On 5/22/2017 6:50 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
On Monday, May 22, 2017 at 5:37:03 PM UTC+10, benj wrote:
On 05/21/2017 09:27 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
On Saturday, May 20, 2017 at 7:14:51 AM UTC+10, benj wrote:
On 5/19/2017 1:24 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
On Thursday, May 18, 2017 at 8:14:17 AM UTC+10, benj wrote:
On 5/17/2017 3:05 AM, chanrasjid@gmail.com wrote:
Actually, it is enough to deny present electromagnetic
theory.
I think benj is correct to point out that electrostatic E is
very different from induction E;
Of course Benj is wrong. EvErybody knows he's a kook.
No, induction electric field is one that varies with time unlike
the electrostatic E.
You need to learn more about E fields. I suggest my EM papers on my
Temporary Website. www.hypersphere.com Note that there is more
than a time variation between these different E fields. One is
conservative the other not, one is solenopidal the other
irrotational, ans do forth. By Occam's Razor your theory is
simpler and clearly "best", unfortunately it's just wrong.
I don't see how, except by your definition. The induction electric
field can only exist when there is a changing magnetic field. That
is the basis of all radiation. Otherwise the electrostatic electric
field can change in magnitude when the charge creating that field
moves away.
So when a magnet moves away there is induction?
When a magnet moves away there is change of the magnetic field at a given point.
If there is a copper loop there is current through the loop when the loop is at right angles to the changing magnetic field.
This is what Faraday observed and is the basis for the first electric generator.
ACtually not what Faraday observed. You need some history.
Magnetic and
electrokinetic fields are created together. so hence they exist
together. They do not create each other.
They do create each other, when motion or variation of amplitude is involved.
The changing magnetic field creates the changing electric field. And the changing magnetic field creates the changing magnetic field. This is how electromagnetic waves propagate through any wave guide.
Well proof by assertion! That's always good sceince (on the internet)
We can "see" the variation of the electric field along its length.
There are various modes of propagation, like TEM in a coaxial, TE and TM in hollow waveguides, and so on.
So?
Any book on wave guides will show how this happens starting from Maxwell's laws.
No they will show a mathematical derivation.
how can a conservative and
non-conservative field be treated as a single E in Maxwell's
equation and assume the theory is valid.
One can add a constant electric field to a varying electric
field to get a net electric field that is varying. What is
strange about this?
What is strange about adding apples and oranges? Nothing! You end
up with the total number of fruit!
But we are not adding apples and oranges. We are adding a fixed
supply of apples to a varying supply of apples to get a net varying
sum of apples with respect to time.
No we aren't we are adding fields with widely differing properties. just >> as apples and oranges are fruits with differing properties. The idea
that the only variation is time variations is your theory.
When we are talking about electric field, we are talking about a VECTOR and so vector addition and subtractions take place for everything associated with the electric field. This is not my theory. This is plain mathematics of vectors, started by Heaviside.
So if I add an electric field to a frictional force vector to a current
flow vector that is OK in your book? You need some more math.
time�when applied to moving bodies, leads to asymmetries which do not
Gauss law is only for electrostatic
E, not Faraday's E.
One can always add the static to the variable.
Based on strict scientific principle, this single
fact should have the Maxwell-Heaviside equations ejected from
physics.
I don't see how.
But the problem is that rejecting Maxwell's equation mean
the rejection of special relativity and the physics world
decided against it.
Special relativity means casting doubt about Maxwellian
electrodynamics. SR means that there is no aether, so there are
no electromagnetic waves, everything is distorted as spacetime
since the only the speed of light is constant in the constantly
twisted and limited universe. However undeniably light behaves
as if it is wave motion, so a schizophrenia is attributed to
light, with the de Broglie assumption of its dual nature. It is
with the de Broglie assumption that the Maxwellian view of
electromagnetic waves with its predictive properties so useful in
engineering is half-retained. In reality, as per modern physics
light is a stream of energy particles called photons. Photons do
not need the aether medium for propagation, as they are particles
with kinetic energy.
Spacetime is nothign but fantasy like the way warps in
temperaturetime cause global warming!
True.
Einstein said there was an aether. You disagree?
In his 1905 paper Einstein said that aether theory was redundant.
Let me quote from that paper and we can come to conclusions:
He starts off with the dismissal of Maxwellian electrodynamics with
the very first words: *** It is known that Maxwell�s
electrodynamics�as usually understood at the present
appear to be
inherent in the phenomena.
***
When you consider the fact that the moving armature of a rail gun
motor has no reaction as proved by my experiments (enough links on
that presented already) then the phenomena DOES vindicate Maxwell's
electrodynamics.
Could be true but you haven't proved it Third law does not apply to
certain EM phenomena.
I have proved that Newton's Third Law is not valid for the Lorenz force, with
my experiments. The electromagnetic or Lorenz force = Magnetic field * current
* length of conductor does not have a reaction component. This is a new discovery, which in time will be found to be as important as the discovery of fire or the wheel.
No.
So if the scientific world accepts my conclusion that there is no
reaction to the Lorentz force accelerating the rail gun bullet then
Einstein is wrong and Maxwell is right.
Actually Einstein can be derived from Maxwell (to a certain degree)
There are a few places where SR are in question, but not the ones
usually asserted here.
This is a dogmatic statement outside the scope of science. Whereas my experiments are real and can be repeated and the conclusions drawn with no ambiguity. Maxwell and Eisntein are totally incompatible. The former has light as electromagnetic waves travelling through the medium of aether that pervades the entire universe. The latter has light as a stream of energy particles in a universe that is constantly getting distorted in four dimensions. To say that one leads to the other is not possible in any reasonable or scientific sense.
Your thinking is flawed.
Light particle wave duality has not been explained.
However in order to get rid of Maxwell' electrodynamics it is
necessary to show that light is NOT wave motion, and so does not
need any aether. For all waves need a medium. The medium for light,
if light is wave motion, is aether. Einstein dismisses the aether
theory in the same paper with these words: *** We will raise this
conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called the
�Principle of Relativity�) to the status of a postulate, and also
introduce another postulate, which is only apparently irreconcilable
with the former, namely, that light is always propagated in empty
space with a de?nite velocity c which is independent of the state of
motion of the emitting body. These two postulates su?ce for the
attainment of a simple and consistent theory of the electrodynamics
of moving bodies based on Maxwell�s theory for stationary bodies.
^^^The introduction of a �luminiferous ether� will prove to be
super?uous ^^^inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not
require an �absolutely stationary space� provided with special
properties, nor assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty
space in which electromagnetic processes take place. ***
"superflous" has been taken to mean "non-existant". that is not what the >> word means. Einstein points out that since space has properties
therefore aether must exist. It is "aether drift" that does not exist.
Non-existent yes, aether does not exist as per Einsteinian electrodynamics as everyone knows. And why should it, as light is not wave motion but a stream
of particles. Einstein says that aether does not exist - how can he say that
it does as you say! "Aether drift" means finding out the velocity of Earth in
aether - to say there is no aether drift is the same as saying that the Earth does not move, that the old Aristotleian system is valid. Which in a way
makes sense, for when we take the fixed Earth and twisted Lorentz spacetime we get the formulas which makes GPS work. Two wrongs making a right. But the
Earth does move, and as the MMI shows nulls, that can only happen when the speed of light varies with the speed of the transmitter.
So now it's "everybody knows the earth is flat" kind of science. Hey, "Everybody knows" the sun and stars go around the earth. That is a given.
Obviously, if you hold that light is a stream of particles then
there is no wave motion, nor is there aether. On the other hand, if
light is a wave motion through aether then aether is present
throughout the infinite universe.
I hold that light is a wave phenomena in the aether (waves no matter
what modern physics fantasizes) require a medium by definition. And that >> aether is present throughout all those parts of the universe (Einstein
noted in reality nothing is infinite except human stupidity) where
aether exists.
Einstein dispenses with aether in the 1905 paper. Whatever he wrote was complete nonsense as a result. He was the biggest bungler ever. He should have noted that the MMI experiment actually proved that light speed changed with the speed of the emitter, for with a moving Earth and the nulls that is
what had to be when we *take into consideration that the apparatus moves with
the Earth as it is fixed to the Earth". Instead of that, he provided a weird and nonsensical view of the Universe with continuous distortions that had to be to make the speed of light constant... nothing could travel faster
than light, what rubbish. Yes humans are infinitely stupid to not reject Einstein even after I pointed out the bungle back in 2005. Blind habit, what.
He did not "dispense" with aether. Just said you didn't need it to calculate. Others jumped to the erroneous conclusion that aether (and
waves) did not exist. Humans are such herd animals. One goes over the
cliff and they all follow. Just look at the Big Bang theory.
Sounds like you really understand particle-wave duality. You hade
better explain it to us quick so we all no longer have to go
through life ignorant.
Thanks. There is no wave-particle duality. There is only wave motion
of light, of UHF, of gamma rays, all radiation. All radiators are
natural antennas; all surfaces receiving radiation and receiving
antennas that convert the input electromagnetic field to mechanical
oscillation thereby providing the sensation of heat.
No particle wave duality? You seem to have missed a few observations.
Wave-particle duality is the schizophrenic view of the light - light is electromagnetic wave propagation, never particles. It is mad to think of particle-wave duality. Insane. At best it is a most unworthy patch-up.
It is clear that on can define a number of E fields based upon
their properties. However, as Jefimenko points out, all
electromagnetic fields are FORCE fields and this plus major
redundancies in EM theory all one to get away with treating
these different fields as if they were one.
??? If we believe in SR we cannot believe in electromagnetic
fields. Magnets are things we should ignore completely, for they
cannot be understood in photonic symbology as per relativistic
quantum electrodynamics. I once saw a video of Feynman being
asked about magnetism. He said he had no clue.
Great science! If you can't understand something then it doesn't
exist! Ranks right up there with the moon not existing until
someone looks at it.
I was surprised when I saw and heard him say that. Magnetism has no
place in quantum mechanics. However, magnets do exist and their
field does not fade, as proved by the success of the Perendev
simulation (when proven to satisfaction to all interested). Also, as
they are replacing electromagnets in motors, the credibility of
generation of unlimited energy by magnets is a reality (again, when
proven beyond doubt).
Still waiting for proven beyond doubt.Remember the Keely engines? I'm
still waiting for proof of those too.
The Pakistani videos have got over a million hits. More than my videos, much more. Evidently there is a conspiracy going on to deny them any top publicity. One can see why. Western scientists will look pretty foolish when
they will be forced to admit that most of their classical physics and all their modern physics is WRONG. The best bet now is to keep on burying their heads in the sand. Ignore, vilify, ridicule, etc. While hanging on to all the establishments, media, academia, etc.
They probably got more because their experiments were better.
Obviously
you know NOTHING about science and how it works. Western scientists will NEVER be forced to admit their phsyics is wrong. Even if you rub their
nose in the stink, when they can no longer deny, they will all
immediately proclaim that "everybody knows' your theories are correct.
No embarrassment. No admission of stupidity. And that is the truth.
It is quite clear that following the Perendev simulation the Pakistanis have
made a generator using permanent magnets. This generator generates energy continuously. It does not need any energy source like fossil, sun, etc. And anyone can repeat their work, just like anyone can repeat my experiments to violate the Third and First Laws of Motion.
This is garbage. Perpetual motion or "free energy" needs an energy
source. That is given. it may not be one you are familiar with, but
trust me it is there. You are wandering in the wilderness.
In
other words you Plop down a charge q and you experience a
force qE regardless of what kind of E it is. So there there is
no need to throw out Maxwell's (Heaviside's) equations.
You better not, if you want to make electrical motors.
And indeed Jefimnko has shown
that special relativity can be derived right form Maxwell's
equations and retardation without resort to the assumptions
Einstein made about light.
Wow, how did he manage that? Any references? How Maxwell's
equations lead to e=mcc is something I would like to know, what
assumptions are now involved. I suppose he took the Lorentz
transform as a given and put it in the Maxwell's equations. But
the Lorentz transform works only when we assume the invariance
of the speed of light.
You can find a quick (but not exhaustive) review in my paper EM6
Indeed in Einstein's time Galilean relativity was widely
established for mechanics people all suspected that it was
true for electromagnetics as well. And Indeed it is.
Indeed it is, as the Doppler effect shows, and the red-shift and
blue-shift phenomena of stars.
Which of course is the biggest mistake in all of physics! Not
Doppler.
Doppler effect is explained naturally when you consider the speed of
sound or light varying with the speed of emitter.
So if speed of emitter is v and speed of sound/light is c Then net
speed towards you is c+v and away from you is c-v. The wavelength L
does not change. So the frequency is higher when the emitter is
moving towards you as f=(c+v)/L and frequency is lower when the
emitter is moving away from you as f=(c-v)/L which is because In the
first case more wavelengths are going past you in a certain time
because the velocity of the wave motion is greater; And in the
second case lesser wavelengths are going past you in that certain
time because of velocity of the wave motion is slower.
Excellent explanation. Too bad even Michelson proved it all to be
totally wrong. That everyone still believes is is amazing.
Thanks. It is amazing that everyone believes that the speed of light does not vary with the speed of the emitter. The power of media, academia, etc to brainwash the masses with the deification of Einstein is the reason.
That would be because it's been measured with experiments thousands of
times (starting with Michelson himself) and has always been shown true. Which just shows the power of truth to brainwash those with scientific minds.
This is the biggest bungle of all, that light speed is invariant. It is absolute nonsense. To continue to believe in it, is criminal to the extreme.Einstein took some of the speculation toward this end and
mashed together to give SR. To decide "against" SR (as is so
common in the INTERNET) is simply wrong because it is deciding
against observed fact.
What observed facts? The MMI experiment clearly shows that the
speed of light DOES depend upon the speed of the transmitter. I
pointed this out in 2005. When we take into account the fact
that the apparatus is moving along with the Earth (this was
ignored, a subtle but horrific bungle in the analysis of the null
results) then the null results indicate that if the Earth is
moving and not fixed, the speed of light must change with the
speed of the emitter. The link below gives the details.
MM found no "aether drift". Indeed Jefimenko has shown that
Einstein's assumption of the constant speed of light is NOT needed
to formulate SR. I highly recommend reading what he did. However
centuries of experiment shows that the speed of light does not
depend on the velocity of its source.
When you take the Earth as moving, then the apparatus is also moving
just as the light has left its source. Taking the movement of the
apparatus in space into consideration, the MMI experiment gives null
result ONLY when the speed of light varies as the speed of the Earth.
MMI null results clearly show that if the Earth is moving, then the
nulls take place as the speed of light varies with speed of the
Earth, as the emitter has the speed of the Earth. What they forgot to
take into consideration was that the apparatus was also moving in
that time interval. Not taking that into consideration led to the
huge bungle which is modern physics.
Details below-
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.culture.australian/wwQ4LkfM4bc/7uhLA2kLDfQJ
there are lots of bungles in modern physics but this isn't one. The
reason light is now used as the standard of all length is because the
above story is wrong.
Latest experiments (2022) showing my invention of a new kind of rail gun https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYtyOMbgiZ0
Which is improved upon in, and its potential for ejecting matter into near space , and horizontal tunneling shown in
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6pjy0Wvujs&t=19s
and the following shows how a new class of linear motor violating inertia can be developed by arresting the momentum of the armature and imparting that to the whole system, giving it an increased velocity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idsIuzEajTc&t=2s
Earlier experiments (2017)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqBfwAClVlg
IFE - 1 Ground Experiments
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9eGq4Oiv9s
IFE - 2 Experimental setups
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3hC48BMrno
IFE - 3 Pendulum experiments
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sSPxGsLkws
IFE - 4 Evolution of spaceship
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJdM6UDPauU
IFE - 5 Hydrogen Transmission Network
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUAcx7rAplc
IFE - 6 Spaceship Design
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5Zbpvc3fdA
IFE - 7 Anti-Gravity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VA9LUwqMhxY
IFE - 8 New Physics
The way the universe operates:
The cause of gravity https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/mmigkl3yZYc/m/8Rs16NCXAAAJ
Explaining the nova and supernova phenomena with new physics theories - 1 https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/6UIGDNHH7n0/m/U0t-kYqgAAAJ
Explaining the nova and supernova phenomena with new physics theories - 2 https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/CffbGTXV72c/m/5ONP6J6gAAAJ
Introduction to "A New Look Towards the Principles of Motion" https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/1wmee5C8mFs/kJMPdnFkAwAJ
Section 1
Linear Motion, Momentum, Force, Energy, Internal Force Engines, and the design of Interstellar Spacecraft
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/GbpQC3a2d1Q/jSXQeb9kAwAJ
Section 1 (contd.)
Linear Motion, Momentum, Force, Energy, Internal Force Engines, and the design of Interstellar Spacecraft
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/P9ZiinIDhHU/ZtMQVyliBQAJ
Section 2
The Creation and Destruction of Energy https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/wY6_9V8ucSY/3nnJQk9iBQAJ
Section 3
The Structure of Heavenly Bodies https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/8jH-SQIFFDo/O1jn3HpiBQAJ
Section 4
The Nature of Explosion https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/7TkOVZigFHg/uv43_aZiBQAJ
Section 5 https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/jhgcsTq-NrQ/ZBwG8S9jBQAJ
Thanks to all my friends! I am happy to announce on this day that I have found an electrostatic formula for gravitational force. It is F=C(D)*N1*N2*q^2/D^2 where C(D) is a constant value when D is large, N1 and N2 are the number of protons in masses M1and M2 separated by the distance D, and q is the charge of the proton/electron. It is similar to the formula that is well known for the law of universal gravitaion that is F = G*M1*M2/D^2 where G is the famous gravitational constant. As we know N1 and N2
On Tuesday, May 23, 2017 at 8:21:43 AM UTC+10, benj wrote:
On 5/22/2017 6:50 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
On Monday, May 22, 2017 at 5:37:03 PM UTC+10, benj wrote:
On 05/21/2017 09:27 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
On Saturday, May 20, 2017 at 7:14:51 AM UTC+10, benj wrote:
On 5/19/2017 1:24 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
On Thursday, May 18, 2017 at 8:14:17 AM UTC+10, benj wrote:
On 5/17/2017 3:05 AM, chanr...@gmail.com wrote:
Actually, it is enough to deny present electromagnetic
theory.
I think benj is correct to point out that electrostatic E is >>>>>>> very different from induction E;
Of course Benj is wrong. EvErybody knows he's a kook.
No, induction electric field is one that varies with time unlike >>>>> the electrostatic E.
You need to learn more about E fields. I suggest my EM papers on my >>>> Temporary Website. www.hypersphere.com Note that there is more
than a time variation between these different E fields. One is
conservative the other not, one is solenopidal the other
irrotational, ans do forth. By Occam's Razor your theory is
simpler and clearly "best", unfortunately it's just wrong.
I don't see how, except by your definition. The induction electric
field can only exist when there is a changing magnetic field. That
is the basis of all radiation. Otherwise the electrostatic electric >>> field can change in magnitude when the charge creating that field
moves away.
So when a magnet moves away there is induction?
When a magnet moves away there is change of the magnetic field at a given
point.
If there is a copper loop there is current through the loop when the loop
is at right angles to the changing magnetic field.
This is what Faraday observed and is the basis for the first electric generator.
ACtually not what Faraday observed. You need some history.
https://www.electrical4u.com/faraday-law-of-electromagnetic-induction/
Read that carefully.
Magnetic and
electrokinetic fields are created together. so hence they exist
together. They do not create each other.
They do create each other, when motion or variation of amplitude is involved.
The changing magnetic field creates the changing electric field. And the changing magnetic field creates the changing magnetic field. This is how electromagnetic waves propagate through any wave guide.
Well proof by assertion! That's always good sceince (on the internet)
As em fields can be added and subtracted to form radiation patterns, with proper excitation of electric currents to radiators with proper phasing, the reality of the electric and magnetic fields is simply undeniable. All microwave
and antenna work depends upon visualising radiation in any form as the progression of varying electric and magnetic fields in free space. To say that
at low frequency, we have particles instead of waves, cannot be anything but stupendously ridiculous. While one can think of photons getting generated by atomic excitation, with energy level changes etc. at low frequencies how do the low frequency photons get excited! At UHF we can see how the frequency of
transmission and reception depends upon the dimensions of the dipole. So where
are the photons for UHF?
We can "see" the variation of the electric field along its length.
There are various modes of propagation, like TEM in a coaxial, TE and TM in
hollow waveguides, and so on.
So?
It is not particles we are talking about that go through a hollow waveguide. Electromagnetic wave propagation happens through a hollow waveguide
When opened out, the electromagnetic waves from the waveguide radiate outwards
into free space.
No signs of particles, no way they can be formed as from atomic excitations.
Any book on wave guides will show how this happens starting from Maxwell's laws.
No they will show a mathematical derivation.
Yes, and that helps to design the dimensions to make the antenna possible. No chance of particle theory helping the antenna designer in any way.
The maths drives the design in antenna development.
That is why I did my M.Tech in Computer Science, as I found that antenna design is so mathematical and needed computer techniques for optimisation. It is another story that I drifted off into databases... but my original intention was to develop the maths of antennas into software programs for fast development of the complex phased arrays.
how can a conservative and
non-conservative field be treated as a single E in Maxwell's >>>>>>> equation and assume the theory is valid.
One can add a constant electric field to a varying electric
field to get a net electric field that is varying. What is
strange about this?
What is strange about adding apples and oranges? Nothing! You end >>>> up with the total number of fruit!
But we are not adding apples and oranges. We are adding a fixed
supply of apples to a varying supply of apples to get a net varying >>> sum of apples with respect to time.
No we aren't we are adding fields with widely differing properties. just
as apples and oranges are fruits with differing properties. The idea
that the only variation is time variations is your theory.
When we are talking about electric field, we are talking about a VECTOR and
so vector addition and subtractions take place for everything associated with the electric field. This is not my theory. This is plain mathematics
of vectors, started by Heaviside.
So if I add an electric field to a frictional force vector to a current flow vector that is OK in your book? You need some more math.
I am adding an electric field to another electric field
vector wise to get a net electric field at a point. That is the field. Now if
there is a charge there it will get a force. That force is caused by electricity, but is mechanical in nature. Elecrostatic forces follow Newtonian
laws, unlike Lorenz forces (as I have found and shown and proved with my experiments). That mechanical force, being a mechanical force, can be added vector-wise to any mechanical force around, such as friction, at that point.
time�when applied to moving bodies, leads to asymmetries which do not >> appear to be
Gauss law is only for electrostatic
E, not Faraday's E.
One can always add the static to the variable.
Based on strict scientific principle, this single
fact should have the Maxwell-Heaviside equations ejected from >>>>>>> physics.
I don't see how.
But the problem is that rejecting Maxwell's equation mean
the rejection of special relativity and the physics world
decided against it.
Special relativity means casting doubt about Maxwellian
electrodynamics. SR means that there is no aether, so there are >>>>> no electromagnetic waves, everything is distorted as spacetime
since the only the speed of light is constant in the constantly >>>>> twisted and limited universe. However undeniably light behaves
as if it is wave motion, so a schizophrenia is attributed to
light, with the de Broglie assumption of its dual nature. It is >>>>> with the de Broglie assumption that the Maxwellian view of
electromagnetic waves with its predictive properties so useful in >>>>> engineering is half-retained. In reality, as per modern physics >>>>> light is a stream of energy particles called photons. Photons do >>>>> not need the aether medium for propagation, as they are particles >>>>> with kinetic energy.
Spacetime is nothign but fantasy like the way warps in
temperaturetime cause global warming!
True.
Einstein said there was an aether. You disagree?
In his 1905 paper Einstein said that aether theory was redundant.
Let me quote from that paper and we can come to conclusions:
He starts off with the dismissal of Maxwellian electrodynamics with >>> the very first words: *** It is known that Maxwell�s
electrodynamics�as usually understood at the present
inherent in the phenomena.
***
When you consider the fact that the moving armature of a rail gun
motor has no reaction as proved by my experiments (enough links on
that presented already) then the phenomena DOES vindicate Maxwell's >>> electrodynamics.
Could be true but you haven't proved it Third law does not apply to
certain EM phenomena.
I have proved that Newton's Third Law is not valid for the Lorenz force, with
my experiments. The electromagnetic or Lorenz force = Magnetic field * current
* length of conductor does not have a reaction component. This is a new discovery, which in time will be found to be as important as the discovery
of fire or the wheel.
No.
Some reaction, this.
How unscientific! How lazy, cowardly and totally corrupt, morally
bankrupt, spiritually dead, socially callous, intellectually ridiculous! What a toxic attitude! How dishonest!
But there is always hope, so sooner or later (hopefully as soon as possible) honest scientists will do my experiments, or at least go through my video films
carefully, to come to the same conclusions as I have.
That is, the Lorenz force does not have an opposite reaction, and thus leads to technologies that will depend upon the violation of Newtonian laws of motion.
(Which however are valid for mechanical systems.)
So if the scientific world accepts my conclusion that there is no
reaction to the Lorentz force accelerating the rail gun bullet then >>> Einstein is wrong and Maxwell is right.
Actually Einstein can be derived from Maxwell (to a certain degree)
There are a few places where SR are in question, but not the ones
usually asserted here.
This is a dogmatic statement outside the scope of science. Whereas my experiments are real and can be repeated and the conclusions drawn with no
ambiguity. Maxwell and Eisntein are totally incompatible. The former has light as electromagnetic waves travelling through the medium of aether that
pervades the entire universe. The latter has light as a stream of energy particles in a universe that is constantly getting distorted in four dimensions. To say that one leads to the other is not possible in any reasonable or scientific sense.
)
You do not address the primary theoretical issues I made just above, that Maxwell and Einstein are incompatible totally. The efforts to confuse those two with mere assertion is pathetically transparent.
My experiments have been very carefully presented, performed and
analysed. Anyone can go through the video films and no doubt some have done just that. In time their numbers will increase. Those interested jolly well should repeat the experiments to confirm the results. It should be every physics teacher's duty to go through my experiments and if possible repeat them.
Your thinking is flawed.
Whatever it is, it is clearly presented to the world.
Light particle wave duality has not been explained.
You cannot explain nonsense - you can only dismiss it. Light particle-wave duality is only a hypothesis which is wrong
However in order to get rid of Maxwell' electrodynamics it is
necessary to show that light is NOT wave motion, and so does not
need any aether. For all waves need a medium. The medium for light, >>> if light is wave motion, is aether. Einstein dismisses the aether
theory in the same paper with these words: *** We will raise this
conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called the
�Principle of Relativity�) to the status of a postulate, and also >>> introduce another postulate, which is only apparently irreconcilable >>> with the former, namely, that light is always propagated in empty
space with a de?nite velocity c which is independent of the state of >>> motion of the emitting body. These two postulates su?ce for the
attainment of a simple and consistent theory of the electrodynamics >>> of moving bodies based on Maxwell�s theory for stationary bodies. >>> ^^^The introduction of a �luminiferous ether� will prove to be
super?uous ^^^inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not
require an �absolutely stationary space� provided with special
properties, nor assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty
space in which electromagnetic processes take place. ***
"superflous" has been taken to mean "non-existant". that is not what the
word means. Einstein points out that since space has properties
therefore aether must exist. It is "aether drift" that does not exist.
Non-existent yes, aether does not exist as per Einsteinian electrodynamics
as everyone knows. And why should it, as light is not wave motion but a stream
of particles. Einstein says that aether does not exist - how can he say that
it does as you say! "Aether drift" means finding out the velocity of Earth in
aether - to say there is no aether drift is the same as saying that the Earth does not move, that the old Aristotleian system is valid. Which in a way
makes sense, for when we take the fixed Earth and twisted Lorentz spacetime
we get the formulas which makes GPS work. Two wrongs making a right. But the
Earth does move, and as the MMI shows nulls, that can only happen when the
speed of light varies with the speed of the transmitter.
So now it's "everybody knows the earth is flat" kind of science. Hey, "Everybody knows" the sun and stars go around the earth. That is a given.
So we come to the point at last. You do not believe the Earth goes around thd
Sun! You prove my point, that the Einsteinians are really Aristotleians and they hate Galileo, Newton, Maxwell, Tesla... You lot are not scientific at all,
but pose as such. You are great dogmatists! Rather cunning, though.
Well, well. what more is there to be said! When I will make my motors that will
go by violating Newtonian laws, you lot will still be making silly noises and
talk of black holes and dark matter and other nonsense.
Obviously, if you hold that light is a stream of particles then
there is no wave motion, nor is there aether. On the other hand, if >>> light is a wave motion through aether then aether is present
throughout the infinite universe.
I hold that light is a wave phenomena in the aether (waves no matter
what modern physics fantasizes) require a medium by definition. And that
aether is present throughout all those parts of the universe (Einstein >> noted in reality nothing is infinite except human stupidity) where
aether exists.
Einstein dispenses with aether in the 1905 paper. Whatever he wrote was complete nonsense as a result. He was the biggest bungler ever. He should
have noted that the MMI experiment actually proved that light speed changed
with the speed of the emitter, for with a moving Earth and the nulls that is
what had to be when we *take into consideration that the apparatus moves with
the Earth as it is fixed to the Earth". Instead of that, he provided a weird and nonsensical view of the Universe with continuous distortions that
had to be to make the speed of light constant... nothing could travel faster
than light, what rubbish. Yes humans are infinitely stupid to not reject Einstein even after I pointed out the bungle back in 2005. Blind habit, what.
He did not "dispense" with aether. Just said you didn't need it to calculate. Others jumped to the erroneous conclusion that aether (and waves) did not exist. Humans are such herd animals. One goes over the cliff and they all follow. Just look at the Big Bang theory.
Of course he dispensed with aether. All modern physicists dispense with aether
and that is why modern physics is rubbish. Relativity is nonsense, quantum mechanics is wrong, relativistic quantum electrodynamics does not provide any
predictions for rail gun behaviour as proved by Graneau in his book "Newtonian
Electrodynamics"... To say that sometimes aether exists and sometimes not, is
schizophrenic just as the wave-particle duality of light.
Sounds like you really understand particle-wave duality. You hade >>>> better explain it to us quick so we all no longer have to go
through life ignorant.
Thanks. There is no wave-particle duality. There is only wave motion >>> of light, of UHF, of gamma rays, all radiation. All radiators are
natural antennas; all surfaces receiving radiation and receiving
antennas that convert the input electromagnetic field to mechanical >>> oscillation thereby providing the sensation of heat.
No particle wave duality? You seem to have missed a few observations.
Wave-particle duality is the schizophrenic view of the light - light is electromagnetic wave propagation, never particles. It is mad to think of particle-wave duality. Insane. At best it is a most unworthy patch-up.
It is clear that on can define a number of E fields based upon >>>>>> their properties. However, as Jefimenko points out, all
electromagnetic fields are FORCE fields and this plus major
redundancies in EM theory all one to get away with treating
these different fields as if they were one.
??? If we believe in SR we cannot believe in electromagnetic
fields. Magnets are things we should ignore completely, for they >>>>> cannot be understood in photonic symbology as per relativistic
quantum electrodynamics. I once saw a video of Feynman being
asked about magnetism. He said he had no clue.
Great science! If you can't understand something then it doesn't
exist! Ranks right up there with the moon not existing until
someone looks at it.
I was surprised when I saw and heard him say that. Magnetism has no >>> place in quantum mechanics. However, magnets do exist and their
field does not fade, as proved by the success of the Perendev
simulation (when proven to satisfaction to all interested). Also, as >>> they are replacing electromagnets in motors, the credibility of
generation of unlimited energy by magnets is a reality (again, when >>> proven beyond doubt).
Still waiting for proven beyond doubt.Remember the Keely engines? I'm >> still waiting for proof of those too.
The Pakistani videos have got over a million hits. More than my videos, much more. Evidently there is a conspiracy going on to deny them any top publicity. One can see why. Western scientists will look pretty foolish when
they will be forced to admit that most of their classical physics and all
their modern physics is WRONG. The best bet now is to keep on burying their
heads in the sand. Ignore, vilify, ridicule, etc. While hanging on to all
the establishments, media, academia, etc.
They probably got more because their experiments were better.
Perhaps. On the other hand I may have got more hits for my videos but there is
a global conspiracy to ignore me as much as possible, so the hits are down. I cannot believe that the whole human race is so entirely corrupt and without
curiosity. So I think that the hits are being downed by youtube and google, to
make it appear that the world is not interested. What can I say, I am glad that
they have not pulled it off the net! Anyone can still see them, copy them out,
what. And I have got the originals of course.
Obviously
you know NOTHING about science and how it works. Western scientists will NEVER be forced to admit their phsyics is wrong. Even if you rub their nose in the stink, when they can no longer deny, they will all
immediately proclaim that "everybody knows' your theories are correct.
No embarrassment. No admission of stupidity. And that is the truth.
The moral and social consequences of dishonesty cannot be ignored. I suppose,
a deep atheism is their best support - they really do not care what will happen
to the world after they die. And they don't have children, so why bother. They have worked out that the chances of an asteroid hitting the planet in their lifetime is say 0.001% and that is the risk they are happy to take, so long as that ensures their fat parasitic lifestyles.
Yes, at last the truth is coming out about Western scientists. Thanks for your
frankness. I had formed a similar opinion earlier based upon my long experience
here outside India. In India, people are still genuinely scientific, and that
is the great hope for humanity.
It is quite clear that following the Perendev simulation the Pakistanis have
made a generator using permanent magnets. This generator generates energy
continuously. It does not need any energy source like fossil, sun, etc. And
anyone can repeat their work, just like anyone can repeat my experiments to
violate the Third and First Laws of Motion.
This is garbage. Perpetual motion or "free energy" needs an energy
source. That is given. it may not be one you are familiar with, but
trust me it is there. You are wandering in the wilderness.
Look, if the Pakistani generator keeps on working then no matter how dishonest
the Western scientists are, other scientists elsewhere are bound to notice sooner or later. Well, if it does not work, another story. But they have got a million plus hits on their film. What cannot be proved is how long the generator provided energy, did the magnets deteriorate, etc. On the face of it,
it all worked. You are contradicting yourself when you say that "free energy"
needs an energy source. If it did, it would not be free energy at all unless we are talking about sun, Earth etc. which are free energy providers naturally.
What is happening is that magnetic forces that do not deteriorate (hopefully)
are providing energy constantly, which is getting used up. Simple.
In
other words you Plop down a charge q and you experience a
force qE regardless of what kind of E it is. So there there is >>>>>> no need to throw out Maxwell's (Heaviside's) equations.
You better not, if you want to make electrical motors.
And indeed Jefimnko has shown
that special relativity can be derived right form Maxwell's
equations and retardation without resort to the assumptions
Einstein made about light.
Wow, how did he manage that? Any references? How Maxwell's
equations lead to e=mcc is something I would like to know, what >>>>> assumptions are now involved. I suppose he took the Lorentz
transform as a given and put it in the Maxwell's equations. But >>>>> the Lorentz transform works only when we assume the invariance
of the speed of light.
You can find a quick (but not exhaustive) review in my paper EM6
Indeed in Einstein's time Galilean relativity was widely
established for mechanics people all suspected that it was
true for electromagnetics as well. And Indeed it is.
Indeed it is, as the Doppler effect shows, and the red-shift and >>>>> blue-shift phenomena of stars.
Which of course is the biggest mistake in all of physics! Not
Doppler.
Doppler effect is explained naturally when you consider the speed of >>> sound or light varying with the speed of emitter.
So if speed of emitter is v and speed of sound/light is c Then net
speed towards you is c+v and away from you is c-v. The wavelength L >>> does not change. So the frequency is higher when the emitter is
moving towards you as f=(c+v)/L and frequency is lower when the
emitter is moving away from you as f=(c-v)/L which is because In the >>> first case more wavelengths are going past you in a certain time
because the velocity of the wave motion is greater; And in the
second case lesser wavelengths are going past you in that certain
time because of velocity of the wave motion is slower.
Excellent explanation. Too bad even Michelson proved it all to be
totally wrong. That everyone still believes is is amazing.
Thanks. It is amazing that everyone believes that the speed of light does
not vary with the speed of the emitter. The power of media, academia, etc
to brainwash the masses with the deification of Einstein is the reason.
That would be because it's been measured with experiments thousands of times (starting with Michelson himself) and has always been shown true. Which just shows the power of truth to brainwash those with scientific minds.
As I now point out, they have made the same mistake with result to the analysis
of the results, by ignoring the fact that the apparatus moved along with the Earth. Repeating the same bungle a thousand times shows how silly they have all
been. Sooner or late some bright mind (alas, not from the West as you say!) will understand my reasoning. Then they will have a lot of fun and action throwing out the old text books and rewriting new physics books based upon the
observations that c(v)=c+v and e=0.5mVVN(N-k).
Einstein took some of the speculation toward this end and
mashed together to give SR. To decide "against" SR (as is so
common in the INTERNET) is simply wrong because it is deciding >>>>>> against observed fact.
What observed facts? The MMI experiment clearly shows that the
speed of light DOES depend upon the speed of the transmitter. I >>>>> pointed this out in 2005. When we take into account the fact
that the apparatus is moving along with the Earth (this was
ignored, a subtle but horrific bungle in the analysis of the null
On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 5:10:12 PM UTC-7, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
Latest experiments (2022) showing my invention of a new kind of rail gun https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYtyOMbgiZ0
Which is improved upon in, and its potential for ejecting matter into near space , and horizontal tunneling shown in
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6pjy0Wvujs&t=19s
and the following shows how a new class of linear motor violating inertia can be developed by arresting the momentum of the armature and imparting that to the whole system, giving it an increased velocity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idsIuzEajTc&t=2s
Earlier experiments (2017)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqBfwAClVlg
IFE - 1 Ground Experiments
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9eGq4Oiv9s
IFE - 2 Experimental setups
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3hC48BMrno
IFE - 3 Pendulum experiments
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sSPxGsLkws
IFE - 4 Evolution of spaceship
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJdM6UDPauU
IFE - 5 Hydrogen Transmission Network
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUAcx7rAplc
IFE - 6 Spaceship Design
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5Zbpvc3fdA
IFE - 7 Anti-Gravity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VA9LUwqMhxY
IFE - 8 New Physics
The way the universe operates:
The cause of gravity https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/mmigkl3yZYc/m/8Rs16NCXAAAJ
Explaining the nova and supernova phenomena with new physics theories - 1 https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/6UIGDNHH7n0/m/U0t-kYqgAAAJ
Explaining the nova and supernova phenomena with new physics theories - 2 https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/CffbGTXV72c/m/5ONP6J6gAAAJ
Introduction to "A New Look Towards the Principles of Motion" https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/1wmee5C8mFs/kJMPdnFkAwAJ
Section 1
Linear Motion, Momentum, Force, Energy, Internal Force Engines, and the design of Interstellar Spacecraft
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/GbpQC3a2d1Q/jSXQeb9kAwAJ
Section 1 (contd.)
Linear Motion, Momentum, Force, Energy, Internal Force Engines, and the design of Interstellar Spacecraft
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/P9ZiinIDhHU/ZtMQVyliBQAJ
Section 2
The Creation and Destruction of Energy https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/wY6_9V8ucSY/3nnJQk9iBQAJ
Section 3
The Structure of Heavenly Bodies https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/8jH-SQIFFDo/O1jn3HpiBQAJ
Section 4
The Nature of Explosion https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/7TkOVZigFHg/uv43_aZiBQAJ
Section 5 https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/jhgcsTq-NrQ/ZBwG8S9jBQAJ
M1 and M2 separated by the distance D, and q is the charge of the proton/electron. It is similar to the formula that is well known for the law of universal gravitaion that is F = G*M1*M2/D^2 where G is the famous gravitational constant. As we know N1 andThanks to all my friends! I am happy to announce on this day that I have found an electrostatic formula for gravitational force. It is F=C(D)*N1*N2*q^2/D^2 where C(D) is a constant value when D is large, N1 and N2 are the number of protons in masses
On Tuesday, May 23, 2017 at 8:21:43 AM UTC+10, benj wrote:
On 5/22/2017 6:50 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
On Monday, May 22, 2017 at 5:37:03 PM UTC+10, benj wrote:
On 05/21/2017 09:27 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
On Saturday, May 20, 2017 at 7:14:51 AM UTC+10, benj wrote:
On 5/19/2017 1:24 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
On Thursday, May 18, 2017 at 8:14:17 AM UTC+10, benj wrote:
On 5/17/2017 3:05 AM, chanr...@gmail.com wrote:
Actually, it is enough to deny present electromagnetic
theory.
I think benj is correct to point out that electrostatic E is >>>>>>> very different from induction E;
Of course Benj is wrong. EvErybody knows he's a kook.
No, induction electric field is one that varies with time unlike >>>>> the electrostatic E.
You need to learn more about E fields. I suggest my EM papers on my >>>> Temporary Website. www.hypersphere.com Note that there is more
than a time variation between these different E fields. One is
conservative the other not, one is solenopidal the other
irrotational, ans do forth. By Occam's Razor your theory is
simpler and clearly "best", unfortunately it's just wrong.
I don't see how, except by your definition. The induction electric >>> field can only exist when there is a changing magnetic field. That >>> is the basis of all radiation. Otherwise the electrostatic electric >>> field can change in magnitude when the charge creating that field >>> moves away.
So when a magnet moves away there is induction?
When a magnet moves away there is change of the magnetic field at a given
point.
If there is a copper loop there is current through the loop when the loop
is at right angles to the changing magnetic field.
This is what Faraday observed and is the basis for the first electric generator.
ACtually not what Faraday observed. You need some history.
https://www.electrical4u.com/faraday-law-of-electromagnetic-induction/
Read that carefully.
Magnetic and
electrokinetic fields are created together. so hence they exist
together. They do not create each other.
They do create each other, when motion or variation of amplitude is involved.
The changing magnetic field creates the changing electric field. And the
changing magnetic field creates the changing magnetic field. This is how
electromagnetic waves propagate through any wave guide.
Well proof by assertion! That's always good sceince (on the internet)
As em fields can be added and subtracted to form radiation patterns, with proper excitation of electric currents to radiators with proper phasing, the
reality of the electric and magnetic fields is simply undeniable. All microwave
and antenna work depends upon visualising radiation in any form as the progression of varying electric and magnetic fields in free space. To say that
at low frequency, we have particles instead of waves, cannot be anything but
stupendously ridiculous. While one can think of photons getting generated by
atomic excitation, with energy level changes etc. at low frequencies how do
the low frequency photons get excited! At UHF we can see how the frequency of
transmission and reception depends upon the dimensions of the dipole. So where
are the photons for UHF?
We can "see" the variation of the electric field along its length.
There are various modes of propagation, like TEM in a coaxial, TE and TM in
hollow waveguides, and so on.
So?
It is not particles we are talking about that go through a hollow waveguide.
Electromagnetic wave propagation happens through a hollow waveguide
When opened out, the electromagnetic waves from the waveguide radiate outwards
into free space.
No signs of particles, no way they can be formed as from atomic excitations.
Any book on wave guides will show how this happens starting from Maxwell's laws.
No they will show a mathematical derivation.
Yes, and that helps to design the dimensions to make the antenna possible. No chance of particle theory helping the antenna designer in any way.
The maths drives the design in antenna development.
That is why I did my M.Tech in Computer Science, as I found that antenna design is so mathematical and needed computer techniques for optimisation. It is another story that I drifted off into databases... but my original intention was to develop the maths of antennas into software programs for fast development of the complex phased arrays.
how can a conservative and
non-conservative field be treated as a single E in Maxwell's >>>>>>> equation and assume the theory is valid.
One can add a constant electric field to a varying electric
field to get a net electric field that is varying. What is
strange about this?
What is strange about adding apples and oranges? Nothing! You end >>>> up with the total number of fruit!
But we are not adding apples and oranges. We are adding a fixed
supply of apples to a varying supply of apples to get a net varying >>> sum of apples with respect to time.
No we aren't we are adding fields with widely differing properties. just
as apples and oranges are fruits with differing properties. The idea >> that the only variation is time variations is your theory.
When we are talking about electric field, we are talking about a VECTOR and
so vector addition and subtractions take place for everything associated
with the electric field. This is not my theory. This is plain mathematics
of vectors, started by Heaviside.
So if I add an electric field to a frictional force vector to a current flow vector that is OK in your book? You need some more math.
I am adding an electric field to another electric field
vector wise to get a net electric field at a point. That is the field. Now if
there is a charge there it will get a force. That force is caused by electricity, but is mechanical in nature. Elecrostatic forces follow Newtonian
laws, unlike Lorenz forces (as I have found and shown and proved with my experiments). That mechanical force, being a mechanical force, can be added
vector-wise to any mechanical force around, such as friction, at that point.
time�when applied to moving bodies, leads to asymmetries which do not
Gauss law is only for electrostatic
E, not Faraday's E.
One can always add the static to the variable.
Based on strict scientific principle, this single
fact should have the Maxwell-Heaviside equations ejected from >>>>>>> physics.
I don't see how.
But the problem is that rejecting Maxwell's equation mean
the rejection of special relativity and the physics world >>>>>>> decided against it.
Special relativity means casting doubt about Maxwellian
electrodynamics. SR means that there is no aether, so there are >>>>> no electromagnetic waves, everything is distorted as spacetime >>>>> since the only the speed of light is constant in the constantly >>>>> twisted and limited universe. However undeniably light behaves >>>>> as if it is wave motion, so a schizophrenia is attributed to
light, with the de Broglie assumption of its dual nature. It is >>>>> with the de Broglie assumption that the Maxwellian view of
electromagnetic waves with its predictive properties so useful in >>>>> engineering is half-retained. In reality, as per modern physics >>>>> light is a stream of energy particles called photons. Photons do >>>>> not need the aether medium for propagation, as they are particles >>>>> with kinetic energy.
Spacetime is nothign but fantasy like the way warps in
temperaturetime cause global warming!
True.
Einstein said there was an aether. You disagree?
In his 1905 paper Einstein said that aether theory was redundant. >>> Let me quote from that paper and we can come to conclusions:
He starts off with the dismissal of Maxwellian electrodynamics with >>> the very first words: *** It is known that Maxwell�s
electrodynamics�as usually understood at the present
appear to be
inherent in the phenomena.
***
When you consider the fact that the moving armature of a rail gun >>> motor has no reaction as proved by my experiments (enough links on >>> that presented already) then the phenomena DOES vindicate Maxwell's >>> electrodynamics.
Could be true but you haven't proved it Third law does not apply to >> certain EM phenomena.
I have proved that Newton's Third Law is not valid for the Lorenz force, with
my experiments. The electromagnetic or Lorenz force = Magnetic field * current
* length of conductor does not have a reaction component. This is a new
discovery, which in time will be found to be as important as the discovery
of fire or the wheel.
No.
Some reaction, this.
How unscientific! How lazy, cowardly and totally corrupt, morally bankrupt, spiritually dead, socially callous, intellectually ridiculous! What a toxic attitude! How dishonest!
But there is always hope, so sooner or later (hopefully as soon as possible)
honest scientists will do my experiments, or at least go through my video films
carefully, to come to the same conclusions as I have.
That is, the Lorenz force does not have an opposite reaction, and thus leads
to technologies that will depend upon the violation of Newtonian laws of motion.
(Which however are valid for mechanical systems.)
So if the scientific world accepts my conclusion that there is no >>> reaction to the Lorentz force accelerating the rail gun bullet then >>> Einstein is wrong and Maxwell is right.
Actually Einstein can be derived from Maxwell (to a certain degree) >> There are a few places where SR are in question, but not the ones
usually asserted here.
This is a dogmatic statement outside the scope of science. Whereas my experiments are real and can be repeated and the conclusions drawn with no
ambiguity. Maxwell and Eisntein are totally incompatible. The former has
light as electromagnetic waves travelling through the medium of aether that
pervades the entire universe. The latter has light as a stream of energy
particles in a universe that is constantly getting distorted in four dimensions. To say that one leads to the other is not possible in any reasonable or scientific sense.
)
You do not address the primary theoretical issues I made just above, that Maxwell and Einstein are incompatible totally. The efforts to confuse those
two with mere assertion is pathetically transparent.
My experiments have been very carefully presented, performed and
analysed. Anyone can go through the video films and no doubt some have done
just that. In time their numbers will increase. Those interested jolly well
should repeat the experiments to confirm the results. It should be every physics teacher's duty to go through my experiments and if possible repeat them.
Your thinking is flawed.
Whatever it is, it is clearly presented to the world.
Light particle wave duality has not been explained.
You cannot explain nonsense - you can only dismiss it. Light particle-wave duality is only a hypothesis which is wrong
However in order to get rid of Maxwell' electrodynamics it is
necessary to show that light is NOT wave motion, and so does not
need any aether. For all waves need a medium. The medium for light, >>> if light is wave motion, is aether. Einstein dismisses the aether >>> theory in the same paper with these words: *** We will raise this >>> conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called the
�Principle of Relativity�) to the status of a postulate, and also
introduce another postulate, which is only apparently irreconcilable >>> with the former, namely, that light is always propagated in empty >>> space with a de?nite velocity c which is independent of the state of >>> motion of the emitting body. These two postulates su?ce for the
attainment of a simple and consistent theory of the electrodynamics >>> of moving bodies based on Maxwell�s theory for stationary bodies. >>> ^^^The introduction of a �luminiferous ether� will prove to be >>> super?uous ^^^inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not
require an �absolutely stationary space� provided with special >>> properties, nor assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty
space in which electromagnetic processes take place. ***
"superflous" has been taken to mean "non-existant". that is not what the
word means. Einstein points out that since space has properties
therefore aether must exist. It is "aether drift" that does not exist.
Non-existent yes, aether does not exist as per Einsteinian electrodynamics
as everyone knows. And why should it, as light is not wave motion but a stream
of particles. Einstein says that aether does not exist - how can he say that
it does as you say! "Aether drift" means finding out the velocity of Earth in
aether - to say there is no aether drift is the same as saying that the
Earth does not move, that the old Aristotleian system is valid. Which in a way
makes sense, for when we take the fixed Earth and twisted Lorentz spacetime
we get the formulas which makes GPS work. Two wrongs making a right. But the
Earth does move, and as the MMI shows nulls, that can only happen when the
speed of light varies with the speed of the transmitter.
So now it's "everybody knows the earth is flat" kind of science. Hey, "Everybody knows" the sun and stars go around the earth. That is a given.
So we come to the point at last. You do not believe the Earth goes around thd
Sun! You prove my point, that the Einsteinians are really Aristotleians and
they hate Galileo, Newton, Maxwell, Tesla... You lot are not scientific at all,
but pose as such. You are great dogmatists! Rather cunning, though.
Well, well. what more is there to be said! When I will make my motors that will
go by violating Newtonian laws, you lot will still be making silly noises and
talk of black holes and dark matter and other nonsense.
Obviously, if you hold that light is a stream of particles then
there is no wave motion, nor is there aether. On the other hand, if >>> light is a wave motion through aether then aether is present
throughout the infinite universe.
I hold that light is a wave phenomena in the aether (waves no matter >> what modern physics fantasizes) require a medium by definition. And that
aether is present throughout all those parts of the universe (Einstein
noted in reality nothing is infinite except human stupidity) where
aether exists.
Einstein dispenses with aether in the 1905 paper. Whatever he wrote was
complete nonsense as a result. He was the biggest bungler ever. He should
have noted that the MMI experiment actually proved that light speed changed
with the speed of the emitter, for with a moving Earth and the nulls that is
what had to be when we *take into consideration that the apparatus moves with
the Earth as it is fixed to the Earth". Instead of that, he provided a weird and nonsensical view of the Universe with continuous distortions that
had to be to make the speed of light constant... nothing could travel faster
than light, what rubbish. Yes humans are infinitely stupid to not reject
Einstein even after I pointed out the bungle back in 2005. Blind habit, what.
He did not "dispense" with aether. Just said you didn't need it to calculate. Others jumped to the erroneous conclusion that aether (and waves) did not exist. Humans are such herd animals. One goes over the cliff and they all follow. Just look at the Big Bang theory.
Of course he dispensed with aether. All modern physicists dispense with aether
and that is why modern physics is rubbish. Relativity is nonsense, quantum mechanics is wrong, relativistic quantum electrodynamics does not provide any
predictions for rail gun behaviour as proved by Graneau in his book "Newtonian
Electrodynamics"... To say that sometimes aether exists and sometimes not, is
schizophrenic just as the wave-particle duality of light.
Sounds like you really understand particle-wave duality. You hade >>>> better explain it to us quick so we all no longer have to go
through life ignorant.
Thanks. There is no wave-particle duality. There is only wave motion >>> of light, of UHF, of gamma rays, all radiation. All radiators are >>> natural antennas; all surfaces receiving radiation and receiving
antennas that convert the input electromagnetic field to mechanical >>> oscillation thereby providing the sensation of heat.
No particle wave duality? You seem to have missed a few observations.
Wave-particle duality is the schizophrenic view of the light - light is
electromagnetic wave propagation, never particles. It is mad to think of
particle-wave duality. Insane. At best it is a most unworthy patch-up.
It is clear that on can define a number of E fields based upon >>>>>> their properties. However, as Jefimenko points out, all
electromagnetic fields are FORCE fields and this plus major >>>>>> redundancies in EM theory all one to get away with treating >>>>>> these different fields as if they were one.
??? If we believe in SR we cannot believe in electromagnetic
fields. Magnets are things we should ignore completely, for they >>>>> cannot be understood in photonic symbology as per relativistic >>>>> quantum electrodynamics. I once saw a video of Feynman being
asked about magnetism. He said he had no clue.
Great science! If you can't understand something then it doesn't >>>> exist! Ranks right up there with the moon not existing until
someone looks at it.
I was surprised when I saw and heard him say that. Magnetism has no >>> place in quantum mechanics. However, magnets do exist and their
field does not fade, as proved by the success of the Perendev
simulation (when proven to satisfaction to all interested). Also, as >>> they are replacing electromagnets in motors, the credibility of
generation of unlimited energy by magnets is a reality (again, when >>> proven beyond doubt).
Still waiting for proven beyond doubt.Remember the Keely engines? I'm >> still waiting for proof of those too.
The Pakistani videos have got over a million hits. More than my videos,
much more. Evidently there is a conspiracy going on to deny them any top
publicity. One can see why. Western scientists will look pretty foolish when
they will be forced to admit that most of their classical physics and all
their modern physics is WRONG. The best bet now is to keep on burying their
heads in the sand. Ignore, vilify, ridicule, etc. While hanging on to all
the establishments, media, academia, etc.
They probably got more because their experiments were better.
Perhaps. On the other hand I may have got more hits for my videos but there is
a global conspiracy to ignore me as much as possible, so the hits are down.
I cannot believe that the whole human race is so entirely corrupt and without
curiosity. So I think that the hits are being downed by youtube and google, to
make it appear that the world is not interested. What can I say, I am glad that
they have not pulled it off the net! Anyone can still see them, copy them out,
what. And I have got the originals of course.
Obviously
you know NOTHING about science and how it works. Western scientists will NEVER be forced to admit their phsyics is wrong. Even if you rub their nose in the stink, when they can no longer deny, they will all immediately proclaim that "everybody knows' your theories are correct. No embarrassment. No admission of stupidity. And that is the truth.
The moral and social consequences of dishonesty cannot be ignored. I suppose,
a deep atheism is their best support - they really do not care what will happen
to the world after they die. And they don't have children, so why bother. They have worked out that the chances of an asteroid hitting the planet in their lifetime is say 0.001% and that is the risk they are happy to take, so
long as that ensures their fat parasitic lifestyles.
Yes, at last the truth is coming out about Western scientists. Thanks for your
frankness. I had formed a similar opinion earlier based upon my long experience
here outside India. In India, people are still genuinely scientific, and that
is the great hope for humanity.
It is quite clear that following the Perendev simulation the Pakistanis have
made a generator using permanent magnets. This generator generates energy
continuously. It does not need any energy source like fossil, sun, etc. And
anyone can repeat their work, just like anyone can repeat my experiments to
violate the Third and First Laws of Motion.
This is garbage. Perpetual motion or "free energy" needs an energy source. That is given. it may not be one you are familiar with, but trust me it is there. You are wandering in the wilderness.
Look, if the Pakistani generator keeps on working then no matter how dishonest
the Western scientists are, other scientists elsewhere are bound to notice sooner or later. Well, if it does not work, another story. But they have got
a million plus hits on their film. What cannot be proved is how long the generator provided energy, did the magnets deteriorate, etc. On the face of it,
it all worked. You are contradicting yourself when you say that "free energy"
needs an energy source. If it did, it would not be free energy at all unless
we are talking about sun, Earth etc. which are free energy providers naturally.
What is happening is that magnetic forces that do not deteriorate (hopefully)
are providing energy constantly, which is getting used up. Simple.
In
other words you Plop down a charge q and you experience a
force qE regardless of what kind of E it is. So there there is >>>>>> no need to throw out Maxwell's (Heaviside's) equations.
You better not, if you want to make electrical motors.
And indeed Jefimnko has shown
that special relativity can be derived right form Maxwell's >>>>>> equations and retardation without resort to the assumptions >>>>>> Einstein made about light.
Wow, how did he manage that? Any references? How Maxwell's
equations lead to e=mcc is something I would like to know, what >>>>> assumptions are now involved. I suppose he took the Lorentz
transform as a given and put it in the Maxwell's equations. But >>>>> the Lorentz transform works only when we assume the invariance >>>>> of the speed of light.
You can find a quick (but not exhaustive) review in my paper EM6 >>>>
Indeed in Einstein's time Galilean relativity was widely
established for mechanics people all suspected that it was
true for electromagnetics as well. And Indeed it is.
Indeed it is, as the Doppler effect shows, and the red-shift and >>>>> blue-shift phenomena of stars.
Which of course is the biggest mistake in all of physics! Not
Doppler.
Doppler effect is explained naturally when you consider the speed of >>> sound or light varying with the speed of emitter.
So if speed of emitter is v and speed of sound/light is c Then net >>> speed towards you is c+v and away from you is c-v. The wavelength L >>> does not change. So the frequency is higher when the emitter is
moving towards you as f=(c+v)/L and frequency is lower when the
emitter is moving away from you as f=(c-v)/L which is because In the >>> first case more wavelengths are going past you in a certain time
because the velocity of the wave motion is greater; And in the
second case lesser wavelengths are going past you in that certain >>> time because of velocity of the wave motion is slower.
Excellent explanation. Too bad even Michelson proved it all to be
totally wrong. That everyone still believes is is amazing.
Thanks. It is amazing that everyone believes that the speed of light does
not vary with the speed of the emitter. The power of media, academia, etc
to brainwash the masses with the deification of Einstein is the reason.
That would be because it's been measured with experiments thousands of times (starting with Michelson himself) and has always been shown true.
On 4/30/2023 12:42 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:Let us know when you get it.
Get brain soon
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (1 / 15) |
| Uptime: | 109:10:01 |
| Calls: | 6,701 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 12,232 |
| Messages: | 5,348,487 |