Reconstructing EM & Energy Theory from scratch

[Tehnoman]

what i expect is very simple.

some building blocks are incorrect and are based upon data that was misinterpreted. [..]

And still, misinterpretation must lead to contradictions, again, experiment. If there is none, how can we say, that misinterpretation occurred?

[..]
reality seems to be better until you hit da wall, then you have to think, again ...

Reality always is better. You can make any theory you want, if you can't get experimental benefits, the theory is useless.

I want to clarify situation. I am not skeptic with all these alternative things, I really do think that in work of Tesla is hidden interesting stuff, not recognized today. But I strongly believe in scientific method - experiment, theory and correspondence. Building from scratch is a waste of time, because any existing theory that describes processes in nature till specific precision is step ahead.

If one wants to make a new theory (from scratch, or not from scratch, not really important), he must be sure that this theory includes existing theories (that has been proved to be correct in some or many situations) as special cases. And it is easier to do that without discarding all existing theories. That is just the way it is meant to be.

Here is my experiment which I have proposed in my writing elsewhere but will offer to you here.

[..]

Possible results:

1. The beam fails when all of the electrons are siphoned off

2. New electrons are produced by the vacuum to satisfy the imbalance and the beam continues to function.

If the latter proves true - then how will we explain it by Maxwellian means?
[..]

This is a kind of thinking I like. Actually, interesting experiment. But in this case, as far as I understand existing theories in physics, this experiment should be described from view of quantum physics. And although Maxwell equations predict conservation of charge, quantum physics allow local deviations from such assumption.

In order to get rid of all electrons in generator and conductor, enormous energies would be required. At such scale, in vacuum electron-positron pairs can be easily generated. And here QF starts to roll.

Such experiment could prove some concepts of quantum physics and explain why quantum physics is developed (because QF effects can not be predicted with Maxwell equations, of course). But I can not see where it contradicts Maxwell equations in a way we want it.

Experiments, that lead us to newer (already developed) physical theories, are not the ones we are seeking, I think.

[Agent.A]

And still, misinterpretation must lead to contradictions, again, experiment. If there is none, how can we say, that misinterpretation occurred?

i'll put my brains to the work and try to show what i see as contradictions that show up in an experiment.
step by step.

Reality always is better. You can make any theory you want, if you can't get experimental benefits, the theory is useless.

ah, now heres the sting, what happens when you have the theory wrong and an experiment show that but you use the old theory and
1. discard the experiment, hide it, remove all record to it ?
2. shape it to cover its own flaws and show that the experiment actually proves it ? constant here, constant there, constant constant everywhere ...

by starting from scratch, all that was hidden and unseen, can be brought to light, if you follow a different path with fixed building blocks.

[Tehnoman]

i'll put my brains to the work and try to show what i see as contradictions that show up in an experiment.
[..]

Ok, eager to see that.

[..]
[..]what happens when you have the theory wrong and an experiment show that but you use the old theory and
1. discard the experiment, hide it, remove all record to it ?
[..]

This happens to be a bad scientist. I know that there are some of these. But good scientists wouldn't do that. Why? Because breakthrough in physics theories is a straight line to Nobel prize. That is what each one would definitely want to get.

[..]
2. shape it to cover its own flaws and show that the experiment actually proves it ? constant here, constant there, constant constant everywhere ...
[..]

Again, same story about bad and good scientists. Of course, one must also remember that in experiment there are degree of precision. If a parameter within precision intervals is the same, it can be treated as constant.

[..]
by starting from scratch, all that was hidden and unseen, can be brought to light, if you follow a different path with fixed building blocks.

Actually, it is funny. How can you brought the hidden stuff in light, if "bad" scientists have removed all references to it? Without doing an experiment, of course. But that is what I am waiting from you to tell everyone - the holy grail, contradictions in experiment and existing theories.

[Agent.A]

ok,

after pondering about this issue for some time and playing with different ideas and asking for the help of a very good Brain'zzz ( thanks Harvey ),
and after giving myself a kick for being an idiot ( why ? well, my secret ), heres the result -

all i had to do is to look at the various data that is collected by different people and/or agencies of science and find something, unexplainable by current science.
and found it i did. ( with help, all credit goes to harvey )

Tehnoman,

First, can you the explain the FACT that magnetic field diminishes as inverse cubed and not inverse squared ?

l13

http://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/activity/l23.pdf

A simple demonstration of a general rule for the variation of magnetic field with distance

http://blazelabs.com/inversecubelaw.pdf


Second, how maxwells equations explain the snapping and reconnection of magnetic lines of force and the energy release by such an event ?

Magnetic reconnection - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Honey, I Blew Up the Tokamak - NASA Science



can i go on with reconstruction ?

[Harvey]

Twisting Magnetic Flux:
YouTube - Twisting Magnetic Flux

[Agent.A]

So, after some time off, here is another point to ponder about in the grand puzzle.

what was the last one ? ah, yes, magnetic fields, woooo ...

everybody knows that magnetic field is due to charge in motion, right ? damn, those funny science people and their theories.

a charged object, TOTALY STATIONARY, on the face of the earth, does not produces magnetic field. right ? right.
make this object move or rotate and viola, we have a magnetic field

wait a sec, TOTALY STATIONARY ? ha !? aaamm, WHAT !!?

the charged object is on earth,
earth rotates on its own axis, <- motion
earth is in motion around the sun, <- motion
the entire solar system is in motion as part of the milky way galaxy, <- motion
the entire galaxy is in motion, as part of the local group, <- motion

so, this charged object is ALWAYS in motion and NEVER STATIONARY ?
well, DHAAAAAA !!!!

but, but, aaa, but, there is no magnetic field when the object is NOT in motion relative to ...

enigma

EVERYBODY DANCE NOW

[boguslaw]

Electric and magnetic are two sides of the same field from one simple thought which my friend stated (plus some additional knowledge about DC and AC currents)

IF current is a source of magnetic field THEN AFTER a LONG TIME of powering circuit with AC or DC current MAGNETIC FIELD produced by this current around wire SHOULD rise to infinity.

There is one other possibility about magnetic field - that it's a response of ether for flowing current but that one require to answer what is electric current also...

[Agent.A]

boguslaw,

what is that dual sided field and what is the cause of this enigma ?

how is it that charged object that are not in motion relative to earth but are in motion in space ( as i showed ), do not produce magnetic field
but as soon as they are in motion relative to earth, viola, there is magnetic field ?

if you know, do share, please.

[Tehnoman]

[..]
Tehnoman,

First, can you the explain the FACT that magnetic field diminishes as inverse cubed and not inverse squared ?
[..]

Seriously? It is all in Maxwell equations, take Maxwell stress tensor (Wiki), integrate it and you will get your inverse cube law for dipoles. No differences whether magnetic or electric.

[..]
Second, how maxwells equations explain the snapping and reconnection of magnetic lines of force and the energy release by such an event ?
[..]
can i go on with reconstruction ?

Ok. Snapping and reconnection of magnetic lines of force is a question of high energy physics. And it is really not yet understood. But, but, but.. There is minimal connection to classical EM theory (Maxwell equations). In high energy cases, QED (quantum electrodynamics) must be used for description. It is very sophisticated theory (far more complex than classical quantum physics, aka quantum mechanics) and it could be the reason why this phenomenon is not yet understood.

Do you seriously think, that you could create theory that is better that QED? Please, give me a break.

Short answer - no, this is not a reason for reconstructing classical EM theory.

Twisting of magnetic flux could be a place to start if it can be reproduced in small energy scale. But it is possible that even this effect (force, that makes object to spin back) can also be described with Maxwell stress tensor, haven't tried it. The only question that would remain - why this twisting of magnetic lines occures? It is highly probable that the answer is hidden in theory of relativity.

[..]
how is it that charged object that are not in motion relative to earth but are in motion in space ( as i showed ), do not produce magnetic field
but as soon as they are in motion relative to earth, viola, there is magnetic field ?

if you know, do share, please.

The key word was mention by yourself. Theory of relativity explains the question about magnetic field. Magnetic field is truly seen only as effect of relative motion. Only relative. It has been shown, that classical EM theory obeys the laws of relativity. Do you even know what is frame of reference?

So, you want to take down not only QED, but also theory of relativity.

I start to feel that there is an absolute absence of scientific method in this tread's author posts. There is no possible way to create a theory without a scientific method.

No offence.

[Agent.A]

hay, where have you been ? i waited for your post.

No offence

none taken.

now, lets see, you defend on Classical Mechanics, Relativity & QED, right ? sure.
they explain everything that exist crystal clear.

give me a break,

i dont know, seriously, if i can come up with a better theory or explanation of the universe, but,
it is my own feeling that they are based on misunderstanding of the very basic building blocks and as such, drive science in wrong directions.

so, after reviewing the history of it all and finding many bits and pieces that seem to paint a different picture then that which is known today,
i try to make sense out of it all from scratch.

this is my crackpot view of the universe, creation ( not religion ) and whatever,
in the worst case, im a big idiot, damn, another one of those ...
in the best case, i'll find something new. wwoooo ... no way that can ever happen ...

you can help or ... not.

if you choose to help, magnifiko, point me or anybody else in this thread to DATA i missed or misunderstood and do advise about the scientific method that i should follow.
if not, well, dont spam this thread.

P.S : what is this - Frame of Reference - that you mentioned ?

[Tehnoman]

hay, where have you been ? i waited for your post.
[..]

I bet you were, but I have been busy with many things, physics and also non-physics.

[..]
now, lets see, you defend on Classical Mechanics, Relativity & QED, right ? sure.
they explain everything that exist crystal clear.

give me a break,
[..]

I did not say that. Actually I believe It has come a time to quote my boss, professor and EM lecturer. Perhaps it will better illustrate my thoughts.

I have a wast experience in field of EM, each time, when I have came across to an effect that seems to be in contradiction with Maxwell equations (or is in other ways counter intuitive), it finally turned out, that my understanding of Maxwell equations is not good enough. After more careful study of Maxwell equations, every time it revealed that the observed EM phenomenon is in there.

IMHO, the main point is - you can not pretend to say that something is wrong with existing theories if you do not understand them completely. And closest thing that can pretend to have that understanding is PhD degree. Do you have one?

i dont know, seriously, if i can come up with a better theory or explanation of the universe, but,
it is my own feeling that they are based on misunderstanding of the very basic building blocks and as such, drive science in wrong directions.
[..]

It is possible. Even more, it is clear that physics is not complete. That can be proved with many unexplained processes (the same magnetic activity in Sun or other stars). But I can see no reason why something would be needed to be rebuilt from scratch.

As I mentioned before, a new theory must include existing theories as special case. But what is related to the need of a new theory, read about PhD above.

[..]
you can help or ... not.

if you choose to help, magnifiko, point me or anybody else in this thread to DATA i missed or misunderstood and do advise about the scientific method that i should follow.
if not, well, dont spam this thread.

P.S : what is this - Frame of Reference - that you mentioned ?

Yes, I think I can and I want to help. First thing you are misunderstanding is the scientific method. The creation of theory does not consist of asking - why is this or why is that. A theory consists of description, that contains mathematical equations and real, measurable variables (that are related with these equations). When such are created, discussion about theory can be done.

Second misunderstanding - whole bunch of existing theories. Can you say for sure that you understand them all? I have BSc in physics (just got it ) and I know that I am far from that. Therefore in order to say that this or that experiment is in contradiction to existing theories, one must be soooooo careful.

About frame of reference - Wiki. Long story short - every physical measurement is related to a frame of reference.

Theory of relativity connects the frame of reference concept together with EM theories. Do not misunderstand me, I for myself am not a huge fan of GR (general relativity) and SR (special relativity) theories, but they do work and do explain many things.

[Agent.A]

well then, welcome to the game.

about that - Frame of Reference - i was pulling your leg.

IMHO, the main point is - you can not pretend to say that something is wrong with existing theories if you do not understand them completely. And closest thing that can pretend to have that understanding is PhD degree. Do you have one?

are you kidding me ?!
come on, you seriously believe that having a degree makes you better then anyone else who does not ?
and more to that, that only PhD's and above can fully or closely understand the theories !? !?

COME ON !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It is possible. Even more, it is clear that physics is not complete. That can be proved with many unexplained processes (the same magnetic activity in Sun or other stars). But I can see no reason why something would be needed to be rebuilt from scratch.

well, everybody are free to think whatever makes them happy.

As I mentioned before, a new theory must include existing theories as special case. But what is related to the need of a new theory, read about PhD above.

bull, a new theory can be build from scratch without including any whatsoever bit of other theory.

Yes, I think I can and I want to help

magnifiko. lets dance ( that is of course if you are open minded )

First thing you are misunderstanding is the scientific method. The creation of theory does not consist of asking - why is this or why is that. A theory consists of description, that contains mathematical equations and real, measurable variables (that are related with these equations). When such are created, discussion about theory can be done

oh, i understand the scientific method very well, oh, so well.
the mathematical part is the last tool to be used.
we can debate much about this but lets not, lets just agree that we do not agree.

Second misunderstanding - whole bunch of existing theories. Can you say for sure that you understand them all? I have BSc in physics (just got it ) and I know that I am far from that. Therefore in order to say that this or that experiment is in contradiction to existing theories, one must be soooooo careful.

1. well, let me quote one of my very favorite people, Richard Feynman -> " I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics "

i dont understand them all and what i do understand i see in different light. i may be wrong or right, that is to be seen.


2.one need not be careful, just point to DATA and say -> " Hay, look, this does not fit to theory "

example:

Gravity Probe B
LIGO - Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory


So, shell we continue ?

[boguslaw]

We have now two problems to explain :

1. Why electrically charged particle on Earth is generating magnetic field when it's observed by a man in space ship outside the Earth while for us - rotating with Earth there is no magnetic field.

2. DC current (for example) flowing in wire generate magnetic field around wire.Maxwell theory state that current PRODUCE magnetic field.Why that magnetic do not rise over time ? We can power solenoid with the same DC current for 10 minuets or 10 days and magnetic field strength is the same and not depend on time. I know that it can be somehow explained by Maxwell equations but I'd like to know how it is explained and if that explanation contradict (or not) the common understanding that electric current produce magnetic field.


So,can we start ?

[boguslaw]

For point 1 I can only propose experiment with not connected wire spread over the same circle of latitude of many miles length and a device able to measure if there is voltage between two ends of that wire.Obviously this is not a simple experiment in practice, but I think I remember something like that being done in the past in XIX century.
I think that wire can be grounded in one end and on other end grounded via the voltmeter which will be enough to measure potential difference between bare end of wire and ground.

Btw: this is related : http://www.rexresearch.com/plauson/plauson.htm. It is "recreating the lightning" and you see in Fig 1 the principle of Testatika probably.

[Agent.A]

So,can we start ?

of course we can. thats the point. to understand the puzzle.

game on.



point 1 - your experiment:
when ever you erect a long wire,
it will act like an antenna and pick up every possible signal that comes from earth and from space.
whatever data you are looking for will be masked by those signals.
more to this, a very long wire will have variation in temperature along its length and thus, the - Thomson Effect - will show as voltage.

there are many many old and long forgotten patents and devices like you PLAUSON's, thay all receive power from the ambient signals.

it is so easy to do so that i was astonished when i realized this point.
Literally, electricity is in the air !!

Atmospheric Electricity Collection Patents

but all this does not answer the very question of this relativity issue.
an astronaut in - Geostationary orbit - will or will not observe magnetic field of a charged object on the face of earth ?

point 2:
a.why do you think that the magnetic field due to current should rise to infinity ?
what mechanism can drive such event ?
b. look at my previous posts and the five experiments that i showed in regard the magnetic field and tell me what do you think of all that data.