by normal
> dimensional analysis:
>
> [Hz] = [C] / [kg]
>
> Is obviously wrong when considered from the existing dimensionalities.
> However, this equation is used to _define_ new dimensionalities,
> namely the one for charge q, which becomes:
>
> [C] = [kg/s].
>
> So, from your system, the new dimensionality for charge would become
> Y^6 (if I understand your system correctly), and we would get:
>
> Y^5 = Y^6 / Y^1 instead of what it was before: Y^5 = Y^-1 / Y^1
>
> So, the point is that this equation becomes correct because we use it
> to derive a *new* dimensonality for charge q!
>
> Bear in mind that the character of what "charge" is changes
> significantly by this action. Previously, it was considered as the
> "source" for the electric and magnetic fields that pretty much
> happened to also be a "property" of "charged" particles but could also
> exist in vacuum in the shape of "displacement" and now it is an
> exclusive property of "charged" particles which results in the
> emission of a longitudinal wave that is responsible for causing the
> effects previously attributed to the electric field as such.
>
> This has as consequence that other dimensionalities also change. [E]
> and [B] would now be in [m/s] and would thus get a dimensionality of
> Y^2, while the vector potential [A] and scalar potential Phi would
> both be in [m^2/s] and would thus get a dimensionality of Y^2/Y^3
> (divide by gradient operator in [/m]) = Y^-1 (if I understand the
> gist of your system correctly), and so on and so forth.
>
> In other words: the equation shown is used to _define_ new
> dimensionalities for the electromagnetic domain, which causes all
> related dimensionalities to shift.
>
>
>> It
>> is ok to use any size of m or q ( or in my example the adjusted-
>> Planck
>> sizes M and Q) but the actual numbers only work correctly in either
>> fractions of the Planck parameter or double-adjusted Planck units.
>>
>> So we can have M/Q = c [Y^1/Y^-1 = Y^2] or MQ= h [Y^1 x Y^-1 = Y^0).
>> A new law can be uncovered, which is relevant here because all the
>> meons
>> I talk about are the same size and volume. So we can have
>>
>> Volume x Viscosity = h = V x η
>>
>> Which means that all meons are affected equally by the background
>> viscosity, therefore all composites made from meons are so treated.
>>
>> What the dimensionality actually represents is open to you to
>> consider.
>> I think it represents how many different directions in some vector
>> space
>> that a parameter possesses and how large along those directions it
>> acts.
>> The maximum of each parameter is always its adjusted-Planck value and
>> in
>> double-adjusted Planck units the actual values are all consistent
>> across
>> all parameters.
>>
>> So these parameters do not ‘float’ as you suggest, but are actually
>> observable.
>
> What I meant by "floating" is that the dimensionalities within the
> electrodynamic domain are not (directly) related to for example the
> fluid dynamic domain. With the new dimensionalities, both domains are
> the same in terms of dimensionalities, but differ in the values for
> the parameters.
>
>> To take two examples, the von Klitzing constant Rk is equal
>> to the resistance R in the above table at its q-related Planck value
>> (rather than the Q-related Planck value) and the Josephson constant Kj
>> is equal to 2/ ϕ where phi is also at its q-related Planck value. I
>> have
>> attached an old paper which explains this in detail with numbers for
>> both the q and Q Planck values.
>>
>> So being dimensionally correct is the foundation for any equations you
>> may wish to use. Then you need to ask what your equations are acting
>> on
>> (and are they the right ones).
>
> Apart from the equation that defines the new dimensionality, all the
> equations within the electromagnetic domain should stay dimensionally
> correct, provided you use the "shifted" dimensionalities consistently,
> rather than trying to mix the old and new dimensionalities.
>
>
>>
>> You talk about a fluid ether as if it were without component parts and
>> you can use Maxwell on it.
>
> Yes, this is because of the use of the continuum mechanics
> approximation, which has a lower limit with respect to scale which can
> be estimated by the Knudson number. So, some kind of constituents are
> implied to exist, but fall outside the scope of the model.
>
>> I also have an aether, but mine is composed
>> of particles in many forms – although they all stem from just the one
>> type of particle/anti-particle. So mine are nothing (when fully
>> merged),
>> a background when partially merged (rotating, vibrating, spinning,
>> translating), chains and loops. At the next level are stacks of loops,
>> atoms, molecules, planets, stars and black holes. At each level there
>> are equations describing their motion. Admittedly I use Newtonian/SM
>> equations for the larger bodies but GR for the smallest level.
>>
>> To transmit the forces and energies between and on the various bodies,
>> my aether provides the sources of action. Magnetic field lines,
>> gravitational slopes, frame dragging etc are transmitted by chains
>> made
>> from the background which attach to meons on loops or form within the
>> background. The electromagnetic force is not a force transmitted by
>> photons, but by the background. The photons are doing a different job-
>> topping up the lost frequency (energy) of loops as they move, and
>> themselves lose energy as they move (red shift).
>>
>> What you need is to describe your system and then use the appropriate
>> equations on it, rather than force equations on an undescribed system.
>
> With respect to dimensionalities, the equations are already there,
> namely those by Maxwell and those within the fluid dynamics domain.
> All we do with the dimensionality shift is to align the
> dimensionalities within Maxwell with those within fluid dynamics, so
> both domains become dimensionally the same. In other words: all we
> really do is place the two domains within the same context and this is
> accomplished by shifting the dimensionalities of the electrodynamic
> domain such that they match the fluid dynamics domain. And the f=q/m
> is simply the equation that defines the dimensionality shift.
>
> Regards,
>
> Arend.
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2020-05-08 09:33, Arend Lammertink wrote:
>> > Hi Mike,
>> >
>> > On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 7:31 PM <mikelawr at freenetname.co.uk> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Thanks for your comments, they are always detailed. If I can critique
>> >> a
>> >> couple of points.
>> >>
>> >> Frequency is Y^5 dimensionally, so q (charge)/m (mass) is Y^-1/Y^1 =
>> >> Y^2. So the two are not dimensionally equal. Actually M/Q = c when in
>> >> Planck units (actually adjusted Planck units as mentioned below).
>> >
>> > I don't understand what you mean by this. What does Y represent?
>> >
>> > Either way, the idea is that the units of measurement for charge and
>> > current and the associated units of measurement that are derived from
>> > these within the electromagnetic domain have _only_ been defined in
>> > relation to one another, but not "fundamentally". Figuratively
>> > speaking, they are "floating" up in the air with no connection to
>> > "ground".
>> >
>> > So, Maxwell's equations form a phenomenological model that describes
>> > the electromagnetic domain well, except Tesla's longitudinal wave, but
>> > because all the dimensions within the model are essentially derived
>> > from the dimension of "charge", the Coulomb, we can "ground" this
>> > "floating" model if we can find a meaningful answer to the question:
>> >
>> > What IS charge?
>> >
>> > Paul Stowe proposed the idea that "charge" actually is a longitudinal
>> > (compression/decompression) oscillation of "charged particles" at a
>> > characteristic frequency f given by the mass/charge ratio of such a
>> > particle, like the electron:
>> >
>> > f = q/m
>> >
>> > For the electron, this works out to a frequency of about 175 GHz:
>> >
>> >>>> q=1.6021766e-19
>> >>>> m=9.1093837e-31
>> >>>> print q/m
>> > 1.75881997374e+11
>> >>>> print (q/m)/1000000000
>> > 175.881997374
>> >
>> > From this, we can compute the total amount of energy of the electron
>> > along:
>> >
>> > E = h f = h q/m
>> >
>> > The kinetic energy equation is E = (1/2)mv^2 and the molecular thermal
>> > energy equation is E = (3/2)kT thus we can also write:
>> >
>> > (1/2)mv^2 = (3/2)kT, so
>> >
>> > mv^2 = 3kT
>> >
>> > with v = c then mc^2 = 3kT = hf
>> >
>> > So, we can write:
>> >
>> > E = h q/m = 3kT
>> >
>> > So:
>> >
>> > T = (h q)/(3 k m)
>> >
>> > For the electron, this works out to about 2.8 K:
>> >
>> >>>> m=9.1093837e-31
>> >>>> q=1.6021766e-19
>> >>>> k=1.380649e-23
>> >>>> h=6.62607015e-34
>> >>>> print (h*q)/(3*k*m)
>> > 2.81366819209
>> >
>> > It is rather interesting to compare these numbers with:
>> >
>> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background#Microwave_background_radiation_predictions_and_measurements
>> > "The CMB has a thermal black body spectrum at a temperature of
>> > 2.72548±0.00057 K.[4] The spectral radiance dEν/dν peaks at 160.23
>> > GHz, in the microwave range of frequencies, corresponding to a photon
>> > energy of about 6.626 ⋅ 10−4 eV."
>> >
>> > Red shift at play here?
>> >
>> >
>> > But to the point. As shown, Stowe's proposal provides a possible link
>> > to the observed CMB radiation and the characteristic frequency of the
>> > electron we calculated along f = q/m.
>> >
>> > From this equation, we can also work out a new unit of measurement for
>> > "charge", by rewriting to:
>> >
>> > q = f * m,
>> >
>> > we get:
>> >
>> > [C] = [/s] * [kg] = [kg/s].
>> >
>> >
>> > From this, we can also derive new "grounded" units of measurement for
>> > the E field, which is defined by:
>> >
>> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_field#Definition
>> >
>> > E = 1/(4 pi eps_o) q / (x1 - x0)^2
>> >
>> > Now eps_0 has a unit of measurement in [C^2 / m^2 N], which would
>> > become: [ kg^2/s^2 / m [kg m / s^2] ] = [ kg / m^3 ]
>> >
>> > So, for E we would obtain a unit of measurement in [ [m^3 / kg] *
>> > [kg/s] / [m^2] ] = [m/s]
>> >
>> > This matches to the velocity field used in fluid dynamics, which is
>> > also in [m/s], which is the same for both the [E] and [B] components.
>> >
>> > Since current is defined along:
>> >
>> > J = curl B,
>> >
>> > We obtain a new "grounded" unit of measurement for current in [/s] or
>> > [Hz], because the curl operator has a unit of measurement in per meter
>> > [/m].
>> >
>> > Now because the Ampere is defined as Coulombs per second [C/s], all we
>> > need to do in order to connect these new "grounded" units of
>> > measurement to the SI ones is multiply current in [/s] by a single
>> > constant, elemental charge, and the whole thing fits like a glove.
>> >
>> > To sum this up:
>> >
>> > The proposal that charge actually IS a harmonic oscillation of a
>> > charge particle with a frequency given by f=q/m leads to a completely
>> > new "grounded" interpretation of the units of measurment involved
>> > within the electromagnetic domain. The Coulomb is now no longer a
>> > "floating" phenomenological quantity but is "grounded" by equating:
>> >
>> > 1 C = 1 kg / 1 s
>> >
>> > So, what we have established this way is that the Coulomb is now
>> > expressed in terms of the two fundamental quantities kilograms (mass)
>> > and seconds (time) and we can map all units of measurement within the
>> > electrodynamic domain to the three fundamental units of measurement:
>> > mass [kg], time [s] and length [m].
>> >
>> > From this, we can conclude that Maxwell's equations really do describe
>> > a fluid dynamics model and compare his math to the fundamental theorem
>> > of vector calculus as expressed in the LaPlace operator / equation:
>> >
>> > ∇²𝐅= ∇(∇·𝐅) - ∇×(∇×𝐅) = 0,
>> >
>> > by writing out the terms and see that this way four vector fields are
>> > uniquely defined: the two fields of force [E], [B] and the two
>> > potential fields [A] and Phi, and we see Maxwell a/o breaks the
>> > symmetry defined like this by writing:
>> >
>> > curl E = -dB/dt
>> >
>> > And thus we can conclude something is seriously wrong with Maxwell's
>> > equations, which form the foundation for all of modern physics.
>> >
>> > Most notably, within the definition for the fields along LaPlace /
>> > Helmholtz, both the vector potential [A] as well as the scalar
>> > potential [Phi] are uniquely defined and therefore "gauge freedom" is
>> > gone and therewith also the "redundant degrees of freedom" needed
>> > within the model in order to be able to apply "gauge fixing":
>> >
>> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauge_fixing
>> > "In the physics of gauge theories, gauge fixing (also called choosing
>> > a gauge) denotes a mathematical procedure for coping with redundant
>> > degrees of freedom in field variables. [...] Judicious gauge fixing
>> > can simplify calculations immensely, but becomes progressively harder
>> > as the physical model becomes more realistic; its application to
>> > quantum field theory is fraught with complications related to
>> > renormalization, especially when the computation is continued to
>> > higher orders."
>> >
>> > Needless to say, this little exercise in "Maxwell fixing" has a
>> > profound impact on pretty much all of modern physics.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Secondly, you treat q as a fundamental size of parameter.
>> >
>> > Actually, we treat q as the result of a harmonic oscillation of a
>> > "charged particle", whereby the fundamental parameters are mass [kg]
>> > and time [s].
>> >
>> >> It is not. It
>> >> is sqrt(alpha/2 pi) times the actual fundamental charge
>> >> adjusted-Planck
>> >> size Q. If Planck mass M = sqrt (hc/G) in SI then M = Qc using the
>> >> adjusted-Planck mass M.
>> >>
>> >> (There is a factor of sqrt(10^-7) that SI is misaligned by between E/M
>> >> and mechanical sizes as you could also see between the two old E/M
>> >> units
>> >> before SI. This leads to adjusted-Planck units).
>> >>
>> >> So you need to start with particles that have the largest size
>> >> possible
>> >> and understand why what we observe is smaller.
>> >
>> > Size plays no role in our new "grounded" definition for charge, all
>> > that matters is the charge/mass ratio of a given "charged" particle.
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> For q, the answer is that it relates to the spinning of the
>> >> fundamental
>> >> particles/anti-particles as they unmerge – so all these (which I call
>> >> ‘meons’) have the same spin-enabled charge size of one-sixth q. (this
>> >> is not the same spin as a loop, which is ½ h, and I normally call that
>> >> meon property ‘twist’)
>> >
>> > Spinning implies rotation, which is fundamentally described by the
>> > "transverse" part of the Helmholtz decomposition defined within the
>> > LaPlace operator, which is the part described by the magnetic field
>> > [B].
>> >
>> > The longitudinal part of the Helmholtz decomposition is described by
>> > the electric field [E]. Relations between these two follow from the
>> > physics of the (ring) vortex.
>> >
>> > The most simple example of how to interpret this, is to consider the
>> > *irrotational* vortex, which also describes the physics of the
>> > magnetic field from a permanent magnet:
>> >
>> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vortex#Irrotational_vortices
>> > "For an irrotational vortex, the circulation is zero along any closed
>> > contour that does not enclose the vortex axis; and has a fixed value,
>> > Γ, for any contour that does enclose the axis once. [...] However, the
>> > ideal irrotational vortex flow is not physically realizable, since it
>> > would imply that the particle speed (and hence the force needed to
>> > keep particles in their circular paths) would grow without bound as
>> > one approaches the vortex axis. Indeed, in real vortices there is
>> > always a core region surrounding the axis where the particle velocity
>> > stops increasing and then decreases to zero as r goes to zero. Within
>> > that region, the flow is no longer irrotational: the vorticity
>> > becomes non-zero, with direction roughly parallel to the vortex axis."
>> >
>> > In the ideal case, vortices can be described by assuming the medium to
>> > be incompressible and in that case, no density differential can exist
>> > within the medium and therefore no force can exist to balance the
>> > centripedal force by means of a density differential aka pressure
>> > differential aka scalar potential differential.
>> >
>> > In practice, all media are compressible and therefore in practice a
>> > scalar potential is required in order to keep the vortex balanced,
>> > which means there is an electric field component also, but an ideal
>> > magnetic field has no relation whatsoever with an ideal electric
>> > field. In practice, the two always meet in one way or the other, but
>> > that is a result of the vortex physics involved whenever one has a
>> > magnetic "field".
>> >
>> > The only exception is Tesla's FTL longitudinal wave, which has no
>> > magnetic component and therefore no rotation and therefore no vortex
>> > physics.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> If there are three pairs of meons (a pair is a positive and a
>> >> negative)
>> >> in a loop, then we get threefold symmetry and the only total charges
>> >> possible for these loops is +/- 1, 2/3, 1/3 and zero. These are our
>> >> quarks and leptons.
>> >
>> > If we consider particles to consist of a number of vortex rings and
>> > consider charge to be caused by a longitudinal oscillation and this
>> > oscillating force is one and the same as the balancing force needed in
>> > practice to balance the rotational centripedal force within a vortex
>> > ring, things become analyzable. A number of eigenvalues should be
>> > obtainable from the analysis of the torroidal vortex ring topology,
>> > where you have a big radius R and a small radius r, which each offer
>> > one degree of freedom with respect to the direction of circulation.
>> >
>> > Stowe played with this in eq. 13-15 and also relates this to alpha:
>> > https://vixra.org/pdf/1310.0237v1.pdf
>> >
>> > However, the factor sqrt(3) he uses is wrong as far as I can tell. It
>> > should be pi/2, BUT that difference depends on what you consider to be
>> > a "transverse" wave. The sqrt(3) factor applies for "real" transverse
>> > waves as in solids and relates to the Poisson ratio, while the pi/2
>> > applies for "transverse" "water" waves, such as the near field around
>> > an antenna, so YMMV:
>> >
>> > https://www.acs.psu.edu/drussell/Demos/waves/wavemotion.html
>> >
>> > Now if you have two (or more) of these vortex rings sticked together,
>> > it is conceivable that a certain amount of momentum is cyclicly
>> > exchanged between the two rings, and you get an oscillation going
>> > back/forth between the two rings.
>> >
>> > So you would have this picture:
>> >
>> > http://www.tuks.nl/img/dualtorus.gif
>> >
>> > And then the upper ring "grows" while the lower "shrinks" and vice
>> > versa.
>> >
>> > Could be a very interesting exercise to work this all out. :)
>> >
>> >>
>> >> For m, the masses that we observe are due to the rotational
>> >> frequencies
>> >> of the loops – not the meons. These sizes are locked in by inflation
>> >> along the three physical axes to give three families of fermions.
>> >>
>> >> The underlying point is that it is the motion of these meons in loops
>> >> and the loops themselves that produce E and B as they move.
>> >> (Admittedly
>> >> there is an E field between a positive and a negative meon even when
>> >> stationary – but none ever are stationary once in chains and loops.)
>> >
>> > A very important detail follows from our new "grounded" definition of
>> > what charge is: there is no actual polarization associated with
>> > charge. The polarization is because of the degrees of freedom with
>> > respect to the rotational axis and is therefore actually due to
>> > magnetics and NOT because of "charge". This has profound consequences
>> > for the analysis of "loops" aka "vortex rings".
>> >
>> >> The colour force is due to all loops having the same large sized
>> >> meons,
>> >> so all loops can exist in stacks, but is specifically threefold
>> >> symmetric because of the asymmetry of the q/6 charge + and - numbers
>> >> in
>> >> the quarks. A stack has to have balancing asymmetry in order to be
>> >> stable. The weak force is not a force but simple replacement of a
>> >> muon
>> >> in a neutron stack of loops by an incoming appropriately energetic
>> >> neutrino to form a proton.
>> >
>> > The weak and strong forces are illusions, they do not really exist.
>> >
>> > They have been invented in order to balance the "gravitational"
>> > attraction that is assumed to cause an attractive force between two
>> > masses. In reality, the macroscopic / cosmic gravitational force is
>> > caused by electro"static" flux along a LeSagian type pushing /
>> > shadowing gravity principle, so one can simply delete these three
>> > forces from the particle model and use vortex physics rather than
>> > having to deal with imaginary forces that complicate things to an
>> > unmanageable level, but do not really exist.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> So from only one size of particle/anti-particle – the meons - forming
>> >> only one type of composite structure – the loops – can be built all
>> >> the
>> >> fermions we observe, which themselves stack to form all the
>> >> nucleons/bosons that we see. It is the simplest possible system -
>> >> which
>> >> all move to produce E and B fields, which you term as fundamental.
>> >
>> > It seems to me the complexity of having to work with four sets of
>> > fields rather than one can be significantly reduced in order to obtain
>> > an even simpler system. Bear in mind that the details of how the
>> > electro"static" force actually works have not been properly described
>> > because of Maxwell, ant that has enormous consequences on every level
>> > of physics' models.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> As I have said before, and you have agreed, it is necessary to start
>> >> with a system on which to build towards what is observed. If it
>> >> doesn’t
>> >> look like what we see, then it is wrong.
>> >
>> > Yep.
>> >
>> >> Just discussing what equations
>> >> should or shouldn’t look like is a second order effect, where one or
>> >> other producing better approximations to observation will decide the
>> >> outcome.
>> >
>> > The discussion about whether or not Maxwell's equations are correct is
>> > a discussion about whether or not the foundation of pretty much all of
>> > modern physics' models is correct. Find a problem with Maxwell and one
>> > can pretty much start from scratch.
>> >
>> > The way I see it, a revision of Maxwell's equations is required in
>> > order to correct the errors he made. He broke the "fundamental theorem
>> > of vector calculus", which is called "fundamental" for a reason. It
>> > is this single issue that _defines_ the difference between a complex
>> > multitude of fields, "gauge fixes" and what have you, and a simple
>> > "Theory of Everything" built upon one simple radical idea:
>> >
>> > The aether behaves like a fluid and should therefore be described as
>> > such.
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> >
>> > Arend.
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Cheers
>> >> Mike
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On 2020-05-07 15:07, Arend Lammertink wrote:
>> >> > Hi Mike,
>> >> >
>> >> > On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 2:24 PM <mikelawr at freenetname.co.uk> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You continue to dance around whether euations are fundamentalor not.
>> >> >> You
>> >> >> need something on which to base your equations and see whether they
>> >> >> correspond to observation.
>> >> >
>> >> > The basic idea is that the aether behaves like a fluid and should
>> >> > therefore be described as such. The medium is is characterized by a
>> >> > permittivity 𝞮 of 8.854 pF/m, a permeability 𝞵 of 4𝞹 x 10^-7 H/m
>> >> > and a characteristic impedance of 377 𝞨. This matches to the
>> >> > characteristics of a fluid, hence the idea of the existence of a
>> >> > physical aether and to consider that as the base for our equations.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >> If I may make a suggestion??
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Please look at the foundation particle of E/M - the photon. If you
>> >> >> accept (for now) that it is composed of two loops that rotate as they
>> >> >> travel at light speed.
>> >> >
>> >> > Agree with that, this is why I keep on pointing to this picture:
>> >> >
>> >> > http://www.tuks.nl/img/dualtorus.gif
>> >> >
>> >> > So, what you call "loops" I call a "ring vortex", which I consider the
>> >> > basic structure for "the quanta", but I'm not sure if the electron
>> >> > should have one or two of these loops as in the picture. For all I
>> >> > know, it might just as well be a single "loop".
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >> Those loops are electron and positron whose size
>> >> >> is the same and corresponds to the frequency of the photon (they will
>> >> >> revert to normal size when the photon breaks apart).
>> >> >
>> >> > Don't know if these would be single loops or dual loops as in the
>> >> > picture, but their frequency is given by their charge/mass ratio, as
>> >> > proposed by Stowe:
>> >> >
>> >> > f = q/m
>> >> >
>> >> > This formula finally explains what "charge" is, a
>> >> > compression/decompression oscillation, it also leads to a single
>> >> > constant by which we can map Maxwell's equations onto the fluid
>> >> > dynamic domain and see that they are really the same thing, except for
>> >> > the inclusion of Faraday's law into Maxwell's model.
>> >> >
>> >> > The discussion is essentially about the question of whether or not it
>> >> > was a mistake to include Faraday's law into the model the way Maxwell
>> >> > did, whereby my position is that it was a mistake, because that is
>> >> > what breaks the relations between the magnetic and the electric field
>> >> > as given by the elemental LaPlace / Helmholtz math.
>> >> >
>> >> > If this issue can be resolved satisfactory, we are left with a model
>> >> > whereby the new "Maxwell" equations map for the full 100% to a fluid
>> >> > dynamics model, which has as big advantage that all the knowledge we
>> >> > have about the fluid dynamics domain can then be applied within the
>> >> > aether model, most notable the theory around vortices, which is what
>> >> > the magnetic field would then represent unambiguously.
>> >> >
>> >> >> The three pairs of
>> >> >> particle/antiparticle in each loop are almost completely merged with
>> >> >> their opposite numbers in the other loop. So what you have is six
>> >> >> almost
>> >> >> completely merged zero mass black holes rotating around a central
>> >> >> point
>> >> >> as they travel perpendicular to the plane of the loops at c. There is
>> >> >> an
>> >> >> electric field between one of the merged zmbhs across the loop towards
>> >> >> the only zmbh that is not completly merged. This electric field is
>> >> >> rotating at the loop rotation rate and generates a magnetic field.
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Using your equations, do you get the accepted form of E and B field
>> >> >> for
>> >> >> a photon? To me that is the most basic question - use the physical
>> >> >> system to pin the equations on. Without a physical system you have
>> >> >> nothing to compare the outcome against.
>> >> >
>> >> > I haven't gotten to the point to actually derive equations, but the
>> >> > idea is that fluid dynamics equations match for the full 100%, except
>> >> > for some constant conversion factors, which can all be derived from
>> >> > the conversion factor for the Ampere. The fields are defined by
>> >> > writing out the terms in the LaPlace operator / equation like this:
>> >> >
>> >> > ∇²𝐅= ∇(∇·𝐅) - ∇×(∇×𝐅) = 0
>> >> >
>> >> > The terms in this identity can be written out as follows and thus we
>> >> > define our fields:
>> >> >
>> >> > 𝐀=∇×𝐅
>> >> > Φ= ∇⋅𝐅
>> >> > 𝐁=∇×𝐀=∇×(∇×𝐅)
>> >> > 𝗘=−∇Φ= −∇(∇⋅𝐅)
>> >> >
>> >> > And because of vector identities, one can also write:
>> >> >
>> >> > ∇×𝗘= 0
>> >> > ∇⋅𝐁= 0
>> >> >
>> >> > Then, we have Ampere's law, which defines what a current is:
>> >> >
>> >> > J=∇×𝐁
>> >> >
>> >> > In the fluid-dynamics domain, the unit of measurement for the E and B
>> >> > fields is in meters per second [m/s], they are velocity fields.
>> >> > Because the curl operator has a dimension in per meter [/m], you get a
>> >> > unit of meaurement in [/s] or [Hz] for the equivalent of electric
>> >> > current in the fluid dynamics domain.
>> >> >
>> >> > So, when we multiply this frequency by the value of elemental charge,
>> >> > e, we obtain a unit of measurement in Amperes or Coulombs per second
>> >> > [C/s].
>> >> >
>> >> > But we can also multiply by the value for the mass of the electron and
>> >> > then we obtain a unit if measurement in [kg/s].
>> >> >
>> >> > This way, it's easy to see that mass conservation is equivalent to
>> >> > charge conservation. From here, one could take a look at this paper:
>> >> >
>> >> > https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257607311_Vortex_rings_History_and_state_of_the_art
>> >> >
>> >> > These equations can be mapped back to the electromagnetic domain. The
>> >> > velocity field [U] is what would be [E]+[B], because superposition
>> >> > holds. In the case incompressibility is assumed, as is often the case
>> >> > when dealing with vortices, one would use [B] only, because of the
>> >> > Helmholtz decomposition. The pressure as used in these equations maps
>> >> > to the scalar potential field Phi.
>> >> >
>> >> > The vorticity ω as often used in fluid dynamics is defined as:
>> >> >
>> >> > ω = ∇×U
>> >> >
>> >> > This would be equivalent to
>> >> >
>> >> > ω = ∇×B,
>> >> >
>> >> > because E is by definition irrotational.
>> >> >
>> >> > Note that this is different from the vector potential [A] as used in
>> >> > electrodynamics, but I think [A] and ω would have a 180 degree angle,
>> >> > so they appear to be closely related.
>> >> >
>> >> > Now to answer your question: given that Maxwell's equations hold for
>> >> > the "transverse" part of the Helmholtz decomposition, I would suspect
>> >> > that the exercise of working all this out would result in the same [E]
>> >> > and [B] fields, but that remains to be seen.
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> However, please note that the loop system is not as simple as looking
>> >> >> at
>> >> >> just the cross-loop field because there are others around the
>> >> >> circumference between zmbhs as well, which do not necessarily
>> >> >> completely
>> >> >> balance to zero.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I would be interested in your comments.....
>> >> >
>> >> > Well, the idea that electrodynamics can be mapped onto a single fluid
>> >> > mechanics based model in which there are only two fields [E] and [B]
>> >> > and two potential fields [A] and Phi makes things a lot less
>> >> > complicated as having to deal with multiple fields one has to take
>> >> > into account. Note that within this model, there is no gravitatinal
>> >> > attraction between masses. Gravity is considered to be an
>> >> > electrodynamic force as well that playes no role whatsoever at the
>> >> > sub-atomic scale and thus does not need to be taken into account when
>> >> > considering an atomic model.
>> >> >
>> >> > A new atomic model would then consist of a revision of the good old
>> >> > "toroidal ring model", but it would be an enormous amount of work to
>> >> > work that all out:
>> >> >
>> >> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toroidal_ring_model
>> >> >
>> >> > Best regards,
>> >> >
>> >> > Arend.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Cheers
>> >> >> Mike
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On 2020-05-07 09:49, Arend Lammertink wrote:
>> >> >> > On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 8:18 AM Ilja Schmelzer
>> >> >> > <ilja.schmelzer at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> 2020-05-06 4:35 GMT+06:30, Arend Lammertink <lamare at gmail.com>:
>> >> >> >> > On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 12:23 AM Ilja Schmelzer <ilja.schmelzer at gmail.com>
>> >> >> >> >> No, the mainstream hopes a lot to unify them, but has failed up to now.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > The alternative view is that there is only one fundamental interaction
>> >> >> >> > of Nature, namely the electromagnetic domain. From that perspective,
>> >> >> >> > it is hopeless to try and fix things before fixing the electromagnetic
>> >> >> >> > domain model aka Maxwell's equations.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Given the SM, it seems quite strange to think that the EM field is
>> >> >> >> somehow fundamental.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Given the original idea that the aether behaves like a fluid, it seems
>> >> >> > quite strange it has not been described as such.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > When one starts out by taking that idea as fundamental and one
>> >> >> > considers that therefore the fundamental model should be a fluid
>> >> >> > dynamics model describing the dynamics of the aether, one is able to
>> >> >> > scrutinize Maxwell's equations and it becomes visible that the major
>> >> >> > obstacle between a fluid-dynamics based aether model and Maxwell's is
>> >> >> > the inclusion of Faraday's law within Maxwell's model. From that
>> >> >> > perspective, it seems logical that this discrepancy can be resolved
>> >> >> > and thus that we can come to a single model which completely describes
>> >> >> > the dynamics of the aether, wherein only the four fields as defined by
>> >> >> > LaPlace / Helmholtz (E,B,A and Phi) are fundamental. While these would
>> >> >> > not be 100% equal to the EM fields as defined by Maxwell, they must by
>> >> >> > necessity match for the full 100% with observations as predicted by
>> >> >> > Maxwell, except there where there are anomalies, most notably the ones
>> >> >> > whereby faster than light signals have been observed. So, if it can be
>> >> >> > accomplished to re-arrange the equations that describe the EM fields
>> >> >> > such that the current predictions are retained, we would come to a
>> >> >> > field model that would be fundamental and would cover the whole
>> >> >> > electromagnetic domain which would therefore be considered as
>> >> >> > fundamental.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> I think this is hopeless.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > From my perspective, it is inevitable.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Once one realizes how close Maxwell's equations actually are to a
>> >> >> >> > fluid dynamics model describing motion in a fluid-like medium called
>> >> >> >> > aether and one compares Maxwell's model to LaPlace / Helmholtz math,
>> >> >> >> > it is obvious that the term dB/dt is where Maxwell's equations
>> >> >> >> > differentiate with the fundamental theorem of vector calculus.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > I don't think there can be any disagreement about this fact.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> There obviously is. As explained, you cannot get rid of the dB/dt
>> >> >> >> term without destroying the whole theory, and it follows simply that
>> >> >> >> there is no closeness.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > That wasn't the point. The point was that it's a fact one model
>> >> >> > contains the dB/dt term and the other does not.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > But you have a point, one can indeed disagree about the closeness of
>> >> >> > the two models, and it is rather interesting to note that different
>> >> >> > perspectives lead to different conclusions:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > 1) From the perspective that the aether fundamentally behaves like a
>> >> >> > fluid and should be described as such, one comes to the conlusion that
>> >> >> > Maxwell was pretty close, but deviated from this fundamental idea and
>> >> >> > therefore this disrepancy should be fixed.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > 2) From the perspective that the predictions from Maxwell's equations
>> >> >> > match extremely well with observations, obviously the aether does not
>> >> >> > really behave like a fluid. All one needs to do is consider Faraday's
>> >> >> > law to see that in the case where the fields are changing, there is a
>> >> >> > relationship that must hold, otherwise you destroy Maxwell's model and
>> >> >> > therefore you would fail to reproduce it's predictions.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Obviously, only one of these two lines of thought can be objectively
>> >> >> > true. Either the aether really behaves like a fluid, or it doesn't and
>> >> >> > eventually the score must be settled by experiment.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I think that the amount of available data around the detection of
>> >> >> > anomalous faster than light signals clearly favors my perspective, but
>> >> >> > conclusive evidence must still be obtained in order to settle the
>> >> >> > score once and for all.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > And I also don't think there can be any disagreement about what it is
>> >> >> >> > that is being described by the equation curl E = -dB/dt: Faraday's
>> >> >> >> > law.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > So, the disagreement comes down to the following questions:
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Is Faraday's law a relation that holds on a fundamental level?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> No, this is not the question. The first question is if curl E = 0 is
>> >> >> >> viable at all given Faraday's experiment.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Ok, let's put the question the other way around:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Is it absolutely necessary to have curl E = -dB/dt in order to be able
>> >> >> > to explain Faraday's experiment?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > If not, is Faradays law a law that should be included at the
>> >> >> > fundamental level in the model?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > And that is indeed the question if curl E = 0 is viable at all.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I think it is viable, because when we fundamentally describe the
>> >> >> > dynamics of the aether with fluid dynamics vector theory, we by
>> >> >> > definition include all phenomena that can be described within the FD
>> >> >> > domain within our model. Only the scale factor and speeds are
>> >> >> > different, but theoritcal considerations, such as about vortex
>> >> >> > behavior, can all be applied.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > And because we can explain Faradays experiment with vortex physics, it
>> >> >> > seems clear that curl E = 0 is viable indeed.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > It seems you have trouble accepting the idea that the magnetic field
>> >> >> > really is a vortex. So, let's consider another experiment. Place a
>> >> >> > magnet under water with some baking soda and use it as an electrode
>> >> >> > for electrolysis and see what happens:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXifaqdbLhs
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Again, don't mind the narrator, perhaps best to turn of the sound and
>> >> >> > just watch what happens.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Can one analyse this with Maxwell? Sure.
>> >> >> > Does it come up with the right predictions? Sure, no doubt about that,
>> >> >> > either.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Again, on the scale of such an experiment, there is absolutely no way
>> >> >> > to detect any trace of wave effects, so the current theory works out
>> >> >> > perfectly.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > End of discussion, you probably say.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > But the fact of the matter is, the idea that magnetic field really
>> >> >> > describes rotatinal motions of the aether sticks it's head out of the
>> >> >> > mud everywhere. The curl operator is all over the place in the theory
>> >> >> > descibing the magnetic field.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > So, is it really that far fetched to suggest magnetism is all about
>> >> >> > fluid dynamics vortex physics when we start out at the radical idea
>> >> >> > that the aether behaves like a fluid and should therefore be described
>> >> >> > as such?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > To me, that conclusion is inevitable, given the fundamental idea we
>> >> >> > started out with.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> In my ether theory, it is not a law on the fundamental level (where we
>> >> >> >> have a discrete version of all the equations). Before caring about the
>> >> >> >> fundamental level, one has to accept that there should be some limit
>> >> >> >> where Faraday's law holds. This rules out curl E = 0.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Faraday's law holds because (~irrotational) vortices imply a pressure
>> >> >> > gradient in practice (aka E field) because an incompressible medium
>> >> >> > does not exist in practice. So, Faraday's law is the result of fluid
>> >> >> > dynamics vortex physics and does NOT describe something that belongs
>> >> >> > in a model describing the dynamics of the medium itself.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > So, it is fluid dynamics that on the one hand rules out curl E =/= 0
>> >> >> > and on the other hand is perfectly capable of explaining the
>> >> >> > experiment.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > So, stick to the radical idea that the aether behaves like a fluid and
>> >> >> > should therefore be described as such, and vortex physics are not only
>> >> >> > inevitable, they are needed in order to come to a deeper understanding
>> >> >> > whereby cause and effect are actually understood, rather than just
>> >> >> > phenomenologically described.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Again, there is no argument that Faraday's law doesn't hold within the
>> >> >> > scale limit of a typical low frequency experiment nor within the
>> >> >> > two-wire distributed parallel LC network paradigm our electronics and
>> >> >> > radio equipment is based on.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > The only area I see where one could find experimental evidence it does
>> >> >> > not hold at the fundamental level but is the result of vortex physics
>> >> >> > is when you experiment with longitudinal waves within Tesla's single
>> >> >> > wire distributed series LC network paradigm. And because the scale
>> >> >> > factor kicks in when working with waves, this area is actually rather
>> >> >> > limited.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Is it absolutely correct that in the case of varying fields (waves)
>> >> >> >> > these two fields *must* always be perpendicular to one another, no
>> >> >> >> > matter what?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> They must not.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > So, why would it be warranted to theoretically force them to be
>> >> >> > perpendicular in the dynamic case by writing:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > curl E = -dB/dt ??
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > This is what forces the theoretical model to only predict "transverse"
>> >> >> > waves and rules out Tesla's longitudinal wave, which he has observed
>> >> >> > in practice when experimenting with his magnifying transmitter. Sure,
>> >> >> > there's a lot of mysticism around that out there as well, but the fact
>> >> >> > of the matter is that he measured a propagation speed of 471240 km/s:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > https://teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla/patents/us-patent-787412-art-transmitting-electrical-energy-through-natural-mediums
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > This is within .1% of the theoretical propagation speed of (pi/2) times
>> >> >> > c:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>>> print 100*(471240/((pi/2)*299792.458))
>> >> >> > 100.069462565
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Remember Wheastone's 463491 km/s, who came within 2%?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>>> print 100*(463491/((pi/2)*299792.458))
>> >> >> > 98.4239353061
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > So, why this factor (pi/2)?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Well, if one considers the magnetic field to describe rotations and
>> >> >> > considers the longitudinal wave to be a wave without magnetic
>> >> >> > component and therefore inporporating translational movements of the
>> >> >> > aether rather than rotational movements, the following comes to mind:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > For an EM magnetic wave, the medium moves in circles and therefore has
>> >> >> > to cover a distance of pi*r, while for a longitudinal wave the medium
>> >> >> > only has to cover a distance of 2*r. Divide the two and one obtains a
>> >> >> > theoretical speed factor of pi/2.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > So, here you have two data points that prove that Faraday's law does
>> >> >> > not always hold and therefore it has to be described somewhere else in
>> >> >> > the model. So, the dB/dt term *has* to be moved from the fundamental
>> >> >> > medium model to where it belongs: the two wave equations that are
>> >> >> > needed in order to describe the "near" and "far" fields, one
>> >> >> > non-radiating surface wave equation and one equation describing a wave
>> >> >> > that is capable of propagating trough a fluid-like medium that has a
>> >> >> > magnetic component and therefore must incorporate vortices in one way
>> >> >> > or the other.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > The experimental verification of the existence of a FTL wave within
>> >> >> >> > the electromagnetic domain would prove that Faraday's law is not a law
>> >> >> >> > that applies at the fundamental level. It would prove that equating
>> >> >> >> > curl E to -dB/dt at a fundamental level in the model is incorrect. It
>> >> >> >> > would prove that the elemental math as defined by LaPlace / Helmholtz
>> >> >> >> > also applies within the electromagnetic domain.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> First, math always applies everywhere. Then, what you apply here is
>> >> >> >> not math, but a particular idea about an ether theory which is not
>> >> >> >> viable because curl E = 0 is not viable.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > It is viable, because Faraday's law is the result of vortex physics
>> >> >> > and does not belong in the model at a place that should only describe
>> >> >> > the dynamics of the medium itself.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > Is it really far fetched to suggest that the way Maxwell deviated from
>> >> >> >> > fundamental, elemental math was, in actual fact, a gigantic blunder?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Yes. To suggest that the Maxwell equation deviated from math is simply
>> >> >> >> complete nonsense, I have tried to show you a variant which makes at
>> >> >> >> least sense, namely that the Maxwell equations are in conflict with
>> >> >> >> your extremely simple ether model.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > The point is that the predictions of such a simple aether model are
>> >> >> > not in conflict with the predictions of Maxwell's equations, because
>> >> >> > Faraday's law follows naturally from the simple model by considering
>> >> >> > vortex physics.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> I have survived nicely without own data. I had, with some luck, a
>> >> >> >> >> guiding idea which put me on the way to develop an ether theory. It
>> >> >> >> >> had already from the start the necessary equations
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > What I'm offering is exactly such a guiding idea, namely that this
>> >> >> >> > equation actually means something:
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > ∇²𝐅= ∇(∇·𝐅) - ∇×(∇×𝐅) = 0
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Feel free to speculate about the meaning of this. I think the very
>> >> >> >> idea is nonsensical.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > It follows from the radical idea that the aether behaves like a fluid
>> >> >> > and should therefore be described as such.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > What this equation means is that when you use it to describe the
>> >> >> > dynamics of a fluid-like medium and derive potential fields by writing
>> >> >> > out the terms and labeling them, it's 100% guaranteed to be correct
>> >> >> > and there is no room for error, whatsoever.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > And the data from Wheatstone and Tesla prove there is definately room
>> >> >> > for error in Maxwell's equations, so these need to be revised such
>> >> >> > that they are 100% guaranteed to be correct, which means the term
>> >> >> > dB/dt *has* to go.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Bear in mind that the development of the SM was guided by the idea
>> >> >> >> > that there was "gauge freedom" in Maxwell's equations.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> This was not an idea, this was and is a simple mathematical fact about
>> >> >> >> these equations.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > The problem is that when one fundamentally considers the aether to
>> >> >> > behave like a fluid, that "gauge freedom" no longer exists.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > So, what it comes down to is that the development of the SM was guided
>> >> >> > by a mathematical artifact that would not have existed if Maxwell
>> >> >> > would not have made the mistake of including Faraday's law at the
>> >> >> > wrong place in the model.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > What if Maxwell indeed made a blunder and this whole "gauge freedom"
>> >> >> >> > idea was in fact just an illusion?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> The Maxwell equations, as equations for E and B, predict a lot of
>> >> >> >> things about observables, and these predictions have been tested a lot
>> >> >> >> of times. This agreement between the theory and observation is
>> >> >> >> certainly not just an illusion, it is a very strong hard fact.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Yep.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> This fact is so hard that you are essentially forced, if you modify
>> >> >> >> the Maxwell equations, to show that in the region where it has been
>> >> >> >> well-tested they hold approximately.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Yep. They hold in all situations whereby the two-wire distributed
>> >> >> > parallel LC transmission line principle applies, which is the case in
>> >> >> > virtually everything we do that involves electronics and the EM waves
>> >> >> > we are familiar with.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > The region that has been virtually un-tested, except by Tesla and a
>> >> >> > hand full of dissidents, is where the single-wire distributed series
>> >> >> > LC transmission line principle applies, which would be associated with
>> >> >> > longitudinal FTL waves.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > This separation into two regions also matches with the two halves of
>> >> >> > Helmholtz decomposition. It is the introduction of Faradays law at the
>> >> >> > wrong place in the model which theoretically forced the model into
>> >> >> > "transverse" mode, thereby defining the possibility of a
>> >> >> > "longitudinal" mode away.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> No. There can be many many failures. And looking at how some guy
>> >> >> >> >> performes some experiment would not be the appropriate way of error
>> >> >> >> >> search.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > That is true, but the whole idea behind physics is that mother Nature
>> >> >> >> > does not fail to react in exactly the same way
>> >> >> >> > when one performs exactly the same experiment.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > In that sense, Wheatsone's experiment is once again very interesting.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Feel free to be interested and to repeat it. That's not my problem,
>> >> >> >> and I cannot support you here. But what I can see is that your curl E
>> >> >> >> = 0 idea is completely off because it destroys the Maxwell equations
>> >> >> >> completely, with no chance to recover it in any limit.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > When you realize that the equation curl E = -dB/dt is the result of
>> >> >> > vortex physics and you look at "water" waves, "transverse" surface
>> >> >> > waves:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > https://www.acs.psu.edu/drussell/Demos/waves/wavemotion.html
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > you see that those "water" waves in fact also involve vortex physics
>> >> >> > along with longitudinal waves.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > So, I believe that when we take the equations describing such "water"
>> >> >> > waves, we have a very good chance to recover the predictions of
>> >> >> > Maxwell's equations over the full limit of their applicability, namely
>> >> >> > the "transverse" half of the Helmholtz decomposition.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> Who knows? But I doubt that such a classical mechanism can be of any
>> >> >> >> >> use, given that QT predicts all these things nicely.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Doubt is good. It means one can't rule it out, either, and therefore
>> >> >> >> > the mind is still open for the possibility.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> That's a triviality, one can never rule out that some other theory is
>> >> >> >> right and the own theory fails. Such is life. This does not mean that
>> >> >> >> there is much of an open mind - one will not spend much own time in
>> >> >> >> hopeless things.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Things become a lot less hopeless when one realizes we have the full
>> >> >> > arsenal of fluid dynamics theory at our disposal, including vortex
>> >> >> > physics, "water" waves as well as longitudinal "sound" waves, as long
>> >> >> > as we stick to the radical idea that the aether behaves like a fluid
>> >> >> > and should therefore be described as such.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> You have not yet a theory (with evolution equations and so on) which
>> >> >> >> >> gives these waves.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > I agree I don't have a quantifyable theory, but I do have the
>> >> >> >> > fundamental idea that essentially defines the fundamental foundation
>> >> >> >> > for a quantifyable theory in one equation:
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > ∇²𝐅= ∇(∇·𝐅) - ∇×(∇×𝐅) = 0
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> This is simply nothing.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > It defines a complete mathematically consistent potential theory
>> >> >> > without gauge freedom in one equation. Just write out the terms and
>> >> >> > label them and there it is.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > Just fill in the right
>> >> >> >> > parameters like density and elasticity and there you have your aether
>> >> >> >> > model. That's it, nothing more to it than that.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Except that you have to make the right guesses, else the theory simply
>> >> >> >> fails, and that's it. Moreover, the idea that the ether is fluid may
>> >> >> >> be completely wrong, it may be a solid or a plasma or whatever else.
>> >> >> >> In my theory, it is quite solid.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > We have Maxwell's equations that already describe half of the
>> >> >> > Helmholtz decomposition correctly. Define what charge is and move
>> >> >> > Faraday's law somewhere else in the model and you are already damn
>> >> >> > close to integrate fluid dynamics with the electromagnetic domain in a
>> >> >> > way that makes sense.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > So, what I'm actually saying is that you have all of the phenomena
>> >> >> >> > known in fluid dynamics, including waves, when you describe the aether
>> >> >> >> > as an ideal, Newtonian fluid. So, without working things out, one can
>> >> >> >> > come to conclusions like that a longitudinal wave will propagate a lot
>> >> >> >> > faster than a "transverse" wave.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> If you have a liquid, you simply have no transverse waves.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > But you do have "water" waves, non radiating "transverse" *surface*
>> >> >> > waves, which occur at the boundary between two media with a different
>> >> >> > density, such as the surface of an antenna. This is why I say the
>> >> >> > "near" field is a "real" transverse water wave.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > And because the "far" field cannot be a real "transverse" wave,
>> >> >> > because you can't have transverse waves in a fluid, there is no other
>> >> >> > option but to conclude that the far field must consist of vortices in
>> >> >> > one way or the other.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > This animation of the radiation of a dipole antenna suggests a "wave"
>> >> >> > consisting of successive counter-rotating expanding vortex rings would
>> >> >> > match perfectly with observations / computations:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > https://www.didaktik.physik.uni-muenchen.de/multimedia/programme_applets/e_lehre/dipolstrahlung/bilder_dipol/web_bilder_orig/dip_1s_o.gif
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > And there you have the most basic shape of "the quanta".
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > So, I'm not saying "just remove the dB/dt term and that's it", I'm
>> >> >> >> > saying: return to a FD model wherein you describe the aether as an
>> >> >> >> > ideal, Newtonian fluid and that the term dB/dt is the main obstacle in
>> >> >> >> > our way.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> So your curl E = 0 ether theory is dead? Fine. But, it seems, it is
>> >> >> >> yet alive in your mind:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Yep, I rely on elemental math to be correct.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > In other words: all that stands in between a fluid-dynamic model for
>> >> >> >> > the aether and classic electrodynamics is the way Maxwell described
>> >> >> >> > Faraday's law by the introduction of the dB/dt term at a place where
>> >> >> >> > it does not belong.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> But it is at a place where you can explicitly make predictions about
>> >> >> >> observables, and then measure these observables, as Faraday has done.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Yep, so it has to remain intact within a certain limit, but one is
>> >> >> > allowed to move it somewhere else in the model, such as by considering
>> >> >> > it to be a result of vortex physics rather than a fundamental property
>> >> >> > of the fields describing the dynamics of the medium itself.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> > I think he would also like Occam's razor.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Of course. But that does not mean that he would reject established
>> >> >> >> >> equations which make a lot of well-tested predictions.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Certainly. But I doubt he would object to re-arranging such well
>> >> >> >> > established equations such that they fit with a model derived from a
>> >> >> >> > single fundamental hypothesis:
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > The aether behaves like a fluid and should therefore be described as such.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Yes, that would be fine. But you have to rearrange them in such a way
>> >> >> >> that the original testable predictions remain unchanged.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Yep, totally agree.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> First of all, you must recognize that the remaining theory is false
>> >> >> >> >> and can easily be falsified.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Would be interested in such a falsification, I don't see it.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> The electric field predicted for Faraday's experiment would be
>> >> >> >> curl-free, and, therefore, would be unable to create a current in a
>> >> >> >> closed loop.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Were it not that the very definition of current according to Ampere's
>> >> >> > original law does not involve the electric field at all:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > J = curl B.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > So, this is the fundamental relation between the magnetic field and
>> >> >> > "current".
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > The observed electric field is the result of the fact that in practice
>> >> >> > one cannot have an incompressible medium and the centripedal force has
>> >> >> > to be balanced by a pressure gradient aka the electric field.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> The default answer is "look at wikipedia". For the information how to
>> >> >> >> >> measure it this should be sufficient. The result will be quite
>> >> >> >> >> obvious. Namely \nabla \times \mathbf {E} = 0 is dead.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > The correct answer is: virtually noboby has a freakin' idea!
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> So what? It does not matter, given that we have devices which measure
>> >> >> >> E and B.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > It matters from a theoretical point of view. As long as we don't have
>> >> >> > a definition for what it actually is, we are forced to resort to
>> >> >> > phenomenological descriptions incorporating abstract fields, which
>> >> >> > severely limits our ability to gain a deeper understanding of the
>> >> >> > mechanisms that cause the fields to behave as is being observed.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > Remember what you wrote earlier?
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > "People have started with abstract fields in thermodynamics,
>> >> >> >> > and then, based on the atomic theory, have learned how these
>> >> >> >> > observable phenomenological fields depend on the properties of the
>> >> >> >> > atomic models. This research program was successful in thermodynamics
>> >> >> >> > as well as in condensed matter theory."
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Maxwell started the same way, by introducing an abstract quantity
>> >> >> >> > called "electric charge".
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Only, in this case it has never been satisfactory explained what that
>> >> >> >> > actually is,
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> But this is not necessary to test particular equations. For testing
>> >> >> >> how the temperature changes we need a thermometer, not a theory about
>> >> >> >> the fundamental nature of temperature.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Yep, so we must keep the predictions of these equations intact, but we
>> >> >> > are free to add a theory about the fundamental nature of charge, which
>> >> >> > is proposed to involve the mass/charge ratio of a given "charged"
>> >> >> > particle that results in a frequency:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > f = q/m
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > We can then take this frequency and assume a charged particle emits a
>> >> >> > longitudinal wave at that frequency and see where it takes us from
>> >> >> > there.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > In a nutshell: EITHER the particles cause the fields OR the fields
>> >> >> >> > cause the particles, but NOT both at the same time!
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> In a nutshell a phenomenological theory will not tell you what is
>> >> >> >> cause and what is effect.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Exactly!
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> It describes the fields we can measure, and
>> >> >> >> is based on the definition how they can be measured (with certain
>> >> >> >> measurement devices). A theory which introduces some causal
>> >> >> >> explanation would have to care about such things, but the Maxwell
>> >> >> >> equations, as equations for E and B, are a phenomenological theory
>> >> >> >> about those two fields E and B which can be easily measured, and does
>> >> >> >> not contain speculations about causal relations.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Yep, so if we want to make a step forward, we are free to introduce
>> >> >> > causal relations such that they fit with the established
>> >> >> > phenomenological theory within certain limits. We just have to make
>> >> >> > sure the relations we introduce are correct and lead to a better
>> >> >> > description and deeper understanding of physical reality.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> That popular explanations on wiki level contain causal ways to
>> >> >> >> describe some aspects of these equations is quite irrelevant.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > It is interesting and necessary in order to put the \nabla \times
>> >> >> >> > \mathbf {E} = 0 if dB/dt is nonzero into proper perspective.
>> >> >> >> > ...
>> >> >> >> > So, it is very important to take this point home: For an ideal coil,
>> >> >> >> > having zero resistance and zero parasitic capacitance, there is zero
>> >> >> >> > voltage and a zero electric field!
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> But zero resistance is a quite uninteresting limiting case. And we
>> >> >> >> don't have to care about this strange limiting case with no electric
>> >> >> >> field, given that we would like to measure the electric field. One
>> >> >> >> way to measure an electric field is, clearly, to use a wire with some
>> >> >> >> resistance and measure the resulting current. Your ideal wire simply
>> >> >> >> distorts the E field, so it is inappropriate for measuring it.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Again, the fundamental separation between the fields as established
>> >> >> > mathematically by LaPlace / Helmholtz correspond to two idealized
>> >> >> > components that match with this fundamental separation:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > 1) The incompressible, "transverse" part around the magnetic field
>> >> >> > [B]. This is represented by the ideal coil. An ideal coil stores and
>> >> >> > extracts energy from the magnetic field [B] in the space around the
>> >> >> > conductor. Translated to the FD domain, this represents the
>> >> >> > simplification of considering the medium to be incompressible and
>> >> >> > rotational.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > 2) The compressible, "longitudinal" part around the electric field
>> >> >> > [E]. This is represented by the ideal capacitor. An ideal capacitors
>> >> >> > stores and extract energy from the electric field [E] in the space
>> >> >> > between two conductors. Translated to the FD domain, this represents
>> >> >> > the simplification of considering the medium to be compressible and
>> >> >> > irrotational.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > So, when you go to transmission line models, in essence you are using
>> >> >> > superposition of the two fields in a particular way by describing it
>> >> >> > using distributed LC networks. The two-wire version thereof is well
>> >> >> > known and has been applied all over the place for decades, while the
>> >> >> > single wire version thereof is virtually unknonwn and incompatible
>> >> >> > with Maxwell's equations, because of the introduction of Faraday's law
>> >> >> > into the model, which essentially restricts the solutions of Maxwell's
>> >> >> > equations to what matches with the two-wire transmission line, but
>> >> >> > maks the model incompatible with Tesla's single-wire transmission line
>> >> >> > principle.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > So, when you go and make a lumped circuit equivalent model of a given
>> >> >> > experiment, one has three elemental circuit components:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > 1) the capacitor (C);
>> >> >> > 2) the inductor (L);
>> >> >> > 3) the resistor (R).
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > And when one does this, one can obtain an accurate model of a given
>> >> >> > system or experiment, especially when one uses distributed LCR
>> >> >> > networks to model wave propagation. Even the mechanical domain can be
>> >> >> > modelled this way and transducers can be introduced to interface
>> >> >> > between domains, which can be mathematically represented by
>> >> >> > transformers in the shape of matrices.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Even Maxwell's equations in vector notation could be built up as a 3D
>> >> >> > distributed LCR network. The L represenst rotation, the C
>> >> >> > compressibility and the R resistance or losses, the exact same aspects
>> >> >> > as mathematically described by LaPlace / Helmholtz.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > And at the end of the day, your L's and C's are either in series or in
>> >> >> > parallel.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > And again, because of the introduction of Faraday's law at the wrong
>> >> >> > place in the model, Maxwell essentially only allows the L and C to be
>> >> >> > in a parallel configuration but not in a series configuration.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> No. You already have a problem, namely an experiment where dB/dt is
>> >> >> >> >> nonzero and, as a consequence of the Maxwell equations, \nabla \times
>> >> >> >> >> \mathbf {E} =/= 0. And where all you have to do is to measure the
>> >> >> >> >> electric field in this situation to see that really \nabla \times
>> >> >> >> >> \mathbf {E} =/= 0. This is the decisive experiment between Maxwell's
>> >> >> >> >> theory and your "theory".
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > What is decisive is the consideration of what it is that causes curl E
>> >> >> >> > =/= 0 in a practical experiment.
>> >> >> >> ...
>> >> >> >> > So, let's once again draw in the analogy of what we're actually
>> >> >> >> > looking at with Faraday's experiment: a magnetic vortex, which is
>> >> >> >> > rather interesting, since there's a very interesting detail around the
>> >> >> >> > theoretical irrotational vortex I hadn't noticed before:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> > > No, I couldn't care less about your vortexes, whatever they are. I
>> >> >> >> care about the electric field. Once an ideal coil simply distorts the
>> >> >> >> E field too much, I would suggest not to introduce them.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > You are missing the point that the ideal L and the C are just another
>> >> >> > way of expressing the fundamental decomposition of a given 3D vector
>> >> >> > field into an irrotational, compressible half represented by [E] and a
>> >> >> > rotational, incompressible half represented by [B].
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > The L and the C are in essence 1D representations of quite complex
>> >> >> > phenomena that take place in 3D. They represent 1D projections of the
>> >> >> > two halves of the Helmholtz decomposition and are very useful in
>> >> >> > practice.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > So, how do you model a real coil?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Well, you make an LRC network to represent "parasitic" capacitance and
>> >> >> > resistance. And then your E-field is represented by the capacitor and
>> >> >> > not the inductor.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > So, yes, for this particular experiment that relationship is: curl E =
>> >> >> >> > -dB/dt and it holds up to rather high frequencies for practical coils,
>> >> >> >> > BUT that in no way implies that this is a fundamental relationship
>> >> >> >> > that ALWAYS holds and THAT's the whole point!
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> No, that's not the point. It is quite sufficient to have a _single_
>> >> >> >> experiment where curl E = -dB/dt =/= 0 to show that the theory that
>> >> >> >> curl E = 0 is dead. And this is the point I care about here and now.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Curl E = 0 is required, because otherwise you ruin the fundamental
>> >> >> > decomposition into the two fields for which superposition holds.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > An experiment wherein curl E = -dB/dt happens to hold does not explain
>> >> >> > the causality of why that is and therefore no experiment can reveal
>> >> >> > that causal relation for the simple reason we cannot perform
>> >> >> > experiments with ideal components.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > This once again begs the question: what IS charge?
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Why is it on the one hand a property of certain "charged" particles
>> >> >> >> > yet at the same time a fundamental quantity that causes the fields,
>> >> >> >> > which makes that it becomes impossible to consider the possibility
>> >> >> >> > that "particles" are actually caused by the fields as well?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Before caring about such speculative questions, one has to get the
>> >> >> >> equations straight. And to reject nonsense like curl E = 0 as a
>> >> >> >> general equation once we have found situations where curl E = -dB/dt
>> >> >> >> =/= 0.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > The two go hand in hand. Without an answer to the question of what
>> >> >> > charge is, we can't establish causal relationships and thus we cannot
>> >> >> > get the equations straight in such a way that we don't break anything.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> Ok, but if there is a theory consistent (for those low frequencies)
>> >> >> >> >> with the experiments, and you don't question the experiments, you have
>> >> >> >> >> to be able to recover, in your modified theory, the successful
>> >> >> >> >> predictions of the old theory you have questioned.
>> >> >> > > >>
>> >> >> >> >> But you fail. For Faraday's experiment, your \nabla \times \mathbf {E}
>> >> >> >> >> = 0 equation predicts no current, but Faraday has observe one.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > It's actually the other way around: the relationship describing how an
>> >> >> >> > ideal coil interacts with a magnetic flux is what predicts a current,
>> >> >> >> > but no voltage and no electric field.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> We don't care about ideal coils, we care about Faraday's experiment.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > We care about establishing equations in such a way that the correct
>> >> >> > causal relationships are established AND existing experiments are
>> >> >> > predicted correctly as well.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > In this case, the fundamental causal relationship between the magnetic
>> >> >> > field and a current is given by Ampere's original law:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > J = curl B.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > So, it is clear that a relationship with the electric field is either
>> >> >> > caused by parasitic capacitance and/or resistance of the coil or by
>> >> >> > the physics of the (~irrotational) vortex that is described by the
>> >> >> > magnetic field [B] under the assumption that the medium is
>> >> >> > incompressible.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > So, one could say the electric field is "parasitic" in the
>> >> >> > consideration of the interaction between a magnetic field and a wire
>> >> >> > loop or coil and we cannot ignore that in practice, it's definitely
>> >> >> > there, but we have to maintain the fundamental separation of the
>> >> >> > Helmholtz decomposition that is reflected in the idealized capacitor
>> >> >> > and coil. Otherwise, we create more problems than we solve.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > The electric field is being observed, yes, but that's because in
>> >> >> >> > practice one cannot have an ideal coil and neither can one have an
>> >> >> >> > incompressible medium and therefore a pressure gradient will be
>> >> >> >> > observed in practice, which is what we call the electric field.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Whatever, once we have found situations where curl E = -dB/dt =/= 0
>> >> >> >> the theory curl E = 0 is dead.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> What's the problem with acknowledging this?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > The theory where curl E = 0 is required at that place within the model
>> >> >> > in order to maintain the fundamental decomposition given by Helmholtz
>> >> >> > / LaPlace. Experimental data wherein curl E = -dB/dt follows from the
>> >> >> > symmetry between the fields as defined by the LaPlace operator in
>> >> >> > combination with an analysis of the physics involved, which implies
>> >> >> > vortex physics whenever one deals with magnetic fields.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > In the ideal case, under the assumption of incompressibility, there is
>> >> >> > no electric field. In the practical case, there is, because balance
>> >> >> > between the fields must be maintained in practice. Depending on the
>> >> >> > application, one can ignore the electric field, but in other cases one
>> >> >> > has to account for it by considering the physics involved in more
>> >> >> > detail.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> Don't distract. If it fails to recover the result for the Faraday
>> >> >> >> >> experiment, it is dead, and nobody cares about what it thinks about
>> >> >> >> >> those hypothetical anomalies.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > The result for Faraday's experiment can be easily explained by
>> >> >> >> > starting out at the equation for an ideal coil and considering why
>> >> >> >> > this in practice leads to the presence of an electric field as well.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> But I'm not interested in a theory about what happens inside ideal
>> >> >> >> coils, that's the theory of superconductivity, but in a theory about
>> >> >> >> the EM field. The E field is simply trivial inside, the magnetic field
>> >> >> >> will be expelled by the Meissner effect,
>> >> >> >> http://www.supraconductivite.fr/en/index.php?p=supra-levitation-meissner
>> >> >> >> so that the result is a trivial theory inside, and this thing cannot
>> >> >> >> test dB/dt =/= 0.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> But, ok, no problem, I admit that your theory curl E = 0 is viable
>> >> >> >> inside a superconductor where we have E = B = 0, and, therefore, also
>> >> >> >> dB/dt = 0 so that the Maxwell equations hold too.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Let's now stop to consider superconductivity and handle a usual
>> >> >> >> vacuum, using the forces acting on charged kork balls to measure E and
>> >> >> >> using wires only to create a variable B. Or with wires which have a
>> >> >> >> resistance so that the resulting currect can be used to measure the E
>> >> >> >> field.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Because superposition holds, one can always describe any given
>> >> >> > experiment arbitrary accurate by composing a model out of elemental
>> >> >> > ideal components L,C, and R in a (distributed) network, either in 1,
>> >> >> > 2, or 3 dimensions. The more accuracy you want, the more of theze
>> >> >> > ideal components you need, even an infinite number in the case of the
>> >> >> > distributed transmission line analysis, but the principle holds.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > What's problematic is enforcing this result at the fundamental level
>> >> >> >> > in your model such that it HAS to apply exactly like this for all
>> >> >> >> > possible experiments which involve either a changing electric or a
>> >> >> >> > changing magnetic field.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Yes. The starting point would be to accept the Maxwell equations as
>> >> >> >> they are, as phenomenological equations for E and B.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Yep, within their limit of applicability: the "transverse" half of the
>> >> >> > Helmholtz decomposition.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> Which, if
>> >> >> >> modified, have to be modified in such a weak way that they can be
>> >> >> >> easily recovered in some limit. And, as a consequence, to throw away
>> >> >> >> ideas about ether theories which are unable to reach this, because the
>> >> >> >> E field would have to follow the equation curl E = 0.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Well, at the fundamental "idealized" level curl E = 0 must be applied,
>> >> >> > but that in no way rules out the possibility of reaching curl E =
>> >> >> > -dB/dt in particular situations involving an idealized magnetic field
>> >> >> > that has to remain balanced in practice by a "parasitic" electric
>> >> >> > field.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Up to now, you have not found a viable way to rearrange something.
>> >> >> >> >> \nabla \times \mathbf {E} = 0 is in conflict with Faraday's
>> >> >> >> >> experiment.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Faraday's experiment can be fully explained using physics based on the
>> >> >> >> > assumption of the existence of a fluid-like aether and therefore there
>> >> >> >> > is no actual conflict.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> No. You have not given such a full explanation.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Well, I explained the principles involved.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > In actual fact, it is the introduction of the term dB/dt into a
>> >> >> >> > fluid-dynamic model that is conflicting with the elemental math as
>> >> >> >> > defined by LaPlace / Helmholtz. It is really a bad idea to write
>> >> >> >> > equations that are in conflict with a fundamental mathematical
>> >> >> >> > theorem.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Again you fall back into complete nonsense. Nobody introduces
>> >> >> >> something into your fluid-dynamic model, it simply fails, because in
>> >> >> >> reality we have Faraday's experiment where dB/dt =/= 0. If your
>> >> >> >> fluid-dynamic model does not survive the introduction of the term
>> >> >> >> dB/dt, that fluid-dynamic model is simply dead. Big deal. Learn to
>> >> >> >> live with this, I have tried hundreds of ideas and had to throw them
>> >> >> >> away because they did not work.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > As always, the devil is in the details. The experiment is a practical
>> >> >> > application whereby a specific combination of the idealized fields is
>> >> >> > required in order to come to a full analysis of what is going on.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> Whatever, we have a force acting on small charged kork balls, not?
>> >> >> >> >> And we can measure this force, by putting such kork balls at some
>> >> >> >> >> interesting places, not? This force field is known as E, and it is
>> >> >> >> >> not a good idea to redefine it.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Actually, the units of measurement within the electromagnetic domain
>> >> >> >> > are undefined, except in relation to one another.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > The SI unit for electric field strength is volt per meter [V/m]
>> >> >> >> > The Volt is defined as [J/C] or [kg m^2 / A s^3], so the unit of
>> >> >> >> > measurement for E equals [kg m / A s^3].
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > The Coulomb is defined as [A s], while the Ampere is defined as [C/s],
>> >> >> >> > so actually these units of measurement are only defined in relation to
>> >> >> >> > one another phenomenologically and therefore it might be an excellent
>> >> >> >> > idea to actually define what charge is and what current is and I think
>> >> >> >> > I finally figured out the correct way to do it.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> It does not matter at all to write down the units. What the SI defines
>> >> >> >> is how these things are measured. So learn how the SI works, what it
>> >> >> >> defines and how, namely be defining particular measurement procedures
>> >> >> >> for each unit.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > What matters is that these units are only defined in relation to one
>> >> >> > another and therefore we are free to introduce a deeper causal
>> >> >> > relationship and see where that brings us.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> The SI definitions make a lot of sense, because they are based on the
>> >> >> >> most accurate measurement procedures for each unit. Once experimental
>> >> >> >> science makes an advance, creating a device which measures some unit
>> >> >> >> more accurate then the old standard, they change the definition and
>> >> >> >> base the new definition on the new device. For this purpose, they
>> >> >> >> measure the old standard of what is 1 unit many times with the new
>> >> >> >> device, and use the result to define the same 1 unit now with the new
>> >> >> >> measurement device. For the usual applications nothing changes,
>> >> >> >> because the extreme accuracy is not necessary for them anyway, and
>> >> >> >> they don't have to bother. 1 A remains 1 A, the old Amperemeter works
>> >> >> >> as before.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Your proposal seems unaware of those basic ideas of the SI system, so
>> >> >> >> I will simply ignore it.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Don't you see that the proposal to define charge along the proposal
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > f = q/m
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > and the proposal to define current in [Hz] doesn't change anything to
>> >> >> > the SI units, other than resulting in a *single* constant that maps
>> >> >> > the old Ampere unit to a frequency unit resulting in units of
>> >> >> > measurement that are 100% the same as in fluid dynamics for both the
>> >> >> > [E] and [B] fields?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > After all, the value for elemental charge remains the same and the
>> >> >> > frequency resulting from the proposed definition is not used anywhere,
>> >> >> > so the only question is the value of the single constant that remains.
>> >> >> > My first guess would be to take elemental charge, since real current
>> >> >> > is carried by electrons, but the point is: all I've really done is
>> >> >> > show that with the definition of a *single* constant, the current SI
>> >> >> > units can be mapped to the units used with fluid dynamics without
>> >> >> > changing anything in the equations themselves.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> > Bottomline is: when you revise Maxwell's equations, everything changes
>> >> >> >> >> > within theoretical physics.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> No. All the experiments remain the same, with the same results. You
>> >> >> >> >> may somehow reinterpret something, but not that much. Revising the
>> >> >> >> >> Maxwell equations is certainly not a good idea, they can be easily
>> >> >> >> >> tested in many details.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > I did say *theoretical* physics. In the end, everything is based on
>> >> >> >> > Maxwell, one way or the other. So, if you change that, a lot of people
>> >> >> >> > are going to have a lot of work.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Theoretical physics has to care about predicting experimental results,
>> >> >> >> and interpreting experimental results too.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> And as long as you care about things which can be directly measured,
>> >> >> >> like E and B, to change the equations is possible only if you recover
>> >> >> >> the well-established well-tested equations in a limit. In this case,
>> >> >> >> not that much changes: Whenever that limit is sufficient, given the
>> >> >> >> accuracy requirements, you can use the old equations.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Actually, we have only two changes:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > 1) the introduction of a single constant to map the SI units to the
>> >> >> > units applied in the FD domain;
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > 2) moving Faraday's law to where it belongs: the two wave equations
>> >> >> > needed to properly describe a non-radiating "near" field and a
>> >> >> > radiating "far" field that is found to be quantized.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> Sorry, no. Don't look back to Wheatstone, look first back to Faraday.
>> >> >> >> >> Once you don't like it with measuring the current, ok, do it with kork
>> >> >> >> >> balls. This measures E more directly, by measuring the force acting on
>> >> >> >> >> those kork balls.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > No need, it can be easily explained with the physics of the vortex in
>> >> >> >> > combination with Ampere's original circuit law:
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > J = curl B.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> No. We have no circuit here, we have charged kork balls and an
>> >> >> >> electric force acting on them.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > An electric force that is the result of vortex physics, because in
>> >> >> > practice balance must be maintained within a rotating magnetic vortex
>> >> >> > and therefore an electric field is there.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> About mathematical theorems you have to care if you invent an ether
>> >> >> >> theory. If they tell you that in your ether theory you cannot obtain
>> >> >> >> the Maxwell equations, that's bad luck for your ether theory. Not for
>> >> >> >> the Maxwell equations.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Well, a single constant, probably with a value equal to elemental
>> >> >> > charge e, is all that separates a FD aether theory from Maxwell.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > And then suddenly mathematical theorems do matter.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> No, they are far from arbitrary, they have well-defined measurement
>> >> >> >> >> procedures as the definition. This definition is usually based on the
>> >> >> >> >> actually most accurate way to measure the given thing. (That's why
>> >> >> >> >> these definition are sometimes changed, once a more accurate
>> >> >> >> >> measurement device is established.)
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Once you don't have a new measurement device for whatever which is
>> >> >> >> >> more accurate than all known such devices, you have no base for
>> >> >> >> >> proposing a change of any of the definitions of those units.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > The point is: one can define the concept of charge in a way that
>> >> >> >> > explains what it actually is without changing the results of the
>> >> >> >> > measurements that have been performed to establish it's value.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Such a "concept of a charge" may be part of your ether theory. No
>> >> >> >> problem. But if it appears that this concept of a charge is in
>> >> >> >> conflict with the Maxwell equations, that's bad luck for this concept,
>> >> >> >> and it has to be thrown away together with the corresponding ether
>> >> >> >> theory. And you have to try something else.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Yep, but in this case it results in a single constant that bridges the
>> >> >> > two theories, so I'm not yet ready to throw it away.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> You are NOT free to change equations for well-defined observables like
>> >> >> >> E and B which have been well-tested. EXCEPT if you are able to show
>> >> >> >> that in some limit these equations will be recovered.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > So far, we haven't changed any equation. The exercise with the
>> >> >> > definition of charge resulted in a mapping of EM SI units to the units
>> >> >> > within the FD domain by a single constant connecting the Ampere to a
>> >> >> > frequency in [Hz]. This single constant defines all associated units
>> >> >> > of measurement, since hooked into the system via a single equation:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > J = curl B.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > This way, it becomes more and more obvious the curl E = -dB/dt is
>> >> >> > problematic and has to go, along with equating curl B to 1/c^2 dE/dt
>> >> >> > rather than 0.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I think we have a good chance to recover the wave equation resulting
>> >> >> > from these mistakes by considering the analogy of the "transverse"
>> >> >> > "water" surface wave and working things out. Granted, this remains to
>> >> >> > be seen, but it surely would make sense.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> No. The units of measurement for E and B must match the actual most
>> >> >> >> >> accurate measurement procedures for E and B, and nothing else. And I
>> >> >> >> >> would not recommend you to propose any changes.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> If your ether theory contains some fields E', B' which you, for
>> >> >> >> >> whatever reasons, want to add, then you have to introduce constants E
>> >> >> >> >> = c_e E'. B = c_B B' with the appropriate units. These are your
>> >> >> >> >> ether-theoretical constructions. E and B remain what they are, and
>> >> >> >> >> the SI defitions of their units remain valid too. They make sense.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > I think I've made quite a step in that direction with the definitions
>> >> >> >> > proposed above.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> I'm not sure. I have yet to wait for your acknowledging that curl E =
>> >> >> >> 0 is dead.
>> >> >> >
>
>> >> >> > I'm afraid you're not going to get that.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Ok, that was a bit vague. He reported his E-field has a longitudinal
>> >> >> >> > component, while his B field is transverse. I included the relevant
>> >> >> >> > quote in an earlier mail. But I think my conclusion was a bit too
>> >> >> >> > fast, would have to check better before I can make this claim. It is
>> >> >> >> > clear though that Maxwell's equations break down in the analysis of
>> >> >> >> > his wave and workarounds are needed.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> I doubt. Don't forget that I have questioned your idea that E and B
>> >> >> >> fields have to be orthogonal. That's for waves, not for static fields
>> >> >> >> where E and B don't influence each other.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I've questioned the idea that they have to be orthogonal, too.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > In fact, I say they don't have to be and that would be just one reason
>> >> >> > for removing the term dB/dt.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> No. You can create, with static charges, quite arbitrary electric
>> >> >> >> >> forces (with the potential you like). Then you can put permanent
>> >> >> >> >> magnets into the situation. Also quite arbitrary. The result will be
>> >> >> >> >> static fields E and B, and they will not be perpendicular. They are
>> >> >> >> >> not connected at all as long as they don't change.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Ok, now let's replace the permanent magnet with an electromagnet and
>> >> >> >> > we start with a DC current.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Same situation.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Now we start changing the current, but slowly, say 1 Hz, or 0.1 Hz, or 0.01
>> >> >> >> > Hz.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Now the B field is changing. What happens to the E-field?
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > All of a sudden perpendicular?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> The original E-field defined by the localized charges does not go
>> >> >> >> away. The changing B field leads to some E field, which is orthogonal.
>> >> >> >> The resulting field is the sum of both. This will be hardly
>> >> >> >> orthogonal.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> And, similar to curl E =/= 0, it is sufficient to have one situation
>> >> >> >> where they are not orthogonal to be sure that this is not a general
>> >> >> >> law.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Exactly!
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > And that is one of the reasons why the curl E = dB/dt has to go. In
>> >> >> > general, one cannot maintain that the fields are always perpendicular
>> >> >> > towards one another and therefore one cannot make that into a general
>> >> >> > law.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > _______________________________________________
>> >> >> > Physics mailing list
>> >> >> > Physics at tuks.nl
>> >> >> > http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics
>> >> >>
>> >>
More information about the Physics
mailing list