recovered: Meyl's Modifications to Maxwell's Equations
 StefanR
 Posts: 1371
 Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:31 pm
 Location: Amsterdam
recovered: Meyl's Modifications to Maxwell's Equations
plnbz
Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 10:40 am Post subject: Meyl's Modifications to Maxwell's Equations Reply with quote
Like others on the forum, I've recently run into the paper by Meyl:
http://www.kmeyl.de/go/60_Primaerliter ... axwell.pdf
Faraday or Maxwell?
Do scalar waves exist or not?
Practical consequences of an extended field theory
by Prof. Dr.Ing. Konstantin Meyl
Solar comments on another thread ...
Quote:
The paper by Meyl is simply stellar. There was so much in there that I wanted to quote that I simply gave up after reading it last night. It is my quest to find how, and it appears that the must exist, correlations or a synergy between this "potential" and EU. In relation to Junglelord's statement a few post back he said he was 'trying to find out if Birkeland currents were longitudinal'. Something stood out in Meyl's paper:
"The potential vortex, which in the air is dominating, contracts very strong and doing so squeezes all air charge carriers and air ions, which are responsible for the conductivity, together at a very small space to form a current channel."
"This contracting antivortex is called potential vortex. It is capable of forming structures and propagates as a scalar wave in longitudinal manner in badly conducting media like air or vacuum."
"The contracting potential vortex thus exerts a pressure and with that forms the vortex tube."  Faraday or Maxwell?  Prof. Dr.Ing. Konstantin Meyl
And there is another paper (we'll call it paper #2) that is similar:
http://www.kmeyl.de/go/60_Primaerliter ... ffects.pdf
I've read the first paper too by now, and I'm extremely impressed. This is one of the most interesting papers I've probably *ever* read with regards to physics, and I think it's worthy of its own thread. I didn't realize that Meyl was able to fix so many problems with just a single conceptual shift. One of my goals is to understand in great depth what being argued here so that I can discuss the theory in a paper I'm writing right now on the aether, Tesla and the Aether Physics Model.
The thing about Meyl's paper is that it's written in broken English, and there are some difficult parts due to this. If there are no versions that are better translated, then I'd like to try to retranslate the paper with the help of others.
Another purpose for this thread could be to distill the claims and accomplishments into a concise, understandable format for laypeople. The article is written well enough, even with the broken English, for a modest EE student like myself to be able to get what's being said. We need something that would be comparable to an elevator pitch for explaining all of this that would touch on all of the important details.
If anybody knows of any other materials like this, or that cast more understanding onto these two, then please share them. More documents like this = better translation = more understanding.
I hope that others will help me in moving through this thing very carefully. I'll start by attempting to "retranslate", and see if anybody can help out once I hit a roadblock. I'll have to start tomorrow though, so give me a second here ...
Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 10:40 am Post subject: Meyl's Modifications to Maxwell's Equations Reply with quote
Like others on the forum, I've recently run into the paper by Meyl:
http://www.kmeyl.de/go/60_Primaerliter ... axwell.pdf
Faraday or Maxwell?
Do scalar waves exist or not?
Practical consequences of an extended field theory
by Prof. Dr.Ing. Konstantin Meyl
Solar comments on another thread ...
Quote:
The paper by Meyl is simply stellar. There was so much in there that I wanted to quote that I simply gave up after reading it last night. It is my quest to find how, and it appears that the must exist, correlations or a synergy between this "potential" and EU. In relation to Junglelord's statement a few post back he said he was 'trying to find out if Birkeland currents were longitudinal'. Something stood out in Meyl's paper:
"The potential vortex, which in the air is dominating, contracts very strong and doing so squeezes all air charge carriers and air ions, which are responsible for the conductivity, together at a very small space to form a current channel."
"This contracting antivortex is called potential vortex. It is capable of forming structures and propagates as a scalar wave in longitudinal manner in badly conducting media like air or vacuum."
"The contracting potential vortex thus exerts a pressure and with that forms the vortex tube."  Faraday or Maxwell?  Prof. Dr.Ing. Konstantin Meyl
And there is another paper (we'll call it paper #2) that is similar:
http://www.kmeyl.de/go/60_Primaerliter ... ffects.pdf
I've read the first paper too by now, and I'm extremely impressed. This is one of the most interesting papers I've probably *ever* read with regards to physics, and I think it's worthy of its own thread. I didn't realize that Meyl was able to fix so many problems with just a single conceptual shift. One of my goals is to understand in great depth what being argued here so that I can discuss the theory in a paper I'm writing right now on the aether, Tesla and the Aether Physics Model.
The thing about Meyl's paper is that it's written in broken English, and there are some difficult parts due to this. If there are no versions that are better translated, then I'd like to try to retranslate the paper with the help of others.
Another purpose for this thread could be to distill the claims and accomplishments into a concise, understandable format for laypeople. The article is written well enough, even with the broken English, for a modest EE student like myself to be able to get what's being said. We need something that would be comparable to an elevator pitch for explaining all of this that would touch on all of the important details.
If anybody knows of any other materials like this, or that cast more understanding onto these two, then please share them. More documents like this = better translation = more understanding.
I hope that others will help me in moving through this thing very carefully. I'll start by attempting to "retranslate", and see if anybody can help out once I hit a roadblock. I'll have to start tomorrow though, so give me a second here ...
The illusion from which we are seeking to extricate ourselves is not that constituted by the realm of space and time, but that which comes from failing to know that realm from the standpoint of a higher vision. L.H.
 StefanR
 Posts: 1371
 Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:31 pm
 Location: Amsterdam
Re: recovered: Meyl's Modifications to Maxwell's Equations
plnbz
Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 10:18 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Okay, this is my own translation of this document. In order to help, you would need to open up the Meyl document and follow along ...
http://www.kmeyl.de/go/60_Primaerliter ... axwell.pdf
The parts I don't understand are bolded, and I speculate on their meaning always below ...
Can anybody validate that I've translated this properly?
I want to stop here to see if anybody's able to clarify these.
Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 10:18 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Okay, this is my own translation of this document. In order to help, you would need to open up the Meyl document and follow along ...
http://www.kmeyl.de/go/60_Primaerliter ... axwell.pdf
The parts I don't understand are bolded, and I speculate on their meaning always below ...
Okay, this is what I've got so far. Is anybody able to explain those last two sentences any better? What does it mean to be "modulated more dimensionally"? What is meant by "frequencies up to the collection of energy out of the field"? Any ideas there?Quote:
Introduction
Maxwell's Equations accurately describe enough electromagnetic field phenomena to suggest that they represent a universal field description. But if one looks more closely, it turns out to be purely an approximation, which as a consequence leads to far reaching physical and technological consequences. We must ask ourselves:
 What is the Maxwell approximation?
 How could a new and extended approach look like?
 Of Faraday and Maxwell, which is the more general law of induction?
 Can Maxwell's Equations be derived as a special case?
 Can also scalar waves be derived from the new approach?
On the one hand, this investigation constitutes a search for a unified physical theory, and on the hand the chances for new technologies which result from this extended field theory. As a necessary consequence of the derivation, which is rooted strictly in physics textbooks and lacks conceptual basis (Meyl prefers the phrase "exists in the absence of postulate"), scalar waves can be demonstrated to both exist and result in many applications. In the sector of information technology, the are suited as a carrier wave, which can be modulated more dimensionally. In power engineering, the spectrum stretches from the wireless transmission frequencies up to the collection of energy out of the field.
Quote:
The field configurations observed with neutrinos act as an excellent example of scalar waves. Neutrinos were introduced by Pauli as massless, and yet, energycarrying particles must exist to be able to fulfill the balance sheet of energy for their beta decay.
Can anybody validate that I've translated this properly?
This appears ambiguous. Is he referring to the point at which the tornado touches the ground, or some sort of delineation of two separate phenomena?Quote:
The collection of neutrino radiation as an energy source demands further investigation.
Vortex and antivortex
In the eye of a tornado, the same calm prevails as at great distance from the tornado, for here exists both a vortex and an antivortex working against each other (Fig 1). The expanding vortex pushes out from the tornado's center, and is resisted by the contraction of its antivortex on the tornado's periphery. One vortex requires the existence of the other one, and vice versa. Leonardo da Vinci knew of both of these vortices and has described their dual manifestations [1, chapter 3.4].
In the case of flow vortices, viscosity determines the diameter of the vortex tube at which point the coming off will occur.
I want to stop here to see if anybody's able to clarify these.
The illusion from which we are seeking to extricate ourselves is not that constituted by the realm of space and time, but that which comes from failing to know that realm from the standpoint of a higher vision. L.H.
 StefanR
 Posts: 1371
 Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:31 pm
 Location: Amsterdam
Re: recovered: Meyl's Modifications to Maxwell's Equations
Junglelord
Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 10:25 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 10:25 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
I believe he is pointing out that the scalar field is another dimensional aspect of the EU that can be modulated with examples which stretch from wireless transmission which he demonstarated with his Tesla solid state apperatus, up to extracting energy from the scalar field which the Correa's demonstrate with their PAGD Vacuum Tubes.Quote:
In the sector of information technology, the are suited as a carrier wave, which can be modulated more dimensionally. In power engineering, the spectrum stretches from the wireless transmission frequencies up to the collection of energy out of the field.
The illusion from which we are seeking to extricate ourselves is not that constituted by the realm of space and time, but that which comes from failing to know that realm from the standpoint of a higher vision. L.H.
 StefanR
 Posts: 1371
 Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:31 pm
 Location: Amsterdam
Re: recovered: Meyl's Modifications to Maxwell's Equations
Stefanr
Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 11:55 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
As a neighbour of Meyl I will give a try Wink
In the Power transmission part it is not only possible to send power/energy but even one is able to pick up additional energy from the local field. (suppose one is able to pick up neutrinos : it's seems magical free energy but when one knows how to pick them up it's just solarpower (only neutrinos don't only come from the sun but also from sources outside our solarsystem)).
I kept as much of the original text here, a few comma's should suffice, i think.or maybe:
To balance the energy equation for the beta decay, Pauli introduced massless but energycarrying particles: neutrinos.
In the book that part goes like:
Hope it helps.
Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 11:55 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
As a neighbour of Meyl I will give a try Wink
Maybe you should think of Amplitude Modulation, Frequency Modulation and Phase Modulation. It's about waves and the like so analogies like radio and sound can help sometimes.Quote:
"modulated more dimensionally"?
So in the information transmission part it is possible to send information with more modulations.Quote:
the wireless transmission frequencies up to the collection of energy out of the field.
In the Power transmission part it is not only possible to send power/energy but even one is able to pick up additional energy from the local field. (suppose one is able to pick up neutrinos : it's seems magical free energy but when one knows how to pick them up it's just solarpower (only neutrinos don't only come from the sun but also from sources outside our solarsystem)).
Quote:
Neutrinos for instance are such field configurations, moving through space as a scalar
wave. They were introduced by Pauli as massless, but energy carrying ,particles to be able
to fulfil the balance sheet of energy for the beta decay. Nothing would be more obvious
than to technically use the neutrino radiation as an energy source.
I kept as much of the original text here, a few comma's should suffice, i think.or maybe:
To balance the energy equation for the beta decay, Pauli introduced massless but energycarrying particles: neutrinos.
I'm trying hard to think in how it would sound in German but I think he meant decaying. It seems to fit best with the text below.Quote:
In the case of flow vortices, viscosity determines the diameter of the vortex tube at which point the coming off will occur.
In the book that part goes like:
Quote:
At the radius of the vortex, the place with the largest speed of the wind, an equilibrium prevails. The vortex with rigidbody rotation and the potential vortex at this point are equally powerful. Their power again is determined by the viscosity, which thereby fixes the radius of the vortex.
Hope it helps.
The illusion from which we are seeking to extricate ourselves is not that constituted by the realm of space and time, but that which comes from failing to know that realm from the standpoint of a higher vision. L.H.
 StefanR
 Posts: 1371
 Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:31 pm
 Location: Amsterdam
Re: recovered: Meyl's Modifications to Maxwell's Equations
Solar
Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 12:59 am Post subject: Reply with quote
Better late than never.
"modulated dimensionally": is basically saying that you can encode, or project, information into the "sea" of longitudinal energy where it will stay as a set of frequencies or phase relationships. The only way to extract the information is to correctly 'tune' to those frequency's or phase relationships with a corresponding antenna. Other than that the information will simply stay within that 'field'. So you're 'modulating' that field without interfering with other fields i.e. dimensionally, within it's own realm of phase.
"frequencies up to the collection of energy out or the field": is pointing to the diversity of what one could do with and within that 'homogenous field'. You could utilize it to just encode/receive information or you can extract usable enegry from it.
'extending' out from center to from the radius of the vortex.
 the 'separation' into vortex and antivortex.
But I think it's more in terms of "flow vortices" which are extended vortex structures that can form in the magnetosphere during high speed solar wind. They are also modeled in aerodynamic applications. So it seemed to me that Meyl was citing the appropriate conditions for viscosity in order for a vortex to be formed. So I thought he was using the phrase "coming off" to mean 'coming into existence' once the proper viscosity conditions were met.
Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 12:59 am Post subject: Reply with quote
Better late than never.
Quote:
In the sector of information technology, the are suited as a carrier wave, which can be modulated more dimensionally. In power engineering, the spectrum stretches from the wireless transmission frequencies up to the collection of energy out of the field.
"modulated dimensionally": is basically saying that you can encode, or project, information into the "sea" of longitudinal energy where it will stay as a set of frequencies or phase relationships. The only way to extract the information is to correctly 'tune' to those frequency's or phase relationships with a corresponding antenna. Other than that the information will simply stay within that 'field'. So you're 'modulating' that field without interfering with other fields i.e. dimensionally, within it's own realm of phase.
"frequencies up to the collection of energy out or the field": is pointing to the diversity of what one could do with and within that 'homogenous field'. You could utilize it to just encode/receive information or you can extract usable enegry from it.
That was a tough phrase. I took it to mean either:Quote:
"In the case of flow vortices, viscosity determines the diameter of the vortex tube at which point the coming off will occur.
'extending' out from center to from the radius of the vortex.
 the 'separation' into vortex and antivortex.
But I think it's more in terms of "flow vortices" which are extended vortex structures that can form in the magnetosphere during high speed solar wind. They are also modeled in aerodynamic applications. So it seemed to me that Meyl was citing the appropriate conditions for viscosity in order for a vortex to be formed. So I thought he was using the phrase "coming off" to mean 'coming into existence' once the proper viscosity conditions were met.
The illusion from which we are seeking to extricate ourselves is not that constituted by the realm of space and time, but that which comes from failing to know that realm from the standpoint of a higher vision. L.H.
 StefanR
 Posts: 1371
 Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:31 pm
 Location: Amsterdam
Re: recovered: Meyl's Modifications to Maxwell's Equations
plnbz
Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 10:10 am Post subject: Reply with quote
Halfway done. Items I don't understand or lack certainty of, are in bold ...
Faraday or Maxwell?
Do scalar waves exist or not?
Practical consequences of an extended field theory
by Prof. Dr.Ing. Konstantin Meyl
Introduction
Maxwell's Equations accurately describe enough electromagnetic field phenomena to suggest that they represent a universal field description. But if one looks more closely, it turns out to be purely an approximation, which as a consequence leads to far reaching physical and technological consequences. We must ask ourselves:
 What is the Maxwell approximation?
 How could a new and extended approach look like?
 Of Faraday and Maxwell, which is the more general law of induction?
 Can Maxwell's Equations be derived as a special case?
 Can also scalar waves be derived from the new approach?
On the one hand, this investigation constitutes a search for a unified physical theory, and on the hand the chances for new technologies which result from this extended field theory. As a necessary consequence of the derivation, which is rooted strictly in physics textbooks and lacks conceptual basis (Meyl prefers the phrase "exists in the absence of postulate"), scalar waves can be demonstrated to not only exist, but also result in many applications. In the Information Technology sector, they’re suited as a carrier wave, which can be modulated more dimensionally.
In power engineering, the spectrum stretches from the wireless transmission frequencies up to the collection of energy out of the field.
Vortex and antivortex
In the eye of a tornado, the same calm prevails as at great distance from the tornado, for here exists both a vortex and an antivortex working against each other (Fig 1). The expanding vortex pushes out from the tornado's center, and is resisted by the contraction of its antivortex on the tornado's periphery. One vortex requires the existence of the other one, and vice versa. Leonardo da Vinci knew of both of these vortices and has described their dual manifestations [1, chapter 3.4].
In the case of flow vortices, viscosity determines the diameter of the vortex tube. If, for instance, a tornado soaks itself with water above the open ocean, then the contracting potential vortex is predominant and the energy density increases threateningly. If it however runs overland and rains out, it again becomes bigger and less dangerous.
The conditions for the bathtub vortex are similar. Here the expanding vortex consists of air, and the contracting vortex water. In flow dynamics, the relations are understood. They are easily observed and understood without further aid.
In electrical engineering, it’s different: here, field vortices remain invisible and misunderstood. Maxwell’s Theory mathematically describes the eddy currents and ignores its antivortex. I call the contracting antivortex “potential vortex” and propose that every eddy current entails the antivortex as a physical necessity.
Because electrical conductivity determines a vortex’s size, conductive materials generate large vortices whereas nonconductive materials can result in vortices on the scale of atoms. The structures can only be directly observed in semiconducting and resistive materials.
Vortices in the microcosm and macrocosm
The approximation which is hidden in Maxwell’s Equations thus consists of neglecting the eddy current’s antivortex. It is possible that this approximation is allowed, so long as it only concerns processes inside of conductive materials. If we however get to insulating materials, the Maxwell approximation will lead to considerable errors and the Equations will no longer apply.
If we take as an example lightning, and ask how the lightning channel is formed: Which mechanism is behind it, if the electrically insulating air for a short time is becoming a conductor? From the viewpoint of vortex physics, the answer is obvious: The potential vortex, which in the air is dominating, contracts very strongly, and in doing so, squeezes all the air’s charged carriers and air’s ions, which are responsible for conductivity, together into a very small space to form a current channel.
The contracting potential vortex thus exerts a pressure and with that forms the vortex tube. Besides the cylindrical structure, another structure can be expected. It is the sphere, which is the only form which can withstand a powerful pressure that acts equally from all directions of space. Think of ball lightning. Actually, the spherical structure is mostly found in microcosm to macrocosm. Let’s consider some examples and thereby search for the expanding and contracting forces (Fig. 2).
[see paper table]
• In quantum physics, one imagines the elementary particles to be consisting of quarks. Regardless of which physical reality is attributed to this model, on thing remains puzzling: Either the quarks will run apart, or three globules which are violently and permanently hitting each other must stay together. For this reason, glue particles were postulated – the socalled gluons. This takes care of the reaction force, but in fact the reaction force is nothing but a postulate.
• In nuclear physics, it concerns the force which holds together the atomic nucleus. It’s composed of many nucleons which give it a wellknown stability. Although, once again, we have particles which normally repel one another close together. Between the theoretical model and practical reality, there is an enormous gap which should be overcome by introduction of a new reaction force. But, the nuclear force – called strong interaction – is once again nothing but a postulate.
• In atomic physics, the electric force of attraction between the positive nuclear charge and the negatively charged enveloping electrons counteracts the centrifugal force. In this case, the antivortex leads to the atomic hull’s structure, which obey the Schrodeinger equation as eigenvalue solutions. But, irrespective of this equation’s apparent efficiency, it is also purely a mathematical postulate so long as its origin is not clear.
• In astrophysics, centrifugal force (expansion), which is a result of inertia, and gravitation (contraction), which is a result of attraction of masses, are balanced. But “gravitation” complicates every attempt to formulate a unified field theory. Also, this time it is the contracting vortex which is said to be beyond derivation and integration.
It is remarkable how many postulates pertain to the contracting vortex. But this hasn’t always been the case. In ancient Greece 2400 years ago, Demokrit undertook an attempt to formulate a unified physics. He traced all visible and observable structures in nature back to vortices, each time consisting of vortex and antivortex. This phenomenon appeared to him to be so fundamental that he equated the term “vortex” to “law of nature”. The term “atom” was originated by Demokrit (460370 BC).
Within this context, the physicists in ancient times were further along than today’s physicists, which with Maxwell’s approximation neglects the contracting vortex. The absence of the contracting vortex excludes fundamental physical phenomena from the field description, which are replaced by model descriptions and numerous postulates.
What we need is a new field approach which removes this flaw and performs better than Maxwell’s Equations.
Faraday’s Law and Maxwell’s Formulation
The physicist is free to choose any approach that is reasonable and wellfounded. Two experimentallydetermined regularities serve as the basis for Maxwell’s field equations: on the one hand Ampere’s law, and on the other hand Faraday’s law of induction. The mathematician Maxwell thereby added the finishing touches for the formulations of both laws. He introduced the displacement current D and completed Ampere’s law even though it was not yet measured or proven. Only after his death was this experimentally possible.
Maxwell was completely free to formulate his law of induction because the discoverer, Michael Faraday, had failed to specify it. As a man of practice and of experiment, Faraday was not concerned with mathematical notation. For him the attempts with which he could show his discovery of induction to everybody, e.g. his unipolar generator, stood in the foreground.
40 years younger and a professor of Mathematics, Maxwell had something completely different in mind. He wanted to describe light as an electromagnetic wave. In doing so, certainly the wave description of Laplace went through his mind, which needs a second time derivation of the field factor. Because Maxwell needed two equations for this purpose, each time a first derivation, he had to introduce the displacement current in Ampere’s law and had to choose an appropriate notation for the formulation of the law of induction in order to get the wave equation.
His light theory initially was very controversial. Before Maxwell could mathematically offer reasons for the principle discovered by Faraday, he was acknowledged for bringing the teachings of electricity and magnetism together [5].
Nevertheless, the question should be asked if Maxwell found the suitable formulation, if he perfectly understood his friend Faraday and his discovery. One might expect misunderstandings considering that discovery (from 29.08.1831) and mathematical formulation (1862) stemmed from two different scientists in two different disciplines and in two different eras. It would be helpful to work out the differences.
[see paper images and equations]
Faraday’s Discovery
If one turns an axially polarized magnet or copper disc situated within a magnetic field, then perpendicular to the direction of motion and perpendicular to the magnetic field pointer, a pointer of the electric field will occur, which everywhere points axially to the outside. In the case of this by Faraday developed unipolar generator hence by means of a brush between the rotation axis and the circumference a tension voltage can be called off [2, Chap. 16.1].
I call the mathematically correct relation, E = v x B, the Faradaylaw, even if it only appears in this form in the textbooks later in time [6, pp. 76, 130]. The formulation usually is attributed to the mathematician Hendrik Lorentz, since it appears in the Lorentz force in exactly this form. Much more important than the mathematical formalism however are the experimental results and the discovery by Michael Faraday of the unipolar induction which bears his name.
Of course we must realize that the charge carriers at the time of the discovery hadn’t been discovered yet, and the field concept couldn’t really correspond to that of today. The field concept was an abstracter one, free of any quantization.
That of course is also true for the field concept advocated by Maxwell, which we now will contrast with the “Faradaylaw” (Fig. 3). The second Maxwell equation, the law of induction (rot E = dB/dt, or 1*), also is a mathematical description between the electric field strength E and the magnetic induction B. But this time the two aren’t linked by a relative velocity v.
In that place stands the time derivation of B, with which a change in flux is necessary for an electric field strength to occur. As a consequence, the Maxwell equation doesn’t provide a result in the static or quasistationary case, for which cases it is customary to rely upon unipolar induction according to Faraday (e.g. in the case of the Hallprobe, the picture tube, etc.). This reliance upon Faraday should remain restricted to specific cases. What justification exists to support the restriction of the Faradaylaw to stationary processes?
The vectors E and B can be subject to both spatial and temporal fluctuations. In that way, the two formulations are suddenly in competition with each other, and we must explain the difference.
Different Formulation of the Law of Induction
Such a difference for instance is that it is common practice to neglect the coupling between the fields at low frequencies. While at high frequencies in the range of the electromagnetic field, the E and the Hfields are mutually dependent. At lower frequency and small field changes, the process of induction drops according to Maxwell, such that an omission seems to be allowed. Now electric or magnetic fields can be measured independently of each other. Usually, the presence of the other field is ignored.
That is not correct. A look at the Fardaylaw immediately shows that even down to frequency zero, both fields are always present. The field pointers however stand perpendicular to one another, so that the magnetic field pointer wraps around the pointer of the electric field in the form of a vortex ring. The closedloop field lines are acting neutral to the outside; hence, they are typically considered to not need any attention. It should be examined more closely if this is sufficient as an explanation for the neglection of the immeasurable closedloop field lines – or, if not after all an effect arises from fields which are in fact present.
Another difference concerns the commutability of the E and Hfields, as is shown by the Faradaygenerator. How does a magnetic field become an electric field, and viceversa, as a result of a relative velocity v? This directly influences the physicalphilosophic question: What is meant by the electromagnetic field?
The textbook opinion based on Maxwell’s Equations names the static field of the charge carriers as a cause for the electric field, whereas moving charges cause the magnetic field. But that can hardly have been Faraday’s idea, to whom the existence of charge carriers was completely unknown. For his contemporaries, the works of Croatian Jesuit priest Boscovich (17111778) were revolutionary. According to his field description, we should be less concerned with a physical quantity in the usual sense than with the “experimental experience” of an interaction. We should interpret the Faradaylaw to the effect that we experience an electric field if we are moving with regards to a magnetic field with some relative velocity, and viceversa.
In the commutability of electric and magnetic fields, a duality between the two is expressed, which in the Maxwell formulation is lost, as soon as charge carriers are brought into play. Is thus the Maxwell field the special case of a particlefree field? Much evidence points to it, because after all, a light ray can run through a particlefree vacuum. If fields can exist without particles, and yet particles without fields are however impossible, then the field should have been there first as the cause for the particles. Then the Faraday description should form the basis, from which all other regularities can be derived. What do the textbooks say to that?
Contradictory Opinions in Textbooks
Obviously, there exist two formulations for the law of unduction (1 and 1*), which more or less have equal rights. The question for science is: which mathematical description is the more efficient one? If one case is a special case of the other case, which description then is the more universal one?
Maxwell’s field equations tell us that derivations are unnecessary because it’s sufficiently known. Numerous textbooks are standing by, if results should be cited. Let us hence turn to the Faradaylaw (1). Often one searches in vain for this law in schoolbooks. Only in more pretentious books one can one find it find under the keyword “unipolar induction”. If one however compares the number of pages which are spent on the law of induction according to Maxwell with the few pages for the unipolar induction, then one gets the impression that the latter represents just an unimportant special case for low frequencies. Küpfmüller speaks of a “special form of the law of induction” [7, S.228, Gl.22], and cites as practical examples the induction in a brake disc and the Halleffect. Afterwards, Küpfmüller derives from the “special form” the “general form” of the law of induction according to Maxwell, a postulated generalization which needs an explanation. But a reason is not given [7].
Bosse gives the same derivation, but for him the Maxwell result, as opposed to the Faraday approach, is the special case [8, chap. 6.1 Induction, S.58]! In addition, he addresses the Faradaylaw as an equation of transformation and points out the meaning and the special interpretation.
On the other hand, he derives the law from the Lorentz force, completely in the style of Kupfmuller [7] and with that again takes it part of its autonomy. Pohl sees it differently. He inversely derives the Lorentz force from the Faradaylaw [6, S.77]. By all means, the Faradaylaw, which we want to base on instead of on the Maxwell equations, shows “strange effects” [9, S.31 comment on the Lorentz force (1.65)] from the point of view of a Maxwell representative of today, and thereby but one side of the coin (eq. 1). The other side of the coin is mentioned in only a very few distinguished textbooks (eq. 2). In that way, most textbooks mediate a lopsided and incomplete picture [7,8,9]. If there should be talk about equations of transformation, then the dual formulation belongs to it, then it concerns a pair of equations, which describes the relations between the electric and the magnetic field.
[see paper for formulas]
The FieldTheoretical Approach
[that's all for tonight ...]
Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 10:10 am Post subject: Reply with quote
Halfway done. Items I don't understand or lack certainty of, are in bold ...
Faraday or Maxwell?
Do scalar waves exist or not?
Practical consequences of an extended field theory
by Prof. Dr.Ing. Konstantin Meyl
Introduction
Maxwell's Equations accurately describe enough electromagnetic field phenomena to suggest that they represent a universal field description. But if one looks more closely, it turns out to be purely an approximation, which as a consequence leads to far reaching physical and technological consequences. We must ask ourselves:
 What is the Maxwell approximation?
 How could a new and extended approach look like?
 Of Faraday and Maxwell, which is the more general law of induction?
 Can Maxwell's Equations be derived as a special case?
 Can also scalar waves be derived from the new approach?
On the one hand, this investigation constitutes a search for a unified physical theory, and on the hand the chances for new technologies which result from this extended field theory. As a necessary consequence of the derivation, which is rooted strictly in physics textbooks and lacks conceptual basis (Meyl prefers the phrase "exists in the absence of postulate"), scalar waves can be demonstrated to not only exist, but also result in many applications. In the Information Technology sector, they’re suited as a carrier wave, which can be modulated more dimensionally.
Quote:
USER SOLAR: “modulated dimensionally: is basically saying that you can encode, or project, information into the "sea" of longitudinal energy where it will stay as a set of frequencies or phase relationships. The only way to extract the information is to correctly 'tune' to those frequency's or phase relationships with a corresponding antenna. Other than that the information will simply stay within that 'field'. So you're 'modulating' that field without interfering with other fields i.e. dimensionally, within it's own realm of phase.”
In power engineering, the spectrum stretches from the wireless transmission frequencies up to the collection of energy out of the field.
Quote:
STEFANR: “So in the information transmission part it is possible to send information with more modulations. In the Power transmission part it is not only possible to send power/energy but even one is able to pick up additional energy from the local field. (suppose one is able to pick up neutrinos : it's seems magical free energy but when one knows how to pick them up it's just solarpower (only neutrinos don't only come from the sun but also from sources outside our solarsystem)).”
Neutrinos for instance are such field configurations, moving through space as a scalar wave. They were introduced by Pauli as massless, and yet energycarrying, particles necessary to fulfill the energy balance sheet for beta decay. Nothing would be more obvious than to technically use the neutrino radiation as an energy source.Quote:
SOLAR: “"frequencies up to the collection of energy out or the field": is pointing to the diversity of what one could do with and within that 'homogenous field'. You could utilize it to just encode/receive information or you can extract usable enegry from it.”
Vortex and antivortex
In the eye of a tornado, the same calm prevails as at great distance from the tornado, for here exists both a vortex and an antivortex working against each other (Fig 1). The expanding vortex pushes out from the tornado's center, and is resisted by the contraction of its antivortex on the tornado's periphery. One vortex requires the existence of the other one, and vice versa. Leonardo da Vinci knew of both of these vortices and has described their dual manifestations [1, chapter 3.4].
In the case of flow vortices, viscosity determines the diameter of the vortex tube. If, for instance, a tornado soaks itself with water above the open ocean, then the contracting potential vortex is predominant and the energy density increases threateningly. If it however runs overland and rains out, it again becomes bigger and less dangerous.
The conditions for the bathtub vortex are similar. Here the expanding vortex consists of air, and the contracting vortex water. In flow dynamics, the relations are understood. They are easily observed and understood without further aid.
In electrical engineering, it’s different: here, field vortices remain invisible and misunderstood. Maxwell’s Theory mathematically describes the eddy currents and ignores its antivortex. I call the contracting antivortex “potential vortex” and propose that every eddy current entails the antivortex as a physical necessity.
Because electrical conductivity determines a vortex’s size, conductive materials generate large vortices whereas nonconductive materials can result in vortices on the scale of atoms. The structures can only be directly observed in semiconducting and resistive materials.
Vortices in the microcosm and macrocosm
The approximation which is hidden in Maxwell’s Equations thus consists of neglecting the eddy current’s antivortex. It is possible that this approximation is allowed, so long as it only concerns processes inside of conductive materials. If we however get to insulating materials, the Maxwell approximation will lead to considerable errors and the Equations will no longer apply.
If we take as an example lightning, and ask how the lightning channel is formed: Which mechanism is behind it, if the electrically insulating air for a short time is becoming a conductor? From the viewpoint of vortex physics, the answer is obvious: The potential vortex, which in the air is dominating, contracts very strongly, and in doing so, squeezes all the air’s charged carriers and air’s ions, which are responsible for conductivity, together into a very small space to form a current channel.
The contracting potential vortex thus exerts a pressure and with that forms the vortex tube. Besides the cylindrical structure, another structure can be expected. It is the sphere, which is the only form which can withstand a powerful pressure that acts equally from all directions of space. Think of ball lightning. Actually, the spherical structure is mostly found in microcosm to macrocosm. Let’s consider some examples and thereby search for the expanding and contracting forces (Fig. 2).
[see paper table]
• In quantum physics, one imagines the elementary particles to be consisting of quarks. Regardless of which physical reality is attributed to this model, on thing remains puzzling: Either the quarks will run apart, or three globules which are violently and permanently hitting each other must stay together. For this reason, glue particles were postulated – the socalled gluons. This takes care of the reaction force, but in fact the reaction force is nothing but a postulate.
• In nuclear physics, it concerns the force which holds together the atomic nucleus. It’s composed of many nucleons which give it a wellknown stability. Although, once again, we have particles which normally repel one another close together. Between the theoretical model and practical reality, there is an enormous gap which should be overcome by introduction of a new reaction force. But, the nuclear force – called strong interaction – is once again nothing but a postulate.
• In atomic physics, the electric force of attraction between the positive nuclear charge and the negatively charged enveloping electrons counteracts the centrifugal force. In this case, the antivortex leads to the atomic hull’s structure, which obey the Schrodeinger equation as eigenvalue solutions. But, irrespective of this equation’s apparent efficiency, it is also purely a mathematical postulate so long as its origin is not clear.
• In astrophysics, centrifugal force (expansion), which is a result of inertia, and gravitation (contraction), which is a result of attraction of masses, are balanced. But “gravitation” complicates every attempt to formulate a unified field theory. Also, this time it is the contracting vortex which is said to be beyond derivation and integration.
It is remarkable how many postulates pertain to the contracting vortex. But this hasn’t always been the case. In ancient Greece 2400 years ago, Demokrit undertook an attempt to formulate a unified physics. He traced all visible and observable structures in nature back to vortices, each time consisting of vortex and antivortex. This phenomenon appeared to him to be so fundamental that he equated the term “vortex” to “law of nature”. The term “atom” was originated by Demokrit (460370 BC).
Within this context, the physicists in ancient times were further along than today’s physicists, which with Maxwell’s approximation neglects the contracting vortex. The absence of the contracting vortex excludes fundamental physical phenomena from the field description, which are replaced by model descriptions and numerous postulates.
What we need is a new field approach which removes this flaw and performs better than Maxwell’s Equations.
Faraday’s Law and Maxwell’s Formulation
The physicist is free to choose any approach that is reasonable and wellfounded. Two experimentallydetermined regularities serve as the basis for Maxwell’s field equations: on the one hand Ampere’s law, and on the other hand Faraday’s law of induction. The mathematician Maxwell thereby added the finishing touches for the formulations of both laws. He introduced the displacement current D and completed Ampere’s law even though it was not yet measured or proven. Only after his death was this experimentally possible.
Maxwell was completely free to formulate his law of induction because the discoverer, Michael Faraday, had failed to specify it. As a man of practice and of experiment, Faraday was not concerned with mathematical notation. For him the attempts with which he could show his discovery of induction to everybody, e.g. his unipolar generator, stood in the foreground.
40 years younger and a professor of Mathematics, Maxwell had something completely different in mind. He wanted to describe light as an electromagnetic wave. In doing so, certainly the wave description of Laplace went through his mind, which needs a second time derivation of the field factor. Because Maxwell needed two equations for this purpose, each time a first derivation, he had to introduce the displacement current in Ampere’s law and had to choose an appropriate notation for the formulation of the law of induction in order to get the wave equation.
His light theory initially was very controversial. Before Maxwell could mathematically offer reasons for the principle discovered by Faraday, he was acknowledged for bringing the teachings of electricity and magnetism together [5].
Nevertheless, the question should be asked if Maxwell found the suitable formulation, if he perfectly understood his friend Faraday and his discovery. One might expect misunderstandings considering that discovery (from 29.08.1831) and mathematical formulation (1862) stemmed from two different scientists in two different disciplines and in two different eras. It would be helpful to work out the differences.
[see paper images and equations]
Faraday’s Discovery
If one turns an axially polarized magnet or copper disc situated within a magnetic field, then perpendicular to the direction of motion and perpendicular to the magnetic field pointer, a pointer of the electric field will occur, which everywhere points axially to the outside. In the case of this by Faraday developed unipolar generator hence by means of a brush between the rotation axis and the circumference a tension voltage can be called off [2, Chap. 16.1].
I call the mathematically correct relation, E = v x B, the Faradaylaw, even if it only appears in this form in the textbooks later in time [6, pp. 76, 130]. The formulation usually is attributed to the mathematician Hendrik Lorentz, since it appears in the Lorentz force in exactly this form. Much more important than the mathematical formalism however are the experimental results and the discovery by Michael Faraday of the unipolar induction which bears his name.
Of course we must realize that the charge carriers at the time of the discovery hadn’t been discovered yet, and the field concept couldn’t really correspond to that of today. The field concept was an abstracter one, free of any quantization.
That of course is also true for the field concept advocated by Maxwell, which we now will contrast with the “Faradaylaw” (Fig. 3). The second Maxwell equation, the law of induction (rot E = dB/dt, or 1*), also is a mathematical description between the electric field strength E and the magnetic induction B. But this time the two aren’t linked by a relative velocity v.
In that place stands the time derivation of B, with which a change in flux is necessary for an electric field strength to occur. As a consequence, the Maxwell equation doesn’t provide a result in the static or quasistationary case, for which cases it is customary to rely upon unipolar induction according to Faraday (e.g. in the case of the Hallprobe, the picture tube, etc.). This reliance upon Faraday should remain restricted to specific cases. What justification exists to support the restriction of the Faradaylaw to stationary processes?
The vectors E and B can be subject to both spatial and temporal fluctuations. In that way, the two formulations are suddenly in competition with each other, and we must explain the difference.
Different Formulation of the Law of Induction
Such a difference for instance is that it is common practice to neglect the coupling between the fields at low frequencies. While at high frequencies in the range of the electromagnetic field, the E and the Hfields are mutually dependent. At lower frequency and small field changes, the process of induction drops according to Maxwell, such that an omission seems to be allowed. Now electric or magnetic fields can be measured independently of each other. Usually, the presence of the other field is ignored.
That is not correct. A look at the Fardaylaw immediately shows that even down to frequency zero, both fields are always present. The field pointers however stand perpendicular to one another, so that the magnetic field pointer wraps around the pointer of the electric field in the form of a vortex ring. The closedloop field lines are acting neutral to the outside; hence, they are typically considered to not need any attention. It should be examined more closely if this is sufficient as an explanation for the neglection of the immeasurable closedloop field lines – or, if not after all an effect arises from fields which are in fact present.
Another difference concerns the commutability of the E and Hfields, as is shown by the Faradaygenerator. How does a magnetic field become an electric field, and viceversa, as a result of a relative velocity v? This directly influences the physicalphilosophic question: What is meant by the electromagnetic field?
The textbook opinion based on Maxwell’s Equations names the static field of the charge carriers as a cause for the electric field, whereas moving charges cause the magnetic field. But that can hardly have been Faraday’s idea, to whom the existence of charge carriers was completely unknown. For his contemporaries, the works of Croatian Jesuit priest Boscovich (17111778) were revolutionary. According to his field description, we should be less concerned with a physical quantity in the usual sense than with the “experimental experience” of an interaction. We should interpret the Faradaylaw to the effect that we experience an electric field if we are moving with regards to a magnetic field with some relative velocity, and viceversa.
In the commutability of electric and magnetic fields, a duality between the two is expressed, which in the Maxwell formulation is lost, as soon as charge carriers are brought into play. Is thus the Maxwell field the special case of a particlefree field? Much evidence points to it, because after all, a light ray can run through a particlefree vacuum. If fields can exist without particles, and yet particles without fields are however impossible, then the field should have been there first as the cause for the particles. Then the Faraday description should form the basis, from which all other regularities can be derived. What do the textbooks say to that?
Contradictory Opinions in Textbooks
Obviously, there exist two formulations for the law of unduction (1 and 1*), which more or less have equal rights. The question for science is: which mathematical description is the more efficient one? If one case is a special case of the other case, which description then is the more universal one?
Maxwell’s field equations tell us that derivations are unnecessary because it’s sufficiently known. Numerous textbooks are standing by, if results should be cited. Let us hence turn to the Faradaylaw (1). Often one searches in vain for this law in schoolbooks. Only in more pretentious books one can one find it find under the keyword “unipolar induction”. If one however compares the number of pages which are spent on the law of induction according to Maxwell with the few pages for the unipolar induction, then one gets the impression that the latter represents just an unimportant special case for low frequencies. Küpfmüller speaks of a “special form of the law of induction” [7, S.228, Gl.22], and cites as practical examples the induction in a brake disc and the Halleffect. Afterwards, Küpfmüller derives from the “special form” the “general form” of the law of induction according to Maxwell, a postulated generalization which needs an explanation. But a reason is not given [7].
Bosse gives the same derivation, but for him the Maxwell result, as opposed to the Faraday approach, is the special case [8, chap. 6.1 Induction, S.58]! In addition, he addresses the Faradaylaw as an equation of transformation and points out the meaning and the special interpretation.
On the other hand, he derives the law from the Lorentz force, completely in the style of Kupfmuller [7] and with that again takes it part of its autonomy. Pohl sees it differently. He inversely derives the Lorentz force from the Faradaylaw [6, S.77]. By all means, the Faradaylaw, which we want to base on instead of on the Maxwell equations, shows “strange effects” [9, S.31 comment on the Lorentz force (1.65)] from the point of view of a Maxwell representative of today, and thereby but one side of the coin (eq. 1). The other side of the coin is mentioned in only a very few distinguished textbooks (eq. 2). In that way, most textbooks mediate a lopsided and incomplete picture [7,8,9]. If there should be talk about equations of transformation, then the dual formulation belongs to it, then it concerns a pair of equations, which describes the relations between the electric and the magnetic field.
[see paper for formulas]
The FieldTheoretical Approach
[that's all for tonight ...]
Last edited by StefanR on Tue Mar 18, 2008 4:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
The illusion from which we are seeking to extricate ourselves is not that constituted by the realm of space and time, but that which comes from failing to know that realm from the standpoint of a higher vision. L.H.
 StefanR
 Posts: 1371
 Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:31 pm
 Location: Amsterdam
Re: recovered: Meyl's Modifications to Maxwell's Equations
plnbz
Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 1:25 am Post subject: Reply with quote
And the remainder. Uncertain parts are in bold ...

The FieldTheoretical Approach
The duality between the E and Hfields and their commutability demands a corresponding dual formulation to the Faradaylaw (1). Written down according to the rules of duality, there results an equation (2), which occasionally is mentioned in some textbooks.
While both equations in the books of Pohl [6, pp. 76 and 130] and of Simonyi [10, p. 924] are written down sidebyside as having equal rights and are compared with each other, Grimsehl [11, S. 130] derives the dual regularity (2) with the help of the example of a thin, positively charged and rotating metal ring. He speaks of the “equation of convection”, according to which moving charges produce a magnetic field and socalled convection currents. In doing so, he refers to workings of Röntgen 1885, Himstedt, Rowland 1876, Eichenwald and many others, which today hardly are known.
In his textbook also Pohl gives practical examples for both equations of transformation.
He points out that one equation changes into the other one, if as a relative velocity v the speed of light c should occur. This question will also occupy us.
We now have found a fieldtheoretical approach for the equations of transformation, which in its dual formulation is clearly distinguished from the Maxwell approach. The reassuring conclusion is added: This new field approach roots entirely in textbook physics, as are the results from the literature research. We can completely do without postulates.
The next thing to do is to strictly mathematically test the approach for contradictions. In particular, we are concerned with the question: which known regularities can be derived under which conditions? Moreover, the conditions and the scope of the derived theories should logically follow, e.g. of what the Maxwell approximation consists of, and why the Maxwell equations describe only a special case.
Derivation of Maxwell’s Field Equations
[see original paper for mathematical derivation]
From the comparison with the law of induction (1*), we merely infer that according to Maxwell’s Theory this term [ b = v div B (=0?) ] is assumed to be zero. But that is exactly the Maxwell approximation and contrasts with the new and dual field approach, which roots in Faraday.
In this way, the duality is lost with the argument that magnetic monopoles (div B)  in contrast to electric monopoles (div D)  do not exist, and indeed, to this day they continue to evade every proof. It thus is overlooked that div D at first describes only eddy currents and div B the necessary antivortex, the potential vortex. Spherical particles, like for example charge carriers, presuppose both vortices: on the inside the expanding (div D) and on the outside the contracting vortex (div B). Even if the eddy current’s opposing vortex expressed in the neglected term has yet to be searched for, this contracting vortex cannot be assumed to be zero.
When you realize that assuming a monopole requires a special form of a field vortex, then it’s immediately clear as to why the search for magnetic poles has to be a dead end. The mathematical absence of electrical conductivity in formulas describing vacuums prevents current densities, eddy currents and the formation of magnetic monopoles. Potential densities and potential vortices however can occur. As a result, without exception, only electrically charged particles can be found in the vacuum (derivation [1] in chapter 4.2 till 4.4).
Because vortices are more than monopolelike structures depending on some boundary conditions, only the vortex description will be pursued from here on.
Let us record: Maxwell’s field equations can be directly derived from the new dual field approach under a restrictive condition. Under this condition, the two approaches are equivalent, and with that also error free. Both follow the textbooks, and can so to speak be the textbook opinion.
The restriction (b = 0) surely is meaningful and reasonable in all those cases in which the Maxwell theory is successful. It only has an effect in the domain of electrodynamics. Here usually a vector potential A is introduced and by means of the calculation of a complex dielectric constant a loss angle is determined. Mathematically, the approach is correct and the dielectric losses can be calculated. Physically however, the result is extremely questionable, since as a consequence of a complex ε a complex speed of light would result (according to the definition c ≡ 1/√ε⋅μ). With that, electrodynamics contradicts all specifications of the textbooks, according to which c is constant, nonvariable and certainly never complex.
But if the result of the derivation is physically wrong, then something with the approach is wrong too. Is it possible that the fields in the dielectric perhaps have an entirely different nature, and that dielectric losses perhaps are vortex losses of potential vortices falling apart?
Derivation of the Potential Vortices
Is the introduction of a vector potential A in electrodynamics a substitute for neglecting the potential density b? Do these two approaches mathematically lead to the same result? And what about the physical relevance? Since classic electrodynamics is dependent upon working with a complex constant of material, within which is buried an insurmountable inner contradiction, the question is asked if the new approach is free of contradictions.
At this point a decision must be made, if physics is to favor the more efficient approach, as it always has done when a change of paradigm had to be dealt with.
[See paper for formulas]
This representation of the law of Ampere (eq. 13) clearly brings to light why the magnetic field is a vortex field, and how the eddy currents produce heat losses depending on the specific electric conductivity σ. As one sees, with regards to the magnetic field description, we move around completely within the framework of textbook physics.
[See paper for formulas]
In contrast to that, the Maxwell theory requires an irrotationality of the electric field, which is expressed by taking the potential density b and the divergence B equal to zero. The time constant τ2 thereby tends towards infinity. This Maxwell approximation obscures the fact that potential vortices of the electric field propagate as scalar waves, and that the Maxwell equations describe only transverse and not longitudinal waves. Demonstrating the point, there can occur contradictions for instance in the case of the nearfield of an antenna, where longitudinal wave parts can technically be measured. Such technologies are already used in transponder systems, e.g. as installations warning of theft in big stores.
Notice how in the textbooks of highfrequency technology in the case of the nearfield zone how the problem is dealt with [12, S.335]. Because of the absence of a potential vortex within Maxwell’s equations, the missing potential vortex is postulated without further ado, by means of the specification of a “standing wave” in the form of a vortex at a dipole antenna. With the help of this postulate, the longitudinal wave components are “calculated”. It’s as if they are being measured, but also as if they wouldn’t occur without the postulate as a result of the Maxwell approximation.
There isn’t a way past the potential vortices and the new dual approach because no scientist can afford to exclude in their approach a possibly authoritative phenomenon, which he already calculates to be physically correct!
In addition, further equations can be derived (from eq. 13 + 16), derivations which until now were supposed to be impossible, e.g. the Schrödinger equation ([1] chap. 5.65.9). As a consequence of Maxwell’s Equations in general, and specifically the eddy currents not being able to form structures on their own, every attempt to derive the Schrödinger equation from the Maxwell equations will necessarily fail.
The new field equation (16) however contains the newly discovered potential vortices, which owing to their constricting effect (in duality to the skin effect) form spherical structures, for which reason these occur as eigenvalues of the equation. Numerous practical measurements are possible for these eigenvalue solutions which will confirm their correctness and demonstrate the correctness of the new field approach and the extended field equation.
The Maxwell field as a derived special case
As the derivations show, nobody can claim that potential vortices don’t exist, or refuse that they propagate as scalar waves, because they’ve in fact been factored out of the approach within Maxwell’s Equations. One must accept that the field equations, as famous as they are, are nothing but a special case which can be derived.
The fieldtheoretical approach however, which among others is based upon the Faradaylaw, is universal and can’t be derived any further. It describes a physical basic principle, the alternating of two dual experience or observation factors, their overlapping and mixing by continually mixing up cause and effect. It is a philosophic approach, free of materialistic or quantum physical concepts of any particles.
Maxwell on the other hand describes without exception the fields of charged particles, the electric field as describing particles at rest, and the magnetic field as a result of moving charges. The charge carriers are postulated for this purpose, so that their origin and their inner structure remain unsettled and can’t be derived. The subdivision, e.g. in quarks, remains a hypothesis which can’t be proven. The sorting and systematizing of the properties of particles in the standard model yields us nothing more than an unsatisfying comfort due to the lack of calculability.
With the fieldtheoretical approach however, the elementary particles with all quantum properties can be calculated as field vortices [1, chap. 7]. With that the field is the cause for the particles and their measurable quantization. The electric vortex field, at first source free, is itself forming its field sources in form of potential vortex structures. The formation of charge carriers in this way can be explained and proven mathematically, physically, graphically and experimentally. It is understandable according to the model.
Where the approach to date has been the Maxwell theory, the future should proceed from the equations of transformation of the fieldtheoretical approach. If now potential vortex phenomena occur, then these also should be interpreted as such in the sense of the approach and the derivation. And the introduction and postulation of decoupled model descriptions should no longer be allowed for phenomena like the nearfield effects of an antenna, noise, dielectric capacitor losses, the mode of light and many more.
The typical scam in in theoretical physics of first designating a phenomenon as zero only to afterwards postulate it anew with the help of a more or less suitable model leads to a breaking up of physics into seemingly disconnected individual disciplines, and an inefficient specialist hood. There must be an end to this now! The new approach shows the way towards a unified theory in which the different disciplines of physics again fuse into one single discipline. This is the primary advantage of this approach, even if many of the specialists at first should still revolt against it.
This new and unified view of physics shall be summarized with the term “theory of objectivity”. As we shall derive, it will be possible to deduce the theory of relativity as a partial aspect of it [1, chapter 6 and 28].
Let us first consider wave propagation.
Derivation of the Wave Equation
[See paper for derivations]
There are some questions we should ask:
• Can this mathematical wave description also be derived from the new approach?
• Is it only a special case, and how do the boundary conditions read?
• In this case, how should it be interpreted physically?
• Are new properties present, which can lead to new technologies?
[See paper for derivations]
From the simplified field equation (24), the general wave equation (26) can be derived as demonstrated, and is divided into longitudinal and transverse wave parts, which however can propagate with different velocities.
[See paper for formula]
Physically, these vortices have a particle nature as a consequence of their structureforming property. With that they carry momentum, which puts them in a position to form a longitudinal shock wave similar to a sound wave. If the propagation of the light at one time appears as a wave and another time as a particle, then this simply and solely is a consequence of the wave equation. Light quanta should be interpreted as evidence for the existence of scalar waves. Here however also occurs the restriction that light always propagates with the speed of light. It concerns the special case v = c.
With that, the derived wave equation (26) changes into the inhomogeneous Laplace equation (21).
[See paper for formula]
The electromagnetic wave in both cases is propagating with c. As a transverse wave, the field vectors are standing perpendicular to the direction of propagation. The velocity of propagation therefore is decoupled and constant. Completely different is the case for the longitudinal wave. Here, the propagation takes place in the direction of an oscillating field pointer, so that the phase velocity is permanently changing and nothing more than an average group velocity can be given for the propagation. There exists no restriction for v, and v = c only describes a special case.
[See paper for table]
The New Field Approach in Synopsis
Proof could be furnished that an approximation is buried in Maxwell’s field equations and that they merely represent the special case of a new, duallyformulated and more universal approach. The mathematical derivations of the Maxwell field and the wave equation reveal the nature of the Maxwell approximation. The antivortex dual to the expanding eddy current with its skin effect is neglected. This contracting antivortex is called potential vortex. It is capable of forming structures and propagates as a scalar wave in a longitudinal manner in poorly conductive media like air or vacuum.
At relativistic velocities the potential vortices are subject to the Lorentz contraction. Since for scalar waves the propagation occurs longitudinally in the direction of an oscillating field pointer, the potential vortices experience a constant oscillation of size as a result of the oscillating propagation. If one imagines the field vortex as a planar but rolled up transverse wave, then from the oscillation of size and with that of wavelength at constant swirl velocity with c follows a continual change in frequency, which is measured as a noise signal.
The noise proves to be the neglected potential vortex term in Maxwell’s Equations, and it creates scalar waves. If in biological or technological systems, e.g. with antennas, a noise signal is being measured, then that demonstrates the existence of potential vortices. But it then also means that the scope of Maxwell’s theory has been exceeded and erroneous concepts can be the result.
As an answer to the question of possible new technologies are two special properties.
First: Potential vortices for reason of their particle nature carry momentum and energy. Since we are surrounded by noise vortices, energy applications for scalar waves, where this noise power is withdrawn of the surroundings, would be feasible. There is evidence that biological systems in nature resolve their need for energy in this way. At a minimum, energy transmission via scalar waves would represent a significant advancement compared with the alternating current technology of today.
Second: The wavelength multiplied with the frequency results in the velocity of propagation v of a wave (λ⋅f = v), and that for scalar waves by no means is constant. With that, wavelength and frequency aren’t coupled anymore; they can be modulated separately, for which reason scalar waves a whole dimension can be modulated as compared to the Hertzian wave. In that, the reason can be seen why the human brain with just 10 Hz clock frequency is considerably more efficient than modern computers with more than 1 GHz clock frequency. Nature always works with the best technology, even if we haven’t yet understood it.
If we would try to learn of nature, energy technologies and information technologies that make use of scalar waves would result. If such technologies were created, then it’s unlikely that people would still praise our current technologies anymore. The issues of greenhouse gases and smog give us no other choice than to scientifically occupy ourselves with scalar waves and their technological applications.
Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 1:25 am Post subject: Reply with quote
And the remainder. Uncertain parts are in bold ...

The FieldTheoretical Approach
The duality between the E and Hfields and their commutability demands a corresponding dual formulation to the Faradaylaw (1). Written down according to the rules of duality, there results an equation (2), which occasionally is mentioned in some textbooks.
While both equations in the books of Pohl [6, pp. 76 and 130] and of Simonyi [10, p. 924] are written down sidebyside as having equal rights and are compared with each other, Grimsehl [11, S. 130] derives the dual regularity (2) with the help of the example of a thin, positively charged and rotating metal ring. He speaks of the “equation of convection”, according to which moving charges produce a magnetic field and socalled convection currents. In doing so, he refers to workings of Röntgen 1885, Himstedt, Rowland 1876, Eichenwald and many others, which today hardly are known.
In his textbook also Pohl gives practical examples for both equations of transformation.
He points out that one equation changes into the other one, if as a relative velocity v the speed of light c should occur. This question will also occupy us.
We now have found a fieldtheoretical approach for the equations of transformation, which in its dual formulation is clearly distinguished from the Maxwell approach. The reassuring conclusion is added: This new field approach roots entirely in textbook physics, as are the results from the literature research. We can completely do without postulates.
The next thing to do is to strictly mathematically test the approach for contradictions. In particular, we are concerned with the question: which known regularities can be derived under which conditions? Moreover, the conditions and the scope of the derived theories should logically follow, e.g. of what the Maxwell approximation consists of, and why the Maxwell equations describe only a special case.
Derivation of Maxwell’s Field Equations
[see original paper for mathematical derivation]
From the comparison with the law of induction (1*), we merely infer that according to Maxwell’s Theory this term [ b = v div B (=0?) ] is assumed to be zero. But that is exactly the Maxwell approximation and contrasts with the new and dual field approach, which roots in Faraday.
In this way, the duality is lost with the argument that magnetic monopoles (div B)  in contrast to electric monopoles (div D)  do not exist, and indeed, to this day they continue to evade every proof. It thus is overlooked that div D at first describes only eddy currents and div B the necessary antivortex, the potential vortex. Spherical particles, like for example charge carriers, presuppose both vortices: on the inside the expanding (div D) and on the outside the contracting vortex (div B). Even if the eddy current’s opposing vortex expressed in the neglected term has yet to be searched for, this contracting vortex cannot be assumed to be zero.
When you realize that assuming a monopole requires a special form of a field vortex, then it’s immediately clear as to why the search for magnetic poles has to be a dead end. The mathematical absence of electrical conductivity in formulas describing vacuums prevents current densities, eddy currents and the formation of magnetic monopoles. Potential densities and potential vortices however can occur. As a result, without exception, only electrically charged particles can be found in the vacuum (derivation [1] in chapter 4.2 till 4.4).
Because vortices are more than monopolelike structures depending on some boundary conditions, only the vortex description will be pursued from here on.
Let us record: Maxwell’s field equations can be directly derived from the new dual field approach under a restrictive condition. Under this condition, the two approaches are equivalent, and with that also error free. Both follow the textbooks, and can so to speak be the textbook opinion.
The restriction (b = 0) surely is meaningful and reasonable in all those cases in which the Maxwell theory is successful. It only has an effect in the domain of electrodynamics. Here usually a vector potential A is introduced and by means of the calculation of a complex dielectric constant a loss angle is determined. Mathematically, the approach is correct and the dielectric losses can be calculated. Physically however, the result is extremely questionable, since as a consequence of a complex ε a complex speed of light would result (according to the definition c ≡ 1/√ε⋅μ). With that, electrodynamics contradicts all specifications of the textbooks, according to which c is constant, nonvariable and certainly never complex.
But if the result of the derivation is physically wrong, then something with the approach is wrong too. Is it possible that the fields in the dielectric perhaps have an entirely different nature, and that dielectric losses perhaps are vortex losses of potential vortices falling apart?
Derivation of the Potential Vortices
Is the introduction of a vector potential A in electrodynamics a substitute for neglecting the potential density b? Do these two approaches mathematically lead to the same result? And what about the physical relevance? Since classic electrodynamics is dependent upon working with a complex constant of material, within which is buried an insurmountable inner contradiction, the question is asked if the new approach is free of contradictions.
At this point a decision must be made, if physics is to favor the more efficient approach, as it always has done when a change of paradigm had to be dealt with.
[See paper for formulas]
This representation of the law of Ampere (eq. 13) clearly brings to light why the magnetic field is a vortex field, and how the eddy currents produce heat losses depending on the specific electric conductivity σ. As one sees, with regards to the magnetic field description, we move around completely within the framework of textbook physics.
[See paper for formulas]
In contrast to that, the Maxwell theory requires an irrotationality of the electric field, which is expressed by taking the potential density b and the divergence B equal to zero. The time constant τ2 thereby tends towards infinity. This Maxwell approximation obscures the fact that potential vortices of the electric field propagate as scalar waves, and that the Maxwell equations describe only transverse and not longitudinal waves. Demonstrating the point, there can occur contradictions for instance in the case of the nearfield of an antenna, where longitudinal wave parts can technically be measured. Such technologies are already used in transponder systems, e.g. as installations warning of theft in big stores.
Notice how in the textbooks of highfrequency technology in the case of the nearfield zone how the problem is dealt with [12, S.335]. Because of the absence of a potential vortex within Maxwell’s equations, the missing potential vortex is postulated without further ado, by means of the specification of a “standing wave” in the form of a vortex at a dipole antenna. With the help of this postulate, the longitudinal wave components are “calculated”. It’s as if they are being measured, but also as if they wouldn’t occur without the postulate as a result of the Maxwell approximation.
There isn’t a way past the potential vortices and the new dual approach because no scientist can afford to exclude in their approach a possibly authoritative phenomenon, which he already calculates to be physically correct!
In addition, further equations can be derived (from eq. 13 + 16), derivations which until now were supposed to be impossible, e.g. the Schrödinger equation ([1] chap. 5.65.9). As a consequence of Maxwell’s Equations in general, and specifically the eddy currents not being able to form structures on their own, every attempt to derive the Schrödinger equation from the Maxwell equations will necessarily fail.
The new field equation (16) however contains the newly discovered potential vortices, which owing to their constricting effect (in duality to the skin effect) form spherical structures, for which reason these occur as eigenvalues of the equation. Numerous practical measurements are possible for these eigenvalue solutions which will confirm their correctness and demonstrate the correctness of the new field approach and the extended field equation.
The Maxwell field as a derived special case
As the derivations show, nobody can claim that potential vortices don’t exist, or refuse that they propagate as scalar waves, because they’ve in fact been factored out of the approach within Maxwell’s Equations. One must accept that the field equations, as famous as they are, are nothing but a special case which can be derived.
The fieldtheoretical approach however, which among others is based upon the Faradaylaw, is universal and can’t be derived any further. It describes a physical basic principle, the alternating of two dual experience or observation factors, their overlapping and mixing by continually mixing up cause and effect. It is a philosophic approach, free of materialistic or quantum physical concepts of any particles.
Maxwell on the other hand describes without exception the fields of charged particles, the electric field as describing particles at rest, and the magnetic field as a result of moving charges. The charge carriers are postulated for this purpose, so that their origin and their inner structure remain unsettled and can’t be derived. The subdivision, e.g. in quarks, remains a hypothesis which can’t be proven. The sorting and systematizing of the properties of particles in the standard model yields us nothing more than an unsatisfying comfort due to the lack of calculability.
With the fieldtheoretical approach however, the elementary particles with all quantum properties can be calculated as field vortices [1, chap. 7]. With that the field is the cause for the particles and their measurable quantization. The electric vortex field, at first source free, is itself forming its field sources in form of potential vortex structures. The formation of charge carriers in this way can be explained and proven mathematically, physically, graphically and experimentally. It is understandable according to the model.
Where the approach to date has been the Maxwell theory, the future should proceed from the equations of transformation of the fieldtheoretical approach. If now potential vortex phenomena occur, then these also should be interpreted as such in the sense of the approach and the derivation. And the introduction and postulation of decoupled model descriptions should no longer be allowed for phenomena like the nearfield effects of an antenna, noise, dielectric capacitor losses, the mode of light and many more.
The typical scam in in theoretical physics of first designating a phenomenon as zero only to afterwards postulate it anew with the help of a more or less suitable model leads to a breaking up of physics into seemingly disconnected individual disciplines, and an inefficient specialist hood. There must be an end to this now! The new approach shows the way towards a unified theory in which the different disciplines of physics again fuse into one single discipline. This is the primary advantage of this approach, even if many of the specialists at first should still revolt against it.
This new and unified view of physics shall be summarized with the term “theory of objectivity”. As we shall derive, it will be possible to deduce the theory of relativity as a partial aspect of it [1, chapter 6 and 28].
Let us first consider wave propagation.
Derivation of the Wave Equation
[See paper for derivations]
There are some questions we should ask:
• Can this mathematical wave description also be derived from the new approach?
• Is it only a special case, and how do the boundary conditions read?
• In this case, how should it be interpreted physically?
• Are new properties present, which can lead to new technologies?
[See paper for derivations]
From the simplified field equation (24), the general wave equation (26) can be derived as demonstrated, and is divided into longitudinal and transverse wave parts, which however can propagate with different velocities.
[See paper for formula]
Physically, these vortices have a particle nature as a consequence of their structureforming property. With that they carry momentum, which puts them in a position to form a longitudinal shock wave similar to a sound wave. If the propagation of the light at one time appears as a wave and another time as a particle, then this simply and solely is a consequence of the wave equation. Light quanta should be interpreted as evidence for the existence of scalar waves. Here however also occurs the restriction that light always propagates with the speed of light. It concerns the special case v = c.
With that, the derived wave equation (26) changes into the inhomogeneous Laplace equation (21).
[See paper for formula]
The electromagnetic wave in both cases is propagating with c. As a transverse wave, the field vectors are standing perpendicular to the direction of propagation. The velocity of propagation therefore is decoupled and constant. Completely different is the case for the longitudinal wave. Here, the propagation takes place in the direction of an oscillating field pointer, so that the phase velocity is permanently changing and nothing more than an average group velocity can be given for the propagation. There exists no restriction for v, and v = c only describes a special case.
[See paper for table]
The New Field Approach in Synopsis
Proof could be furnished that an approximation is buried in Maxwell’s field equations and that they merely represent the special case of a new, duallyformulated and more universal approach. The mathematical derivations of the Maxwell field and the wave equation reveal the nature of the Maxwell approximation. The antivortex dual to the expanding eddy current with its skin effect is neglected. This contracting antivortex is called potential vortex. It is capable of forming structures and propagates as a scalar wave in a longitudinal manner in poorly conductive media like air or vacuum.
At relativistic velocities the potential vortices are subject to the Lorentz contraction. Since for scalar waves the propagation occurs longitudinally in the direction of an oscillating field pointer, the potential vortices experience a constant oscillation of size as a result of the oscillating propagation. If one imagines the field vortex as a planar but rolled up transverse wave, then from the oscillation of size and with that of wavelength at constant swirl velocity with c follows a continual change in frequency, which is measured as a noise signal.
The noise proves to be the neglected potential vortex term in Maxwell’s Equations, and it creates scalar waves. If in biological or technological systems, e.g. with antennas, a noise signal is being measured, then that demonstrates the existence of potential vortices. But it then also means that the scope of Maxwell’s theory has been exceeded and erroneous concepts can be the result.
As an answer to the question of possible new technologies are two special properties.
First: Potential vortices for reason of their particle nature carry momentum and energy. Since we are surrounded by noise vortices, energy applications for scalar waves, where this noise power is withdrawn of the surroundings, would be feasible. There is evidence that biological systems in nature resolve their need for energy in this way. At a minimum, energy transmission via scalar waves would represent a significant advancement compared with the alternating current technology of today.
Second: The wavelength multiplied with the frequency results in the velocity of propagation v of a wave (λ⋅f = v), and that for scalar waves by no means is constant. With that, wavelength and frequency aren’t coupled anymore; they can be modulated separately, for which reason scalar waves a whole dimension can be modulated as compared to the Hertzian wave. In that, the reason can be seen why the human brain with just 10 Hz clock frequency is considerably more efficient than modern computers with more than 1 GHz clock frequency. Nature always works with the best technology, even if we haven’t yet understood it.
If we would try to learn of nature, energy technologies and information technologies that make use of scalar waves would result. If such technologies were created, then it’s unlikely that people would still praise our current technologies anymore. The issues of greenhouse gases and smog give us no other choice than to scientifically occupy ourselves with scalar waves and their technological applications.
Last edited by StefanR on Tue Mar 18, 2008 4:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
The illusion from which we are seeking to extricate ourselves is not that constituted by the realm of space and time, but that which comes from failing to know that realm from the standpoint of a higher vision. L.H.
 StefanR
 Posts: 1371
 Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:31 pm
 Location: Amsterdam
Re: recovered: Meyl's Modifications to Maxwell's Equations
Solar
Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 2:32 am Post subject: Reply with quote
Meyl appears to cite the ability to detect an electric field and voltage with a Faraday disc generator by connecting a lead from an axially polarized magnetic rod which runs through a spinning conductive disc. The point on the rod (axis) and the point at the edge of the disc are the voltage 'pick off' points. Brushes are used at those 'pick off' points to probably minimize friction in order to keep the disc spinning. You can see the same principle here ( http://depalma.pair.com/Absurdity/Absur ... yDisc.html )about half way down the page.
Here, it *seems*, the most important part is the "autonomy" of the Farady law E=v x B  as Meyl sees to name it. That this law of induction can stand on it's own. Apparently the manner in which others had arrived at the Farady law, via the Lorentz force for Bosse and Kupfmuller reaching a "special form of the law of induction" only to arrive at the the "general law of induction" according to Maxwell, both methods circumvent or take away from the ability of the Farady law to be it's own or, as mentioned later, to have "equal rights".
Meyl later cites the fact that Faraday was more of the experimentalist and had not formulated his law and that he preceded Maxwell. Further that Maxwell sought to mathematically prove that light was a wave. To which ends Maxwell did what he needed to do; to so prove that. That's how I interpreted it anyways.
According to the paper it was Bosse who considered the Faradaylaw as an equation of transformation. If so, then both equations E=v x B and H= v x D need to be considered because  as Meyl later cites Pohl "one equation changes into the other one". So why would you give both equal consideration??
Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 2:32 am Post subject: Reply with quote
Quote:
If one turns an axially polarized magnet or copper disc situated within a magnetic field, then perpendicular to the direction of motion and perpendicular to the magnetic field pointer, a pointer of the electric field will occur, which everywhere points axially to the outside. In the case of this by Faraday developed unipolar generator hence by means of a brush between the rotation axis and the circumference a tension voltage can be called off [2, Chap. 16.1].
Meyl appears to cite the ability to detect an electric field and voltage with a Faraday disc generator by connecting a lead from an axially polarized magnetic rod which runs through a spinning conductive disc. The point on the rod (axis) and the point at the edge of the disc are the voltage 'pick off' points. Brushes are used at those 'pick off' points to probably minimize friction in order to keep the disc spinning. You can see the same principle here ( http://depalma.pair.com/Absurdity/Absur ... yDisc.html )about half way down the page.
To me, when coupled in context with t e rest of that paragraph this simply speaks to 'apathy'. He goes on to speak with regard to how well know, well published, and indoctrinated the knowledge of Maxwell's field equation have become in contrast to the Farady law. It's to such extent that no reevaluations are necessary. Just plug in the appropriate equations and continue about your day.Quote:
Maxwell’s field equations tell us that derivations are unnecessary because it’s sufficiently known.
Quote:
On the other hand, he derives the law from the Lorentz force, completely in the style of Kupfmuller [7] and with that again takes it part of its autonomy.
Here, it *seems*, the most important part is the "autonomy" of the Farady law E=v x B  as Meyl sees to name it. That this law of induction can stand on it's own. Apparently the manner in which others had arrived at the Farady law, via the Lorentz force for Bosse and Kupfmuller reaching a "special form of the law of induction" only to arrive at the the "general law of induction" according to Maxwell, both methods circumvent or take away from the ability of the Farady law to be it's own or, as mentioned later, to have "equal rights".
Meyl later cites the fact that Faraday was more of the experimentalist and had not formulated his law and that he preceded Maxwell. Further that Maxwell sought to mathematically prove that light was a wave. To which ends Maxwell did what he needed to do; to so prove that. That's how I interpreted it anyways.
Quote:
If there should be talk about equations of transformation, then the dual formulation belongs to it, then it concerns a pair of equations, which describes the relations between the electric and the magnetic field.
According to the paper it was Bosse who considered the Faradaylaw as an equation of transformation. If so, then both equations E=v x B and H= v x D need to be considered because  as Meyl later cites Pohl "one equation changes into the other one". So why would you give both equal consideration??
Last edited by StefanR on Tue Mar 18, 2008 4:51 am, edited 1 time in total.
The illusion from which we are seeking to extricate ourselves is not that constituted by the realm of space and time, but that which comes from failing to know that realm from the standpoint of a higher vision. L.H.
 StefanR
 Posts: 1371
 Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:31 pm
 Location: Amsterdam
Re: recovered: Meyl's Modifications to Maxwell's Equations
Solar
Posted: Sat Mar 08, 2008 1:01 am Post subject: Reply with quote
With this subsequent statement:
Under the "Different induction laws" heading Meyl, in my opinion, furthers this with:
Isn't this what we see with 'mainstream' astrophysics and astronomy? Isn't this what we've noted over and over again countless times? That when it comes to magnetic fields and electricity you can't have one without the other!!! Well, Meyl just reiterated that fact and points out why it is that the disconnect has occurred. That's excellent!!! This interrelated dynamic is what Meyl is pointing out as the difference between Faraday's law and Maxwells equations. Electric universe theory is more like Faraday. We don't separate electricity and magnetic fields from one another.
Posted: Sat Mar 08, 2008 1:01 am Post subject: Reply with quote
The concept of electric (div D)and magnetic (div B) monopoles, neither of which have been detected, I can't tell if Meyl is arguing in favor of monopoles here. According Oxford's Dictionary of Physics in Maxwell's equations divB = 0 "represents the absence of magnetic monopoles". Meyl makes the statement that according to Maxwell's Theory divB=0 is an "assumption" and reasserts this:Quote:
the Maxwell approximation
In Meyl's approach of considering a "dual field" electric monopoles (div D) are "eddy currents" and the antivortex would be the magnetic monopoles (div B). If particles are spherical you would need to have both expanding (div D) on the inside; and contracting (div B) on the outside. Which sounds as if it is also related to the "vortex tube" Meyl cites early on in reference to what we've seen referred to as the 'charged sheath vortex'.Quote:
Even if the eddy current’s opposing vortex expressed in the neglected term has yet to be searched for, this contracting vortex cannot be assumed to be zero.
With this subsequent statement:
...it *seems* as if he is saying that Maxwells "assumption" of divB=0 also has to assume monopoles.Quote:
When you realize that assuming a monopole requires a special form of a field vortex, then it’s immediately clear as to why the search for magnetic poles has to be a dead end.
This I thought was brilliant. Here Meyl seems to be stating that E= v x B (rough translation: the strength of an electric field is equal to a 'cross product' of the velocity of magnetic induction) is an interrelated dynamic. The strength of one is directly related to the strength of the other. You can't consider one; without considering the other. They are "overlapping and mixing by continually mixing up" and have a "cause and effect" relationship. Faraday didn't 'disconnect' these 'forces'.Quote:
It describes a physical basic principle, the alternating of two dual experience or observation factors, their overlapping and mixing by continually mixing up cause and effect.
Under the "Different induction laws" heading Meyl, in my opinion, furthers this with:
That is not correct.Quote:
Such a difference for instance is that it is common practice to neglect the coupling between the fields at low frequencies. While at high frequencies in the range of the electromagnetic field, the E and the Hfields are mutually dependent. At lower frequency and small field changes, the process of induction drops according to Maxwell, such that an omission seems to be allowed. Now electric or magnetic fields can be measured independently of each other. Usually, the presence of the other field is ignored. (my bold)
Isn't this what we see with 'mainstream' astrophysics and astronomy? Isn't this what we've noted over and over again countless times? That when it comes to magnetic fields and electricity you can't have one without the other!!! Well, Meyl just reiterated that fact and points out why it is that the disconnect has occurred. That's excellent!!! This interrelated dynamic is what Meyl is pointing out as the difference between Faraday's law and Maxwells equations. Electric universe theory is more like Faraday. We don't separate electricity and magnetic fields from one another.
I think here Meyl refers to those areas of 'classic' TEM electromagnetism wherein Maxwell's equations may fall short. For example earlier Meyl mentions that:Quote:
The sorting and systematizing of the properties of particles in the standard model yields us nothing more than an unsatisfying comfort due to the lack of calculability.
...which translates to Meyl's "lack of calculability" in reference to Maxwell's equations.Quote:
Maxwell equation doesn't provide a result in the static or quasistationary case, for which reason it in such cases is usual...
This appears to mean that initially the 'homogenous field' is "free" from [vortex] "structure" at it's initial "source" but somehow can form "potential vortex structures" from which the "electric vortex field" stems. But the statement and a few others look in need of rewording or a retranslation.Quote:
The electric vortex field, at first source free, is itself forming its field sources in form of potential vortex structures.
... is what we have now. Not only that but Meyl refers to it as a "typical scam". The process of creating and overlapping "seemingly disconnected individual disciplines" after repostulating a "zero" value for something i.e. finding nothing, and saying it's still significant. So 'They' will reorient and reformat a new approach to once again find what?  absolutely nothing. It truly "A Neverending Story" for which our very own Dave Smith has done an excellent piece on this very subject at the Thunderblog.Quote:
and an inefficient specialist hood.
The illusion from which we are seeking to extricate ourselves is not that constituted by the realm of space and time, but that which comes from failing to know that realm from the standpoint of a higher vision. L.H.
 StefanR
 Posts: 1371
 Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:31 pm
 Location: Amsterdam
Re: recovered: Meyl's Modifications to Maxwell's Equations
plnbz
Posted: Sat Mar 08, 2008 1:11 am Post subject: Reply with quote
Solar, you've been an immense help. Thank you so much. I'll review your comments on Monday.
It's vital that we help Meyl create his "hook" for people. If people read his paper and become discouraged because they can't understand his English, then this is a horrible loss. Arguably, we'll be referring to "Meyl's Equations" within another ten years.
The goal here is to create an educational supplement for physics students to help them to doubt the materials they're being taught in school, and to add talent to the forum here. I feel that I am very close to achieving this now. I'm going to be reading both Meyl's book and David Thomson's Aether Physics Model over the next 23 months. There will also subsequently be a construction project, which you can likely guess at. The education is not complete until we've gotten our hands dirty. Theory is all nice and good, but does it work?
Hopefully, when that time comes, I can try to convince some others on the board to attempt the same thing. We could share designs and construction tips ...
Stefanr
Posted: Sat Mar 08, 2008 3:54 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Woah, great work guys. Didn't realize the language was that different., but you made it very readable. Cool
I will try to later bring some stuff about the monopolesunclarity.
But what Meyl states is that Maxwell can be derived as a special case where the speed of light is constant.
I found the Dark Inertia blog entry of Solar also quite entertaining in relation to all this. Great stuff.
Junglelord
Posted: Sat Mar 08, 2008 4:59 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Me too, very impressed with the talents of the forum
Posted: Sat Mar 08, 2008 1:11 am Post subject: Reply with quote
Solar, you've been an immense help. Thank you so much. I'll review your comments on Monday.
It's vital that we help Meyl create his "hook" for people. If people read his paper and become discouraged because they can't understand his English, then this is a horrible loss. Arguably, we'll be referring to "Meyl's Equations" within another ten years.
The goal here is to create an educational supplement for physics students to help them to doubt the materials they're being taught in school, and to add talent to the forum here. I feel that I am very close to achieving this now. I'm going to be reading both Meyl's book and David Thomson's Aether Physics Model over the next 23 months. There will also subsequently be a construction project, which you can likely guess at. The education is not complete until we've gotten our hands dirty. Theory is all nice and good, but does it work?
Hopefully, when that time comes, I can try to convince some others on the board to attempt the same thing. We could share designs and construction tips ...
Stefanr
Posted: Sat Mar 08, 2008 3:54 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Woah, great work guys. Didn't realize the language was that different., but you made it very readable. Cool
I will try to later bring some stuff about the monopolesunclarity.
But what Meyl states is that Maxwell can be derived as a special case where the speed of light is constant.
I found the Dark Inertia blog entry of Solar also quite entertaining in relation to all this. Great stuff.
Junglelord
Posted: Sat Mar 08, 2008 4:59 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Me too, very impressed with the talents of the forum
The illusion from which we are seeking to extricate ourselves is not that constituted by the realm of space and time, but that which comes from failing to know that realm from the standpoint of a higher vision. L.H.
 StefanR
 Posts: 1371
 Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:31 pm
 Location: Amsterdam
Re: recovered: Meyl's Modifications to Maxwell's Equations
****** Last post of the recovery *****
The illusion from which we are seeking to extricate ourselves is not that constituted by the realm of space and time, but that which comes from failing to know that realm from the standpoint of a higher vision. L.H.

 Posts: 248
 Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:20 pm
Re: recovered: Meyl's Modifications to Maxwell's Equations
I've received David Thomson's "Secrets of the Aether", and am now spending my time going through that work. I will certainly revisit this Meyl piece in due time (I've been watching a video of him discuss this paper, and working in extra information as possible). The Thunderblogs paper I'm writing right now is becoming a primer on the Aether and Maxwell's Equations (tentatively titled "A Primer on Maxwell’s Equations and the Aether with an Analysis of their Cultural Context"). This thread aims to fill in just one tiny portion of what has already become a 90page educational tour of essential reading materials for the aether.
I'd also like to state for the record that David Thomson's Aether Physics Model is thus far impressing me greatly. It appears to be both highly accessible and logical. My paper will complement nicely his own work in that people will be able to formulate enough of an opinion on his work to decide if they want to actually dig in further.
People will be happy to hear that I've also typed in the story of how Maxwell formulated Maxwell's Equations. I have to scan in a graphic before it will make sense, but people will be pleased to observe the fact that Maxwell relied upon a vortex physical model to create Maxwell's Equations. I hope to get others' thoughts on the issue later, but my initial impression is that Maxwell's discovery of the fact that the speed of light could be derived from his vortex model led him to accept his assumption that electricity behaves as an incompressible fluid. In other words, he noticed that assuming as much led to the speed of light for transverse waves. But, it appears that this is the source of the confusion. Electromagnetism behaves as an incompressible fluid, but electrostatic phenomenon is more like a compressible fluid. Tesla has spoken on this subject, and we'd be wise to dig up all of the historical facts associated with this apparently incorrect assumption. I've done a great job so far in providing the history, but I've only seen vague details so far regarding Hertz' involvement  which Tesla cites to be key. Tesla was a rather talkative kind of guy. I'd be willing to bet that he went into detail on the compressibility of the aether.
I'd also like to state for the record that David Thomson's Aether Physics Model is thus far impressing me greatly. It appears to be both highly accessible and logical. My paper will complement nicely his own work in that people will be able to formulate enough of an opinion on his work to decide if they want to actually dig in further.
People will be happy to hear that I've also typed in the story of how Maxwell formulated Maxwell's Equations. I have to scan in a graphic before it will make sense, but people will be pleased to observe the fact that Maxwell relied upon a vortex physical model to create Maxwell's Equations. I hope to get others' thoughts on the issue later, but my initial impression is that Maxwell's discovery of the fact that the speed of light could be derived from his vortex model led him to accept his assumption that electricity behaves as an incompressible fluid. In other words, he noticed that assuming as much led to the speed of light for transverse waves. But, it appears that this is the source of the confusion. Electromagnetism behaves as an incompressible fluid, but electrostatic phenomenon is more like a compressible fluid. Tesla has spoken on this subject, and we'd be wise to dig up all of the historical facts associated with this apparently incorrect assumption. I've done a great job so far in providing the history, but I've only seen vague details so far regarding Hertz' involvement  which Tesla cites to be key. Tesla was a rather talkative kind of guy. I'd be willing to bet that he went into detail on the compressibility of the aether.

 Posts: 248
 Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:20 pm
Re: recovered: Meyl's Modifications to Maxwell's Equations
Actually, it looks like Tesla looked at aether as incompressible too. Hm ...
"Whatever electricity may be, it is a fact that it behaves like an incompressible fluid, and the Earth may be looked upon as an immense reservoir of electricity."
Nikola Tesla, “The Problem of Increasing Human Energy”, http://www.rastko.org.yu/rastko/delo/10793
"Whatever electricity may be, it is a fact that it behaves like an incompressible fluid, and the Earth may be looked upon as an immense reservoir of electricity."
Nikola Tesla, “The Problem of Increasing Human Energy”, http://www.rastko.org.yu/rastko/delo/10793
 StefanR
 Posts: 1371
 Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:31 pm
 Location: Amsterdam
Re: recovered: Meyl's Modifications to Maxwell's Equations
Which one was that?I've been watching a video of him discuss this paper, and working in extra information as possible
It's a pity the German language is an obstacle, the 4part lecture Tesla Waves (a filmed weekend seminar), is very good.
A very nice philosophical work of Tesla.Nikola Tesla, “The Problem of Increasing Human Energy”
"A Primer on Maxwell’s Equations and the Aether with an Analysis of their Cultural Context"
I'm getting real curious.
Try page 191 of the Scalar Waves book. under the heading of've done a great job so far in providing the history, but I've only seen vague details so far regarding Hertz' involvement 
9.1 longitudonal electric waves
and
maybe page 215217 of the scalar waves book, under the heading
9.13 Epilogue belonging to part 1
Very important in that story is Lord Kelvin. Kelvin also made some in roads to vortex strucures of the electromagnetic field.
Also page 573 of the Scalar Waves book. under the heading of
28.1 The question concerning the aether
telling why michelson had to fail, very concise.
The illusion from which we are seeking to extricate ourselves is not that constituted by the realm of space and time, but that which comes from failing to know that realm from the standpoint of a higher vision. L.H.

 Posts: 248
 Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:20 pm
Re: recovered: Meyl's Modifications to Maxwell's Equations
Wow. Very impressive. You know, I'd be open to eventually opening the paper up for "peer review" from members of this board. I don't care one bit about taking all of the credit. I intend for this to be a reading guide for the layperson or scientist who is willing to be convinced of an aether. Given that specific goal, accuracy and comprehensiveness may take priority over all else. If we can make this thing better by sharing the credit for it, then we should do that. Something that I've learned over time is that you can't write a physics paper like this without vetting it. If you ignore the vetting process, you tend to create a weak paper that can be easily rebutted. I'm not yet at the point of sending it out, but possibly soon.
The video I've been watching appears to be the only talk he ever gave in English. He's a bit more understandable on video than in print.
The video I've been watching appears to be the only talk he ever gave in English. He's a bit more understandable on video than in print.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests