Peter, whatever happened with Eric P. Dollard?

[Pinwheel]

Eric here says "nth order of space" - I wonder how many more there are.

I'm having a hard enough time thinking that there is a 4th. All the while trying to divorce myself from the L x W, or, L x W x H stuff.

Space relations are not well understood in the contemporary engineering world, and misconception abounds. N.F.G. relations introduced by the QRM mystics, such as curved space and 2D, 3D thinking has all but eliminated any real comprehension of the application of the dimension of space to electrical study.

Distance
Area
Volume

Span
Density
Concentration

Derp (?)
per Derp (?)

[Pinwheel]

Elements of quaternions : Hamilton, William Rowan, (1805-1865) : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive

Elements of Quaternions by (I think their creator) WR Hamilton

also this...

Tensor and Versor of a Quaternion - scribd

Therefore my guess for the 4th order of space is...

cm^4 = orientation
cm^-4 = scale


Survey says...!!!
The Price is Right losing horn - YouTube

I should go re-skim Theory of Wireless Power but it's 2am. Tomorrow maybe.

[Pinwheel]

I guess orientation would be vectoral. hmmm

[madhatter]

I'll spare the mathematics for the group here. There are nth number of dimensions as needed for any one theory. Strings added one additional and it matched the M-branes theory to the displeasure of the M-brane crowd at the time. Read Lee Smolins work if your interested in the crazy state of strings and where physics has most likely taken a wrong turn.

From my own personal research and study I have come to where wave functions have more to explain than any point particle theory ever could. However the problem is a basic one, all the wave functions in the world won't work for the fundamental quantum nature as it has to move from 3rd to 4th or more. just moving into 3D wave functions is a mind twister, it's hard, very very hard and beyond complex, you start adding in dimensionless fields then your really out there. The issue is simple, point particles are fairly easy to handle in the 3rd and a bit more complex in the 4th dimension, however 3D spherical wave functions and associated 3D spherical wave function interference is not and that's just for the dimension we interact in. adding in a scalar vanished dimension to a spherical wave function just for a single isolated example is incomprehensible enough let alone for a multitude of interacting complex waves.

I think that for the future of physics and a better understanding of the fundamentals we need to delve into the spherical wave function and it's associated higher dimensions. It's is a simpler 'structure' but a very complex one in terms of associating lower dimensional math to it. Hamilton was brilliant in is development of quaternions and it's a shame it was dissected and reduced down due to complexity and lack of understanding at the time of higher order dimensionless fields.

I could be completely wrong too, however I have studied quantum physics and string theory so I can say at least that I'm not ignorant of them. it also helps in seeing where and why some things break down, adding in further complex adjustable parameters and 'tunable' constants doesn't solve the problem either.

Eric knows what he's talking about and has kept it simple, his explanations and equations are simple and work.

[t-rex]

N.F.G. In Space, Heaviside

N.F.G. In Space, Heaviside

The lord god sayeth to moses : Thus rose the beast, and it arose as a giant one winged parrot, this hewn of solid plutonium. She delivereth the beast as an idol of worship to her supreme power. The surrounding multitudes casteth off their garments so as to feel the warmth of its radiant tongues of fire. It came to pass that the beast smote the multitudes by burning their eyes and leaving them to wander blind for eternity.

Verily this is the present situation for the science of electricity, just as told in the parable. Oliver Heaviside, a spurned English theoretician, devoted considerable effort toward straightening the path of progress in electrical science. He endeavored to lead the blind out of darkness, but their restored sight was only black and white. The idea of electricity as a flow of electrons in a conductor was regarded by Heaviside as a psychosis. This encouraged Heaviside to begin a series of writings to “de-program the Moonies.” This often utilized “Tragic Tales” to make his idea clear about mathematical futility. “One such tale” is of a young child, “and this child would not smile. So his father beat him with a strap, in an effort to make him smile. But the child would not smile. Later he was eaten by a lion.” This tale is what Heaviside thought about the mathematical system of QUATERNIONS

Quaternions represent a primordial form of a versor space algebra. It is however ultimately vectoral. The system of quaternions was a retrofit of the existing concepts of versor algebra that originally were adaptable to time, this to provide an analogous versor algebra useful for space. It is really not much use for this purpose. Oliver Heaviside despised quaternions, leading him to develop his own space mathematics. The work of J.C. Maxwell was encumbered by his reliance upon he use of the quaternion system. It is this complication with Maxwell that initiated Heaviside’s efforts to “remove the baggage” that encumbered the understanding of Maxwell. Heaviside produced his “vector system” for this effort. He received little credit for his important work, and his famous set of equations are wrongly known as “Maxwell’s Equations”, ask any parrot.

Heaviside’s vector system sought to provide a lucid description to the Maxwellian concept of electro-magnetism, or rather the Heaviside concept of the Maxwellian concept of eelctro-magnetism. That is transverse electro-magnetism. Plancks, or cross product relations But this vector system has no application to longitudinal magneto-dielectricity. But is not this the realm that gave Maxwell his fame? Displacement current, current in empty space, is the Maxwellian concept that leads to longitudinal waves. It is most likely that most of what is thought to be understood about Maxwell’s work is in reality the ideas of others. Absolutely no mention should be made of anything Maxwellian without directly quoting Maxwell himself thru his writings! To study his work in its entirety will take a lifetime. So mute thyself.

The dis-informers, SSX, heap criticism upon Oliver Heaviside for his one sided representation of the works of J.C. Maxwell. Their real motive is to take one off the “Heaviside trail”, but the coyote wants to run that path. Obviously this series of transmissions via internet is in the full “attitude” of Oliver Heaviside. Forgotten in pre-history is the effort of 19th century mathematicians given to space math. Major figures were Grassman, Hamilton, Tait, and MacFarlane. Review of their works provides a better understanding of what has been inherited . Only what Maxwell utilized out of necessity, and Heaviside developed out of deliberation exists today. Longitudinal electric waves are considered non-existent, a complete impossibility. But that is what propagates between the plates of any condenser or between the windings of any transformer, physical realities.

So today we labor under an absolutely one sided view of electricity. It cannot stand upright just as a bird with only one wing cannot fly. The entire misconception has now matured, become “frozen in stone” as an idol of worship to the supreme power of the pedant. In reality it is a monolith of self-edification, taught in every university.

The pedantic assault upon the pioneering efforts of Heaviside, Tesla, and Steinmetz is worthy of closer examination. Two particular characters, supreme pedants sink to the “bottom of the bowl.” One is William Preece of the British Royal Society. Preece championed the entirely lopsided view prevalent in the “misunderstood, untested, and infested with bugs” undersea cable telegraph technology. This errant concept nearly ruined the trans-oceanic telegraph industry. It took the work of Oliver Heaviside to “balance the equation” thereby allowing a working telegraphic system. He did this through His serial writings known as “Electro-Magnetic Induction and its Propagation.” These led to his most important development, the “Telegraph Equation.” William Preece F.R.S. censured the work of Oliver Heaviside and went so far as to attempt to make his own concept a law.

America’s most (wanted) noteworthy pedant is Michael Pupin, of Columbia University. Pupin was a supreme pedant. He repeatedly assailed Tesla with rude attacks. He even went so far as to perform the same upon C.P. Steinmetz. Steinmetz received harsh criticism for his theory of hysteresis, which not only gave Steinmetz his world fame, but also saved the infant electrical industry from ruin. Pupin declared the important transformer equations developed by Steinmetz as un-Maxwell, heretical. But it is these ideas that lay the foundations of electrical engineering. Pupin’s crowning swine behavior is his treatment of Heaviside. Pupin takes Heaviside’s telegraph equation, re-packages it as a transmission concept, patents its implementation, then sells it to American Telephone & Telegraph for $25,000. Long distance telephone is born, with not one word of Heaviside. In final disgust, during the “Einstein Age”, Heaviside removed his furniture from the house and sat on granite blocks, then painted his fingernails pink. Later he was stoned to death by a pack of youngsters.

73 DE N6KPH

[Sputins]

Wow

N.F.G. – In Space, Heaviside post..

Direct hit, Mr Dollard!

Bravo!!

[Raui]

N.F.G. – In Space, Heaviside post..

Direct hit, Mr Dollard!

Bravo!!

Couldn't have said it better myself! One can only hope this will put Beardon's slagging of Heaviside's equations to rest even if it is only the group of people reading this. It's really funny noting the differences between how Heaviside describes electromagnetic phenomena and how my modern 2010 textbook does, Heaviside's description is more intuitive. I thought things were supposed to get simpler as time went on?

My lecturer says in one breath that electricity is the flow of electrons in a wire and then in the next breath says that displacement current is an electrical flow not involving electrons and not even flowing in a conductive material. To me at least this indicates that the fields are the more primary phenomena because we can have electrical phenomena occur without electrons moving in a conductor (aka. displacement current) but when we supposedly have so called electrons flowing through the wires the fields are still present and thus these apparent electrons are a kind of secondary phenomena to the primary phenomena which resides in the fields and thus in space not in the wire. Thank you Eric and god bless you!

Raui

[madhatter]

clarification is needed here because honestly Erics last post is a bit ambiguous and misleading. Not sure if that was his intention or not.

Heaviside operational calculus works but has been somewhat substituted with Laplace transforms. As was quaternions was by Heaviside. To say one is superior to another is really ignorant of the use of each. Quaternions and Octonions which contain the Lye groups are still important in quantum physics.

At the time of Heaviside there was not much use for quaternions and they are difficult to work with. His simplified step functions and operational calculus along with Dirac replaced the use of quaternions in application.

It really comes down to how rigorous you wish to be and which one to use, they all will come to similar results and one may be simpler than the other depending on the use of the function.

The problem isn't the structure of what math to utilize but the theory of what one is doing.

[Aether]

I think Eric is building up an understanding of the math used in his books and the old books of Electrical Engineering. A physical and abstract analysis of Electricity and with this come's the knowledge to engineer it. If the equations used are Oliver Heaviside's, and they accurately describe the Electrical phenomena, then some background information about what they mean is a little helpful . After all, we aren't talking about Quantum Mechanics here!

Thank's for all your work Eric, it is really appreciated and really is starting to bring the picture together. I've got so much reading to do!

[madhatter]

I think Eric is building up an understanding of the math used in his books and the old books of Electrical Engineering. A physical and abstract analysis of Electricity and with this come's the knowledge to engineer it. If the equations used are Oliver Heaviside's, and they accurately describe the Electrical phenomena, then some background information about what they mean is a little helpful . After all, we aren't talking about Quantum Mechanics here!

Thank's for all your work Eric, it is really appreciated and really is starting to bring the picture together. I've got so much reading to do!

Understandable, I just hoped Eric would be above mud slinging though. I'm referring to the reference to "primordial versor space algebra" it's not in my opinion accurate, are there those who view quaternions as a panacea? maybe however it should be addressed in technical terms to avoid the same issue of Beardons misinformation.

The early lectures esp those of Steinmetz are different from the currently taught texts. One has to research the various changes in math that have occurred. Laplace transforms and Dirac delta derivative have replaced the original Heaviside work with little notation of it.

The resurgence of the use of quaternions and bi, oct etc.. are a result of pushing further into quantum physics. This has a direct tie into what Eric is sharing here with the group. admittedly this would be advanced beyond the traditional application Eric is trying to convey, however a deeper understanding of the nature of these longitudinal scalar waves will allow for further development. Eric mentions the power from the square root of negative 1, I won't spoil his fun here on this one however this relation is clearer if....

[john_g]

I don't think Oliver liked quanternions, from Vol 1 preface:

"The numerous letter prefixes of the quaternionic system, which greatly contribute to the difficulty of reading quaternionic investigations, are abolished, retaining only the symbol V before a vector product. Another difficulty is in the scalar product of Quaternions being always the negative of the quantity practically concerned. Yet another is the unreal nature of quaternionic formulae. The terms do not stand for physical quantities. Again, in most physical mathematics, the quaternion does not even present itself for consideration, or, at any rate, may be readily dispensed with. Lastly, the establishment of vector-algebra on a quaternionic basis is very hard to understand, as chapter II. of Professor Tait's treatise shows. These troubles are obviated by the method I follow, basing the whole upon the definition of a vector, and of the scalar and the vector product of a pair of vectors."

[madhatter]

I don't think Oliver liked quanternions, from Vol 1 preface:

"The numerous letter prefixes of the quaternionic system, which greatly contribute to the difficulty of reading quaternionic investigations, are abolished, retaining only the symbol V before a vector product. Another difficulty is in the scalar product of Quaternions being always the negative of the quantity practically concerned. Yet another is the unreal nature of quaternionic formulae. The terms do not stand for physical quantities. Again, in most physical mathematics, the quaternion does not even present itself for consideration, or, at any rate, may be readily dispensed with. Lastly, the establishment of vector-algebra on a quaternionic basis is very hard to understand, as chapter II. of Professor Tait's treatise shows. These troubles are obviated by the method I follow, basing the whole upon the definition of a vector, and of the scalar and the vector product of a pair of vectors."

agreed, Heaviside had an intuitive nature to physics and math can be brutally tedious, if one is not careful you'll loose all sense of what you're doing. The biggest thing is keeping your terms and functions in their proper place and understanding the relations. quaternions are difficult because you can be left with unknown terms and start with them too. Heaviside 'reduced' the equations to what was relevant and needed, not a bad thing in reality it worked well, undefined fields have no physical place here and become difficult to work with. look into the myriad of tunable constants in string theory, it'll cause brain lock!

It is noted that their are waves that travel faster than light, at face value for some it comes out that there is something moving at a velocity faster than light. problem is it isn't that simple, it's propagating thru a higher order dimension. any dimension beyond the ones we inhabit can not be fully understood, the flash of 'string' theory and multiple dimensions bandied about by the media are misinterpreted and this only leads to further confusion. they are mathematical constructs, that's it.

the physical world is translated into mathematics in order to gain a sense of order and predictability. The problem can be when one tries to take the math further than the physical model and then when the physical model does not invalidate the math it's taken as theory. There are physical, tangible phenomenon here now in this dimension that do not have a complete mathematical construct for them or even one that can be agreed upon.

Heaviside was pragmatic and approached the issue in a clear and intuitive manner. This of course angered the community as it wasn't holding to the std in place. No different than today. Honestly I don't care what math anyone uses, show proof and predictability in it and all is well. postulates and theories with no substance are a waste of everyone's time. tossing obscene amount of money into mathematical constructs that have failed time and again is setting the clock back as well.

This is sadly a simple thing, however for most scientist they can't see the forest for the trees. We need the math in order to exploit the world around us, otherwise we will be walking around in the dark. the mathematical equations have to fit the physical model first and foremost, if it does not then it is wrong. What 'flavor' of mathematics one uses is entirely their choice, the fallacy occurs when the driving theory behind the equation is wrong and then the math is blamed.

For the astute reader, yes I've left out the interpretation of the equations. It is one of those 'kinks' that can obfuscate the truth. An equation can have a result that is dismissed due to a lack of understanding of what is being derived. And that is where the line is between the great teachers and the perpetual students. It's a case of you have it or you don't.

The majority here would prefer to have finished results shown to them and explained simply. the problem I see is that for those who have gone thru the educational system it's going to be difficult to get around what's already in place, however you have the advantage of seeing the big picture and where the pieces may fall. If you've managed to extend your studies into QED and the quantum world, it takes a really open mind to start with and you'll really be able to see what's going on. I'd like to point out that quantum physics is more akin to what Eric is talking about, if one gets through the lower classes and enters into QED for example it requires a re-work of what you already know. particle physics is strange, however if you re-work it as a wave function then it becomes so much clearer and the here's the beauty, it validates what Eric knows!

Ok, I'll step off my soap box now.

[Pinwheel]

@madhatter

I'm not quite sure what your basic point of contention is. Is it that EPD is not endorsing QM?

It also appears that you are saying that there is many different mathematical methods to achieve (something). Obviously, there probably is many different maths one can use to do this or that. Is this what you are saying? Also, what is that (something) that many different types of maths can explain? The nature of space?
___

After taking a 10 min break in composing this post, what looks to be happening is that you are preemptively critiquing EPD's method of describing something... that he hasn't described yet... with his method that he hasn't fully revealed or explained yet. He hasn't fully revealed it here anyway. This is unless one had a very thorough understanding of his papers he wrote from back in the late 80's - in which case you would be the first person to have that level of understanding that I've personally witnessed. I'm also assuming that EPD's has fully published his idea and methodology in those late 80's publications.

I would think that someone with this level of understanding would be able to re-create those late 80's experiments, that we've all seen, and then, of course, feel free to dissect whatever it is that EPD talking about with something like "the wave propagates through a higher dimension" - and subtle ad hominem shots like your "I just hoped Eric would be above mud slinging though".

I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure that nobody (and for sure nobody here) has EVER... re-created any of EPD's experiments even 1 time ever.

Should we let the author explain his idea and his proposed method for understanding the idea, THEN call him out on it's legitimacy? You know what I mean? How can we call a guy out when we can't even duplicate what we've all seen him do? He's trying to tell us and we're like "naw.. you mud slingin' bro".

Am I wrong here? It looks preemptive to me.

For those interested, there is an interesting book by a guy named Mortimer J Adler called "How to Read a Book" that talks about things like this - critiquing an author only once you understand him (as well as how to have a better chance at understanding said author, ie: 'How to Read a Book'). Worth at least an investigation, if not purchase. I know the title kinda makes one go "pffft, I know how to read dude" but it's not like that - very very cool book.

[jarvamundo]

Poopin ended up with hellovalot more than $25,000... try more than 400k by the end of the AT&T episode. And here is the rub, if Heaviside had been backed, he could've demolished the patent fight between AT&T & Pupin. (this being reason why AT&T did not pursue the case with poopin... as OH would've been revealed as the holder of prior knowledge..... so it was in AT&T's interest to endorse the pupin patents). But Heaviside considered it a crime not to publish. An unsung hero.

Also of interest.... Ivor Catt published a biography by Heaviside's friend G.F.C. Searle "The Man". It's a sad read, but also serves as an inspiration to "stick it"... anyways it's as first hand as you're going to get (it's free get it, read it): http://www.forrestbishop.4t.com/OHM/...de_the_Man.htm

Ivor Catt's work on logic buses is interesting in it'self (The Catt Anomaly)... as these transmission line effects are now popping up as we reduce the dimension of time and space by studying these effects on a pcb. Turns out 'charge' appears on a parallel conductor (reflector) "instantaneously out of no where".... the conflicting letters between the IEEE officers are hilarious... apparently one of em has a Nobel.

imo historical context is very important when approaching these ideas...

Also when you study Electrical Papers.... be sure to check out "Ido Yavetz - From Obscurity To Enigma"... it's technical & written for engineers, applied mathematicians... however the focus of the author on the method of Heaviside's physical reasoning is as good as i've found. A real gem.

Absolutely no mention should be made of anything Maxwellian without directly quoting Maxwell himself thru his writings! To study his work in its entirety will take a lifetime. So mute thyself.

back to EPD and Coyotes munchin parrots... mute-on

[madhatter]

Please understand that I'm no way making a preemptive strike against Eric or his work. My only reason for saying I hoped he was above mud slinging was directed at and only at the slur as I see it against quaternions. I can only assume as others that this may be a subtle reference to Beardon, however I don't know for sure as Eric is not clear about it.

I've watched the videos from the 80's and have worked thru his journals and publications and fully understand what he's talking about, I don't think I'm rare in that. I do have some additional background knowledge due to my line of work that I can not disclose that does indeed validate Eric, do not construe that to mean that I'm trying to mislead anyone. I implore all to listen and pay attention as best as they can to what he's posting.

I'm probably from a smaller group though in that I've studied quantum physics for 10yrs and have long strayed along the accepted edge. The eyeopener was taking a step back and really listing to what some physicists are saying and a theme will emerge. There is a fundamental break between physics and our conscience, you may be wondering what any of this has to do with electricity.

I'll tell you, neuroscience deals with the synaptic function of our brain, this occurs on a quantum scale. It's the world of the unknown and full of interesting theories. Now here is Eric who's trying to tell the anyone who'll listen that there is more to the dielectric fields than is taught and we know. I came across Eric's work a number of yrs ago when I was doing research in quantum electro dynamics, preciously because he's done lab work that proves the existence of another dimensional phase, or faster than light travel.

I honestly have no idea how much in depth knowledge Eric has about this or it's implications beyond the macro scale. research and testing requires substantial funding, I'm aware that he's been thru the wringer on that front and I don't begrudge him in his distrust of people due to this.

Eric is free to tell me to go jump in a lake as is anyone. I wanted to make the point that one particular type of algebra or calculus isn't the reason why Eric's or anyone's work is obscure. The reason would be due to the interpretation of the equations that gets pushed forth, and the peer review process itself. classic case of this is found in string theory, it's not the type of mathematics but the input for some very odd theories.

Eric makes a point and it needs to be stressed, understand the relations between the functions and constants. A lack of understanding these basics will get one lost and confused. This is going to be tougher for those who don't have a background knowledge in how the constants were derived and the relations they have to each other. For the terms used, i,j,k, and many many more, there is reason for each and what each mean. The majority of equations use these 'place holders' to reduce the shear complexity of them, however one needs to keep them straight in their mind and know where you can and can't place them. The order and use of them is also related to the type of algebra or calculus used.

Eric is not going to give everyone a math lesson or go thru the fundamentals, that is the responsibility of the reader. He provides numerous sources of reference for this. Take advantage of that.

I apologize for any offense I have made, that was not the intent.