ENLIGHTENED MAGNETISM (The Full Proof of Ken Wheeler's Theories)

[Ufopolitics]

We're at page 20 now without anything that can even remotely be thought of as proof.
But this thread certainly keeps its entertaining value!

Ernst.

BRAVO!!...

OMG, You are SO smart Ernst!...so clever!...and so "analytic"!...that can not even realize that :

In order to Fully Prove a Theory beyond a mere Book, I must go into a series of Graphic-Visual Experimentation and Developments in order to arrive at the Final Stage (the Physical Built Machines Proof)...which is the end, finito...then, this Thread would be closed.

Anyways, I really could not care less about your insignificant opinion than this short and final response deserves...but taking the time to execute it...

[BroMikey]

We're at page 20 now without anything that can even remotely be thought of as proof.
But this thread certainly keeps its entertaining value!

Ernst.

..

I will begin by contorting my opponent's proposal,

defaming my opponent's character

First I will convey wrong ideas

I will reformulate my opponent's proposal

toward a charismatic personage such as myself.

.........make hilarious jabs at my sad opponent.

Good grammar but makes you look bad when it comes to
thinking outside the box, really bad.

To be an opponent you have to have a case. You must make
a case, you must put energy into explaining your position
which clearly the record shows for years now that neither
of you are able.

No one here has said anything outside of the box of conventional
rhetoric besides a few who hardly ever post with the exception
of UFO.

Unless you can come up with more than a few words that are
repeated over and over and or post a picture to clarify statements
you all sound like children arguing in the street about who makes
the right chalk pattern in hopscotch.

I see UFO pour his heart out with very concise thought complete
with diagrams and extended long play expressions of his favorite
notions that thrill all who are willing to travel outside conventional
ideology. I get his teachings.

As a person who feels like i have come in late for class just looking
on to each answer or idea, I will say no one here has made any
sense in their view, largely because no one seems able.

When people are unable to teach their particular views it is generally
because they don't have a complete picture in their own minds yet.

So my suggestion is that people coming to a thread for years and
disagree with it should make another thread similar to the one they
think is stupid as has been stated, to set the record straight.

No one has made a duplicate thread after years of hurling insults
so the conclusion is that the intent of the argumentative behavior
is rooted in bitterness as well as a thirst to be revered as the ultimate
brainiac on your part, none of which are the character flaws of my
main man UFO.

Run on UFO, your stuff is real. Thanks for taking the time to
dynamite the rhino's fraudulent system of smoke and mirrors
cult of personality look at big me encampment.

The rest are all just linguine. Get a life hopeless.

All these screen names that sound just alike makes a person
wonder, doesn't it? All these one liners.

Kind-a-pee's you guys off that UFO is way past your pathetic
nursery rhyme doctrine, who would-a-thought?

:

[Iotayodi]

Good grammar but makes you look bad when it comes to
thinking outside the box, really bad.

That was my point. Not thinking out of the box.
Trust me, I am outside of the box! Ill Pm you and show you how far out of the box. Im probably further out of the box than what people think Ufo is. You can draw your own conclusions and do your own experiments If you want. But it takes thinking outside of the box. I wont post it here though. Theres way too much negative rhetoric here.

[BroMikey]

That was my point. Not thinking out of the box.
Trust me, I am outside of the box! Ill Pm you and show you how far out of the box. Im probably further out of the box than what people think Ufo is. You can draw your own conclusions and do your own experiments If you want. But it takes thinking outside of the box. I wont post it here though. Theres way too much negative rhetoric here.

That's okay go ahead and explain yourself, the aimless attack
drones do. Sorry, I will not lump you in with the drones anymore.
Thanks for the Private post. You really should show that viewpoint
and if for some reason the drones attack, now that I see you
are for real, well "they'll get handled.

Thanks for the informative behind the scenes exposure. I like
your stuff so that is why this thread exists.

[BroMikey]

That was my point. Not thinking out of the box.
Trust me, I am outside of the box! Ill Pm you and show you how far out of the box. Im probably further out of the box than what people think Ufo is. You can draw your own conclusions and do your own experiments If you want. But it takes thinking outside of the box. I wont post it here though. Theres way too much negative rhetoric here.

Thanks. Explain when you have time. I am sure you
are one of the wizkids who type fast and can get your message
across thats what this is all about, sharing what you have
found through experiment, how it relates to another man's
argument. You are outside the box for sure.

plus you can take a punch too.

[Ufopolitics]

Space, Time and Spacetime Book...

Hello to all,

I have almost completed all four posts above about Minkowski...except for some minor details.

I mentioned before about a Book where it is discussed some aspects of Minkowski work...plus some analysis and related experimental tests...

The Book is free to download from below link:

SPACE, TIME AND SPACETIME

There is an interesting Chapter which I mentioned before when Einstein changed his mind and recognized Aether again...called:

Ether, the Theory of Relativity and Quantum Physics
by Eduardo V. Flores

I will quote its Abstract below:

Abstract
In this paper we revisit some of the reasons given by Einstein that resulted in his change of mind about the ether from denying to defending its existence. The ether proposed by Einstein we call Einstein’s new ether. We consider the potential use of Einstein’s new ether in quantum mechanics. The standard model of elementary particles reveals the existence of at least one component of Einstein’s new ether.
In this work we explore additional properties of Einstein’s new ether. In particular, we consider a recent experiment known as the Afshar experiment due to its implications for the wave particle duality paradox. The Afshar experiment is perhaps the first experiment that provides clear evidence that wave and particle aspects of the photon have some sort of physical reality beyond the limits imposed by complementarity. We propose that the physical reality of the wave aspect of the photon has its origin in Einstein’s new ether. Here, we report on consequences of the Afshar experiment for Einstein’s new ether.

Hope you enjoy it...


Regards


Ufopolitics

[Ufopolitics]

Contemporary Developments from Minkowski 1908 Papers...Part 1

Hello to All,

I will present below a free pdf (Title is the Link) which will clear many doubts related to the Differences between Contemporary Lorentz Transformations (existing in all University textbooks up to now) versus the original Minkowski work: The Fundamental Equations for Electromagnetic Processes in Moving Bodies

Electric and magnetic Fields: do they need Lorentz covariance?

By: Zbigniew Oziewicz

I will quote below main and relevant aspects discussed in this excellent article related to this Thread discussion. From there you guys could expand the reading and analysis...As I have also corrected some errors in English grammar and arranging some sentences...however, am sure you will find more on the way

1. Introduction: symmetry group of Maxwell equations

In 1904 Lorentz and Poincaré showed that a system of four Maxwell's differential equations(observer-dependent) has a symmetry group the same as a symmetry group of metric tensor.

This was the Lorentz and Poincaré isometry* group.

In 1909/1910 Bateman and independently Cunningham, showed that Lorentz and Poincaré were wrong, because they discovered only a subgroup of actual symmetry group of Maxwell equations. In fact symmetry group of Maxwell equations of electromagnetic Field is conformant group of dimension 15, this is actual symmetry group of massless radiation.

What does it mean to be a symmetry of differential equation? Symmetry act on solutions of differential equation and maps solutions into solutions. Therefore a symmetry is iso-morphism of a manifold of solutions.

*Isometry: A transformation that is invariant with respect to distance. That is, the distance between any two points in the pre-image must be the same as the distance between the images of the two points.

Misinterpretation of Minkowski's terminology grows into three-dimensional and four dimensional quantities, 3-dimensional vector, 3-space vectors, 3D versus 4D quantities, 4-vectors, four-tensors, etc. (e.g. Rindler 1969, x5.4 Four-vector, x5.10 Three-Force and Four-Force;Landau & Lif****z, 1975, x6. Four-Vectors).
A vector does not have dimension. It is a manifold** and a vector-space that possess dimension.

The source of misinterpretation is a concept of a vector field. Many authors denote by E time dependent electric field strength , i.e. not static electric field, E(r; t); and of course such electric field is a vector field on four-dimensional space-time, independently of a choice of a basis. This notation assume silently that derivative of some time coordinate (a parameter t) in direction of E is zero, Et (dt)E = 0: This means that this 4D vector field E on spacetime is tangent to three-dimensional super-surfaces t = const: This condition could be equivalent to stressed many times by Minkowski, that electric field E must by orthogonal to time-like observer-vector field P; i.e.E P g(P E) = 0; for some Minkowski's metric tensor g: To be Minkowski' s metric tensor g does not means here that curvature and torsion of connection must be absent, we emphasize only that this non-Euclidean spacetime metric was recognized by Minkowski (and early by Henri Poincaré).

4. Herman Minkowski

In 1908 Hermann Minkowski published his last paper, entitled "The foundations for electromagnetic phenomena...[...]The 1910-paper, of almost the same title, was written by his pupil Max Born, and sometimes is referred as Minkowski and Born paper, although was published under the name of Hermann Minkowski alone. When comparing the Minkowski 1908-paper with Born's 1910-paper, it is clear that Born's 1910-interpretation was different from 1908-paper by Minkowski.
Born put full emphasis on Lorentz-group covariance, whereas Minkowski in Part II x11.6 of his 1908-paper defined electric and magnetic fields in a covariance free way.

[...]

• A tensor is said to be a concomitant tensor, if it is build-from/dependent-on other primary tensors. Minkowski defined group-covariance, and in particular at the beginning of x11.6, defined Lorentz-covariance of concomitant tensors. Minkowski's definition of Lorentz covariance does not appears in contemporary University textbooks on electromagnetism.[...]

• The entire x11.6 of Minkowski's 1908-paper is devoted to ingenious invention of definition of electric and magnetic fields, as concomitants of absolute electromagnetic field. These concepts are covariance-free, and do not need at all Lorentz-isometry group.

[...]

An alternative point of view, different from Einstein's in 1905, is axiom that physics (observers, measurements, etc.) is coordinate-free, and basis-free.

If physics is coordinate-free and basis-free, then, mass-irrelevant old coordinate kinematics as presented for example in [Whittaker 1952], is useless, and must be replaced by Leonard Euler's material fluid introduced in 1754 as a vector field in spacetime. Euler's fluid was reincarnated by Minkowski in 1908: physical material reference system is identified with a time-like fluid vector field in a space-time, known also as a monad, and abbreviated in the present note as observer monad, or as observer-vector. Within this view mathematical bases are irrelevant for physics.
Clearly, a time-like vector field cannot describe a massless radiation, and therefore is related to some non-zero mass-density as in Euler's approach. Mass-density `p' enter to energy-momentum tensor of a perfect fluid, and it is indispensable for two-body kinematics of center-of-mass and for reduced mass.

The monad-observers, time-like fluids, were re-invented independently by Eckart in 1940, Ehlers in 1961, and by Abraham Zelmanov (1913-1987) in his PhD Dissertation in 1944, and in his publication in 1976. Minkowski's first invention of monad-observer (time-like fluids) in 1908 went to oblivion.
For discussion of Einstein's tetrad, versus Minkowski's monad, we refer to [Mitskievich 2006, Chapter 2]

in Vector Analysis [1901]. However, Maxwell differential equations needs physical intensive and extensive vector fields on four-dimensional spacetime, and spacetime was 'not known' explicitly before Minkowski in 1908. Clifford-Gibbs cross product in three dimension is totally irrelevant for electromagnetism, have nothing to do with the subject matter of electric and magnetic fields, and it darkens ideas. Electromagnetic laws, four Maxwell's differential equations, ponderomotive force (called the Lorentz force), and relativity transformation of electric and magnetic fields, with Gibbs cross in three dimensions, become a thoughtless mechanical set of strange formulas, and this is mortal for electromagnetism and radiation in spacetime.

[...]

In four-dimensional spacetime, binary cross XP depends on a choice of an auxiliary vector field P: This vector-field-dependence of binary-cross in a spacetime, is of crucial importance for understanding. It is either not realized or thoughtlessly suppressed, when presenting Lorentz transformations of electric and magnetic fields, and when presenting ponderomotive (Lorentz) force as a tensorial concomitant of the electromagnetic field and electromagnetic spin-charge density.

8.5 Clarification. One can define Lorentz isometry group either as:

• Acting on observers-frames-tetrads with Lorentz `passive' action on scalar components [Einstein 1905], for postulated absolute-vectors.

• Acting on individual covariant-vectors in Minkowski spacetime (when a basis is physically
  meaningless), with a Lorentz `active'-action on the Lorentz-covariant tensor fields.

• Lorentz isometry group, as every isometry, does not act on manifold** of events. This means that all scalar fields are GL-invariant, and in particular they are Lorentz-invariant.

**3D Manifold definition (not exactly Euclidean Geometry) is a Geometric Volume given by either rotating spatial vectors, points, spatial curves or combinations thereof, which generate either extrusions,(3D Simple Manifolds Examples: a cylinder is a 3D manifold generated by extruding a curve circle along a specific axis) or revolving surface volumes (a Sphere is a closed 3D manifold generated by revolving a circle curve around a given diametrical axis), and could be either open or closed, regular or irregular surfaces depending on primary generators. Minkowski's Dual Time Hyperboloids derived from Past and Future Cones are Manifolds. (Wikipedia definition is not "perfectly suited" as for this meaning here.)


EDIT: I am still working on this post...and I will either add a part 2 or keep here depending on # of character's length...


Regards


Ufopolitics

[Ufopolitics]

Possible extension from previous post...Part 2

This is a possible extension from previous post...Part 2

If I don't need it... I will delete it

just reserving the space

[Ufopolitics]

We need some Pest Control on this Forum, definitively!!

An example of a RAT, and an A$$HOLE ONE...

A Couple of Ernst Posts on the Flat Earth Thread...

aljhoa,

Why keep this insanely idiotic thread alive?
We now have a new hilarious entertainment channel here filled with the most ridiculous nonsense by our hot but empty headed master UFO and his oxyurian mouse who is now giving certificates of 'out-of-your-box'-ness after a secret examination.

Don't miss out.


Ernst.

Today we have the internet where many gullible witless drop-outs waste their already useless time and it is these nitwits that would go for these idiotic notions, because with their single cell brains a flat Earth is easier to grasp than a spherical one. And now they have a tool, which they can wield against the rest of the world who talk about things they can't comprehend. They can now say, "You are wrong", and think, "that is why I didn't understand a word of any of you". And feel good about themselves because now they are "out of the box".

This thread about the flat Earth is about the base line (for now). It is as low as anyone dares to go (for now). The Ken Wheeler case is slightly more advanced but it is based on the same principles. And there a couple more that I could mention, but won't.

Good luck Al!

Ernst.

A real man, don't behave like this at all...going around spreading gossip and BS in THE BACK of other Members here just like Bítches do.

A real MAN comes right in front of WHOEVER he is BADMOUTHING and do it right there, with BALLS!

Only came here to "complaint" about not showing any proof as of now..what an A$$ HOLE!!

Particularly, I DO NOT TRUST anyone that "says" he or she is in the "search" for Free Energy, then spend his/her time running to the Patent Office all the time...!

I Would NOT TRUST anyone who says He/She has found WHATEVER related to ANY Discovery which could better Mankind, and keeps his mouth shut, because of EITHER an NDA Agreement...OR just Because He/She has to FIRST RUN to the Patent Office.

Like is the "case" of the Guy above, Ernst "The Walking Dutch Disease"

Could He be another Paid Shill...or just a cheap Patent Troll??

Because A RAT We all know He definitively IS!!


We definitively need some Pest Control CLEANING on this Forum...


Ufopolitics

[Ufopolitics]

Being Out of the Box...

Today we have the internet where many gullible witless drop-outs waste their already useless time and it is these nitwits that would go for these idiotic notions, because with their single cell brains a flat Earth is easier to grasp than a spherical one. And now they have a tool, which they can wield against the rest of the world who talk about things they can't comprehend. They can now say, "You are wrong", and think, "that is why I didn't understand a word of any of you". And feel good about themselves because now they are "out of the box".

Ernst,

Have You ever thought that your statement/concept above... about "Out of the Box" could be just a "Psychological Mirror Imaging" of Yourself?...

I mean...ever thought about doing a "Self Psychoanalysis"?

I am pretty sure it would help you get out from the Psychotic World you're living in...

You seem very desperate...

My question to you is...


WHAT are You doing Here, on this Forum?

Just because you have presented some images about an Igloo-like house, which you say it does whatever?...when that "whatever" (supposedly transmitting energy through the "thin air"...LOL) and how it was done (details) have never, EVER been revealed on your thread...nor on any part of this Forum?

Definitively...Your position would never be neither "In nor Out of any Boxes"...


THIS POST HAVE ALSO BEEN UPLOADED AT THE FLAT EARTH THREAD.


Ufopolitics

[Ufopolitics]

About this "Entertainment Thread"...

Hello to All,

Due to some comments on this Forum related to this Thread...I would be (again) very specific about the purpose of this Thread.

First than all, I want to reveal my findings IN FULL that took place when I was developing Ken's Theory, However, that would be/happen at the very end/conclusion of all rendered material...like some pending paperwork (posts), as other related CAD, Videos, Documents... etc, etc. that still have not finished/produced.

I still have at least Two more videos to upload in my YT Chanel, then here...

I am still in the process to post all related bibliography with every single link in the net.

Then discuss all of the above here.

I could "drop that bomb" (show machines running) here anytime...However, NONE of You All...would be able to "Digest" what's going on there.

My purpose is NOT to entertain this Thread by showing a "Black Boxed" Apparatus,(like it has occurred before in our "Race to Free Energy" History) then playing the "smart a$$" and not revealing all details, by just saying "I can't"...because I have signed an NDA Contract...or that I am still in the process of a Patent Application...

And YES, Definitively I am protecting My Discovery, it has been uploaded in many Public Domains around the whole Planet...and in MAIN and "Not that Hot" places as well related to Open Science...

Plus other ways to protect that are VERY DIFFICULT TO PROVE OTHERWISE...which includes VERY COMPLEX Scenes of 3D Animated CAD'S...CGI's, etc, done with VERY COMPLICATED AND VERY EXPENSIVE SOFTWARE not that simple to be reproduced as a proof in any short period of time...no matter how much money is spent...etc,etc


Why?

Just because if there would be any, any Patent Troll...I would be sending just "links" directly to the Patent Examiners and that Application would be rejected/denied "iso facto"...no matter even if such copycat Patent has been granted...it will be void...simple as that.

Plus other "goodies" am not to reveal at all now...which "may" include violations of International Laws...Legal Demands, etc, etc,etc

And...In the case I receive the slightest Threat on any of my personal correspondence/e-mail/sites/channels etc,etc...then you guys would just see a very brief post with some links...in that case...just download them and spread them as much as you could...they would lead you directly to each doc.

I will try to make it back, and then explain all in detail...and as some of you may know...the BEST INTELLECTUAL PROTECTION is the one that is written in the MOST GENERAL WAY...meaning, no spec's, no material's descriptions...no specifics at all...then it becomes unbreakable...but then...No One could ever build anything specific...without any specifications available on Documents...

I could tell You here, right now...all about my discovery...and first...many will not believe me...while others that do believe me...still would not be able to put them together...unless I give the specific details about their construction.

And we are talking about different kind of windings...different kind of ferromagnetic cores architecture and set up, use of Magnetic Deflectors,core and field specific gaps, etc,etc...and then more and more and more...

One thing you all need to do...is just to be "a little open minded"...just a little...

Magnetic Fields are ABSOLUTELY NOTHING like You All have ever learned in your lifetime, NOT EVEN CLOSE!!...And I do not care how much experience or degree of knowledge you all have...that would not help you at all...am VERY SURE about that statement am writing here!.

What we all have learned and practice with...is exactly what is keeping Us all apart from making the Discovery I did...

And I guarantee it will NOT just be the two machines I would present here ...but many, as your already opened imagination would lead you all to build...

I want this FULL knowledge to be Open Sourced...not owned by absolutely NO ONE, WITHOUT EXCEPTIONS!!


Ufopolitics

[Ufopolitics]

And then it comes the "Absolute Truth"...

Just some more "Entertainment"...

This time is about some personal experience...

Have any of You ever heard of the Philosophical Term..."Absolute Truth"?

Want to find out?...it is a clever explanation on that link above...depends on the "Observer's point of view", as what their roots/foundations are based on...so you will find some different opinions on just one page.

For example...The first time I read about it, I was about 30 years younger...was in "Das Kapitál" by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels..."A Communist Manifesto"...anyways...They compare the Communism to the "Absolute Truth"...the "Final Frontier"...

[IMG][/IMG]

And then... In such huge Book...when they describe their concept about that absolute truth (Dialectical Materialism)...is equivalent to the "Optical Illusion" we observe when we look at Railroad Tracks ending in the horizon...they seem to be finally touching each others...but is not true...because the more we approach... trying to verify they are touching each others ...the further out that illusion comes to our eyes...so, no matter how much we all walk or run...they will never meet together as a reality.

So, the same way as those railroad tracks...is their absolute truth...and so...by indirect assignment...The Communism, which they call "Absolute Truth"....

So, even as young as I was...I realized I was living in a pure and absolute lie...it just don't exist!...Communism is a lie...it is just some entertainment with hopes for the poor people, for the working lower class...with their endless hopes that "something, somehow" will change sooner or later...but it never does...

And then we die...and many more younger generations will keep trying and trying without success... until one day that wall came down...once and for all.

However, I never swallow it...so I left before that Wall was taken down...many, many years before.

Well, the reason why of above comment...is because something pretty similar to what I am going through right now about searching for magnetism...-do not laugh-...is real...I am as serious as a heart attack- .

The more I look for the real truth about magnetism...the more I find related material that reinforces my beliefs, my work...so, I feel I have to document it...and make a Video about it...then, the more I search...the more I find...

If I would not be as persistent and stubborn as I am...I would have given up on this whole thing a long time ago...just because it seems like "the never ending saga"

What give me the strength...actually the only Solid thing that does...besides my personal desire to search and search...is the fact that I hold that Truth in my hands "materially built"...and it is awesome, and I do want to share it as it would be a huge release as a heavy load taken off my back.

I will give you an example...I was looking for an "Intuitive Explanation" about why that darn charged electron particle takes such a "distinct turn" when passing by a uniform magnetic field, so much different reaction as it does with an Electric Field...And by "Intuitive" meaning I mean no complicated algebra, no heavy calculus...no space dimensions abstract descriptions, and definitively NOT the right or left hand rule BS, which is NOT an explanation but a mere and rude "Reference Method" to be followed like a sheep follow their Pastor...I was just looking for a simple, plain answer that would satisfy my search...

Then I found this Scientific Forum...where they wrote about this "Screw Analogy" written by a guy named "Minkowski" in a Book called Spacetime...then, I complicated myself even more, on top of all am working on...but happy, very happy that I found his papers from 1908...it gave the perfect and definite answer...then I shared it with all of you...so we could develop it or understand it a bit further...

I really knew the answer...it lies on Ken's Book definition of a magnetic field, and I had posted here as well...but I was searching for a possible already existing explanation...maybe buried/hidden somewhere in history...and I did, I found it...simple enough and not necessarily for the well educated University person required to have learned Calculus III...nope, anyone with high common sense and simple reasoning could realize... it is all there.


Sorry that I wrote too much by now..must get back to work...to the real work, not the "Philosophical" one..


Take this post as some kind of "Entertainment" if you would...is up to you


Cheers


Ufopolitics

[Ufopolitics]

The "I Toed Ya so Monster" Did I get it right?

THIS MESSAGE IS SUBJECT TO DELETION>

Oh, please ...don't delete it yet!!...it makes me laugh...

But is ok now...you could delete it if you like...by quoting it...it will stay on Forum memory...


Thanks Mikey...and don't pay attention if He called you "oxyurian mouse"



You are a heck of a guy no matter what they say about you!...and not exactly because you "reinforce" my ego...like he mentions...


Regards


Ufopolitics

[Ufopolitics]

Abraham-Minkowski Controversy_Part 1

Hello to All,

Well, like I wrote before...this Material keeps expanding...on the positive way though, and getting more and more interesting by the minute...

There was a controversy (back in the Minkowski times, 1907-1910) between another gentleman called Abraham...

"The Abraham-Minkowski Controversy"...It reads in simple and brief paragraph:

The Abraham–Minkowski controversy is a physics debate concerning electromagnetic momentum within dielectric media. Related theories have been put forward that, should their principles be demonstrated to be true, they may allow the design of a reactionless drive.

The Contradiction lies between two different formulas related to the Electromagnetic Momentum in a Dielectric Material (do not confuse with Dielectric Field counterspace here!...just dielectric material, different deal)

But what is a Reactionless Drive?

A reactionless drive (also known by many other names, including as an inertial propulsion engine, a reactionless thruster, a reactionless engine, a bootstrap drive or an inertia drive)[citation needed] is a device to generate motion without a propellant, presumably in contradiction to the law of conservation of momentum.[1] The name comes from Newton's third law, which is usually expressed as, "for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction." A large number of infeasible devices, such as the "Dean drive", are a staple of science fiction, particularly for space propulsion. To date, no reactionless drive has ever been validated under properly controlled conditions.

So, it means it is some kind of "Dream Machine"...or another Machine that so far, it only belongs to the Science Fiction Vault...along with the MPM...it contradicts Newton's Third Law...already discussed here before...remember?...which is "indirectly related" to a "Qualitative Law" that obeys...Newton's which is completely "Quantitative"...

But please, allow me to keep moving further on...

This Controversy has been going on for over 100 years up to now...and very, extremely recent results (last year 2015) proved:

Experiments

The results through the years have been mixed, at best. However, a report on a 2012 experiment claims that unidirectional thrust is produced by electromagnetic fields in dielectric materials.[26] A recent study shows that both Minkowski and Abraham pressure of light have been confirmed by experiments, and it has been published in May 2015 (27). The researchers claim:

“we illuminate a liquid … with an unfocused continuous-wave laser beam … we have observed a (reflected-light) focusing effect … in quantitative agreement with the Abraham momentum.”

“we focused the incident beam tightly … we observed a de-focusing reflection … in agreement with the Minkowski momentum transfer.”

In other words, their experiments have demonstrated that an unfocused laser beam corresponds to a response of Abraham momentum from the liquid, while a tightly-focused beam corresponds to a response of Minkowski momentum. But the researchers did not tell what the response will be for a less tightly-focused beam (between “unfocused” and “tightly-focused”), or whether there is any jump for the responses. The researchers concluded:[27]

We have obtained experimental evidence, backed up by hydrodynamic theory, that the momentum transfer of light in fluids is truly Janus–faced: the Minkowski or the Abraham momentum can emerge in similar experiments. The Abraham momentum, equation (2), emerges as the optomechanical momentum when the fluid is moving and the Minkowski momentum, equation (1), when the light is too focused or the container too small to set the fluid into motion. The momentum of light continues to surprise.

(27)Zhang, Li; She, Weilong; Peng, Nan; Leonhardt, Ulf (2015). "Experimental evidence for Abraham pressure of light". New Journal of Physics 17: 053035. Bibcode:2015NJPh...17e3035Z. doi:10.1088/1367-2630/17/5/053035.

Therefore, for an "Unfocused Beam of Light" (Abraham) is Positive Result...and so with a "Tightly Focused Beam" (Minkowski) is also positive... There are more positive tests than the one shown above(27)...concluding that both formulas worked out ok...

But this keeps going on and on...

This Controversy, by insisting on who was correct...lol...derived into some kind of other discovered "Effects"...

1-Aharonov–Casher effect

The Aharonov–Casher effect is a quantum mechanical phenomenon predicted in 1984 in which a traveling magnetic dipole is affected by an electric field. It is dual to the Aharonov–Bohm effect, in which the quantum phase of a charged particle depends upon which side of a magnetic flux tube it comes through. In the Aharonov–Casher effect, the particle has a magnetic moment and the tubes are charged instead. It was observed in a gravitational neutron inferometer in 1989(Cimmino et al.) and later by fluxon interference of magnetic vortices in Josephson junctions (Elion et al.). It has also been seen with electrons and atoms.

2-Aharonov–Bohm effect[/QUOTE]

In this Effect #2 Aharonov- Bohm...they write it is directly related to the Dirac Strings Monopole :OMG!! ...I really do not want to upset Bistander by talking here about monopoles anymore...so, no monopoles, no unicorns!!...

Let's focus on the significance of both Effects (I call it instead a "New Contradiction", this time with the Classic Lorentz Force Law we are all familiar with (No Minkowski Spacetime Transformation)

Significance

In the 18th and 19th centuries, physics was dominated by Newtonian dynamics, with its emphasis on forces. Electromagnetic phenomena were elucidated by a series of experiments involving the measurement of forces between charges, currents and magnets in various configurations. Eventually, a description arose according to which charges, currents and magnets acted as local sources of propagating force fields, which then acted on other charges and currents locally through the Lorentz force law. In this framework, because one of the observed properties of the electric field was that it was irrotational, and one of the observed properties of the magnetic field was that it was divergenceless,

But...let's expand a bit more on the Aharonov-Casher Effect when it comes to magnetic vortices in Josephson junctions.

IMO, this part below is a very determinant one as to understand from the Micro to Macro structures, related to the study of Vortexes in Magnetic Fields/Charges relations:

My pdf search note...there are many, many different pdf's about this Experiment...however, the only one I have found, that really, really free, without special log in-registration from specific sources or institutions9not available for individuals login accounts)... is the one linked below...However, if any of you finds another one, please feel free to upload link.

Charge-Vortex Duality in Josephson Junction Arrays

Authors: R. Fazio, , A. van Otterlo, Gerd Sch , H.S.J. van der Zant, J.E. Mooij

Abstract.

In arrays of Josephson junctions vortices are important collective excitations. A Kosterlitz-Thouless-Berezinskii transition characterized by the unbinding of vortex dipoles separates a superconducting and a resistive phase. In small capacitance junctions the charging energy gains importance. In suitable arrays a KTB transition characterized by the unbinding of charge dipoles separates an insulating from a conducting phase. We present an effective description of Josephson junction arrays in the quantum regime in terms of charges and vortices. In suitable systems there exists a duality relation between both and a superconductor-insulator transition at low temperature. We present the phase diagram, investigate the effect of a magnetic field, and compare theoretical and experimental results. We also discuss further physical properties of quantum vortices, such as the vortex mass, the Aharonov-Casher effect of vortices moving around a charge, forces acting on vortices and the dissipation of the vortex motion due to quasiparticle tunneling.

Now going back to the Abraham-Minkowski Controversy...we will for sure find those "Lorentz Soldiers"...who blindly ignore Minkowski when discussing Minkowski...lol...or even worst...when drawing conclusions about this matter which is completely between Minkowski and Abraham??!!

Below is an example of one of those Lorentz Soldiers:

Resolution of the Abraham-Minkowski Controversy by Masud Mansuripur

I will quote his Conclusions:

6. Concluding remarks (Page 9)

While the momentum of light inside material media is ultimately tied to the inertial and elastic properties of the media, we have shown that, in circumstances where the media are sufficiently rigid and massive, the momentum of a light pulse can be described in terms solely of the electromagnetic properties of the media. The question then becomes one of the consistency of the equations of classical electrodynamics, not only among themselves, but also with the conservation laws of energy, momentum, and angular momentum. This question has now been answered in the affirmative, provided that Eqs. (14) of the macroscopic Maxwell-Lorentz theory are applied consistently across the board, within the volumes of the material media as well as at their surfaces and interfaces. Any changes in the total linear (or angular) electromagnetic momentum of a closed system, obtained by integrating the momentum density of Eq. (3b) (or Eq. (3c)) over all space, will result in a corresponding mechanical force (or torque) in accordance with the Lorentz law of Eq. (4a) (or Eq. 4(b)). This back and forth exchange between electromagnetic momentum and mechanical force can be shown to conserve the total linear and angular momenta of the system, irrespective of the specific properties of the media, i.e., whether or not the media are homogeneous, absorptive, dispersive, isotropic, linear, magnetic, etc.

After I read all the above, honestly, feel like standing really straight up, knocking the back of my military boots...then making a very firm "Military Salute"..."YES SIR!!...while I can hear the drums in the background...

So we have above a whole discussion about a Minkowski work compared to Abraham...without Minkowski nor Abraham work??!!...and that to me is completely non sense, totally dogmatic, authoritative and then some more insults I will not write here...

Therefore, He never even mentions the Aharonov-Casher, Nor Aharonov-Bohm Effects...much less the Josephson Vortex junctions experiments...Oh My God...here you have the complete dogmatic Model impregnated into some brains.

To continue on next post...run out of characters number in one post.

[nathan97]

Charge-Vortex Duality in Josephson Junction Arrays

Authors: R. Fazio, , A. van Otterlo, Gerd Sch , H.S.J. van der Zant, J.E. Mooij

Here ETH - e-periodica

nathan