recovered: Meyl's Modifications to Maxwell's Equations

Has science taken a wrong turn? If so, what corrections are needed? Chronicles of scientific misbehavior. The role of heretic-pioneers and forbidden questions in the sciences. Is peer review working? The perverse "consensus of leading scientists." Good public relations versus good science.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: recovered: Meyl's Modifications to Maxwell's Equations

Unread postby pln2bz » Thu Mar 20, 2008 2:02 pm

An attempt to re-translate page 573 of "Scalar Waves" ...

Have you ever heard of the Maxwell-experiment? No, you couldn’t possibly have, since its intellectual father quickly backed down after it didn't work out. Today one speaks of the Michelson-experiment and it may be connected with many other names (Morley, etc.). Remember: In his light theory Maxwell had determined a particular and constant value for the speed of light, and for that there should be a physical reason, which should have its cause in the aether. By means of proving this aether, Maxwell wanted to prove his theory. But this enterprise thoroughly failed.

The thought was as follows: If the Earth is spinning and is moving through the cosmos, then one should be able to detect an aether wind and different values for c in the different points of the compass. Maxwell found support for his project at the observatory, since with the aberration of the stars Bradley had previously described an observation which could be considered as evidence for an aether. The director of the observatory charged his assistant Dr. Michelson with the task, to carry out a corresponding proof of an aether, this time in a terrestrial experiment. But such an aether couldn't be proven and Maxwell had to accept this as a severe blow to his light theory. However, seven years later, Maxwell received acknowledgement from a completely different place by means of Heinrich Hertz’s experiments with radio transmissions.

To this day, the astrophysical question of the aether has remained open, whereas its detection within terrestrial laboratories casts doubt upon the existence of an aether. But the aether can't be abolished so long as it remains unsettled why light propagates with, of all possible velocities, value c. The question is asked, what determines the propagation of light from today's point of view? Now, by means of outside fields, light can be slowed down. At present, the world record lies at less than 65 kilometers per hour in a Bose-Einstein condensate. If electromagnetic fields determine the speed of light, and if in addition a field or gravitational lenses should confirm this, then the field takes over the task of the aether!

At this point the new field-theoretical approach shows its capabilities. The equations of transformation say nothing but that a moving H-field transforms to a resting E-field, and vice versa; that thus, in the place of a moving aether, the aether wind, a resting aether is found. Doing so, the dual field partners merely exchange their places. Therefore, when we try to measure the aether wind which underlies the same field with gauges, it is a wild-goose chase. Michelson had to fail.


I'm confused at the ending, the conclusion, the important part. Here is the original text ...

If electromagnetic fields determine the speed of light, if in addition field or gravitational lenses should confirm this, then the field takes over the task of the aether!

At this place the new field-theoretical approach shows its capabilities. The equations of transformation say nothing but that a moving H-field transforms to a resting E-field and vice versa, that thus in the place of a moving aether, the aetherwind, a resting aether is found. Doing so the dual field partners merely exchange their places. Therefore it is a wild-goose chase, wanting to measure an aetherwind with gauges, which underlie the same field (fig. 28.2). Michelson had to fail.


Seems like there's something wrong with my translation. I don't quite get it. Any ideas?
pln2bz
 
Posts: 248
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:20 pm

Re: recovered: Meyl's Modifications to Maxwell's Equations

Unread postby pln2bz » Thu Mar 20, 2008 3:51 pm

From Konstantin Meyl’s Scalar Waves, page 191, not sure about bolded parts (help?):

It is important that experts try to solve problems. Only if the discussion about limits doesn't come to a result which can be grasped and verified, then also in the environmental compatibility the willingness will grow, to accept a not yet known phenomenon as a further and possibly crucial influential factor.

Already for a hundred years there has been a dispute between experts. At that time scientists all over the world were trying to verify the experiments of Heinrich Hertz. Then from America came the message that Hertz had been mistaken and the electromagnetic wave possessed completely different properties. Europe’s scientists were indignant, but they had to take the message seriously because it after all came from the important experimental physicist, Nikola Tesla (1856-1943), who with his inventions of the rotary field and of the asynchronous motor has affected today's electric energy technology like no other.

As a result, Lord Kelvin boarded a steamship as a mediator and sailed in 1897 to New York to convince Tesla that he was wrong. But the experiments which Tesla presented his Lordship didn't leave any doubts, and thus Kelvin returned to Europe with the message: "Both are right, Tesla as well as Hertz! Whereas the electromagnetic wave which Hertz has detected, is a transverse wave, Tesla works with a longitudinal wave!" Lord Kelvin as a result started to draw very different vortex models, because it was clear to him that propagation as a longitudinal standing wave analogous to the sound wave is only conceivable if quantized structures exist, which mutually knock each other. Kelvin therefore assumed vortex structures of the electromagnetic field. His vortex models were published and landed in the curiosity box of orthodox science.

Heinrich Hertz did have a big advantage. He could refer to Maxwell and calculate his wave with the field equations. For modern technology, its mathematical calculability is almost an indispensable prerequisite!

For Tesla’s wave there however existed neither a mathematical nor a physical theory. The only thing Tesla had were presentable experiments.

In Colorado Springs, he had built a 10 kW transmitting installation and lit 200 fluorescent lamps of 50 Watts each on a mountain in the Rocky Mountains at a distance of 25 miles. With that he had completely transmitted 10 kW of transmission power, as can be inferred from the press reports at that time. Even after over 100 years, this experiment would not be technologically possible with Hertzian waves, which propagate spatially. According to the law of the square of the distance, one isn't even able to make glow a tiny little lamp at such a distance.

For sure, his rotary field theory was a big help for Tesla in all of his experiments. And in fact, a rotary field can be seen as the special case of a planar vortex.

Thus, Tesla obviously was able to use the potential vortex without even knowing it. Tesla has stimulated a loosely coupled high tension coil wound like a spiral to self-resonant oscillations and emitted the produced vortices over an antenna (fig. 9.1). On the receiver side the process was then reversed.


What is the rotary field?

On pages 215 – 217:

The correctness of a new theory can not by all means guarantee that it also is accepted! A new theory must be used. An acknowledgement is to be expected only if a concrete need exists, and only then by the direct beneficiaries.

In November 1994 in Munich, the trade fair "Electronica" took place. Here, invited by the Deutschen Gesellschaft fur EMV-Technologie (German association for EMC-technology, note of the translator), books written about potential vortices [Al, A2] were honored with a prize by an internationally renowned EMC-scientist. The number of people who the potential vortex theory helps further to find answers to problems, which until now have remained inexplicable, grows further.

Nevertheless, nobody should believe that the textbooks on the shelves will be changed that fast. Habit and laziness encourage us to further use dominant interpretation, even if a new theory demonstrates a better and convincing answer. To give an example, it will take some time until the heating of water in a microwave oven is explained as eddy losses, as it is properly described by the potential vortex theory already today. The discovery of a physical phenomenon may happen in a fright second. Its acknowledgement, on the other hand, as a rule is a lengthy procedure. If we look back in history we find out that even in the past it hasn't been otherwise.

Of the four fundamental phenomena in fig. 8.2 at first the tension voltages and the charges have been discovered by Coulomb (5.7e).

(5.7c): An effect of the eddy currents was observed already in 1825 by the French physicist Arago. He discovered that a magnetic needle suspended above a rotating disc tends to rotate along. Out of ignorance, he named the effect "rotational magnetism". But the eddy currents could only be mathematically described with the help of two laws, the law of Ampere (1820) and Faraday’s law of induction (1831). Because the effect due to the eddy current losses was instead regarded as disturbing, technical applications or patents were impossible. Riidenberg first carried out fundamental calculations for eddy current brakes in 1906. The discovery and usage of the "skin effect" is to be attributed to Tesla.

(5.7b): The electromagnetic wave for the first time was mathematically described by Maxwell (1864). He had aimed to calculate light and he could show that his theory actually could correctly describe all properties of light. With that he was able to prove the correctness of his theory. But he had to deal with many sceptics, because he had postulated the dielectric displacement, without ever in his lifetime being able to measure it due to its smallness.

This may be the reason why the discovery is attributed to Heinrich Hertz and was and is spoken of as the Hertzian wave. Neutrally seen, Hertz at first was nothing more than an enthusiastic pupil who had worked through Maxwell’s "Treatise". All results which Hertz could observe experimentally were already contained in the Maxwell-theory and published.

But Maxwell’s great mathematical description at first had a purely academic importance. The interest of the general public on the other hand concentrates on practical applicability. Hertz had experimented with antennas and has laid the foundations of the building of a gauge for electromagnetic waves (1888). The wireless transmission of invisible waves was convincing. It was an entirely new technology, which stimulated fantasy in view of a technical usage. Marconi was a practical man who was stimulated by theoretical realizations. He invented the radio (1895, Nobel prize: 1909).

Between the three achievements -- first the calculation, second, and at the same time the discovery and measurement, and third, the application of the wave phenomenon -- lay 31 years. And radio technology is developing still further, even today. A gold-mining mood prevails in the area of the cellular phone network and in telecommunications, which is barely affected by hints of electromagnetic environmental compatibility issues.

Amidst the euphoria of the past 100 years and completely fallen into obscurity is the fact that besides Hertz’s detection of the transverse wave in the wave equation according to Laplace and according to the original version of Maxwell, a longitudinal wave was also mathematically described. This one was discovered and detected by Tesla in numerous experiments. With reference to his discovery, Tesla had initially publicly asserted that Hertz had been at fault, an assertion that the scientific community believed to be undoubtedly wrong and for which he was scorned. As a result of this development, his experiments haven't been reproduced and the discovery of the scalar wave would fall into oblivion.

Not enough, with such sanctions against the inconvenient freethinker Tesla, a series of professors like Gibbs and Heaviside have made cuts and discarded all parts from the original version of Maxwell’s Equations, which at that time weren't considered to be experimentally proven by experiments of Ampere, Faraday, Ohm and Hertz. With those changes, scalar waves fell victim to the axe even though the changes had encountered severe criticism. Once Hertz also sanctioned these measures, they were finally codified as textbook opinion into all textbooks.

If the field equations according to Maxwell in today's revised version don't describe scalar waves anymore, then all orthodox scientists who want to make reference to the revised Maxwell’s Equations have to bear one thing in mind: discarding a term of an equation is the same as neglecting it. But the term may only be neglected if it is sufficiently small. The first thing every student learns in his physical practical training is that of testing. For that, the term has to be measured and its order of magnitude must be determined. It’s of little help and even extremely unscientific if on the basis of the revised field equations, which have put all scalar waves to zero, it’s demonstrated that the neglect was allowed or even necessary.

A practical example is the longitudinal wave parts, as they occur and are proven in the near-field of transmitter antennas. Considering their order of magnitude, neglect is out of the question. On the other hand, they should not exist at all according to textbook physics because they had fallen victim to the axe. Since most scientists in the present time are no longer aware of their removal, they are postulating field vortices anew in the proximity of an antenna. Field vortices propagate longitudinally in the direction of a field pointer as a scalar wave.

With that they calculate their own arbitrary assumption. If in the practical training of physics, a student neglects an essential factor of influence, then his experiment fails. The experiment must be repeated until, according to the approved methods of scientific soundness, all used neglects have been tested individually and have undergone an error consideration.

Do we now have to deny the cutting action, which had been plotted by Gibbs, Heaviside and others, as having the necessary scientific soundness? Do we have to review and rework all textbooks concerning the illegal neglect? Since the cutting action a gap gapes in the field theory!


(5.7d): The potential vortex fills the remaining gap in fig. 8.2. Several scientists can be named who could already observe this phenomenon: most prominently, Nikola Tesla, for his discovery of Tesla currents, where very weak currents are said to cause extremely high potentials. Here, presumably cause and effect have been mixed up, because weak currents can never produce high potentials. Actually, the potentials prove to be a result of the potential vortices, whereas the currents aren't more than a side-effect, nothing but leakage currents. Even though Tesla could use the vortex, without a usable theory he could neither calculate nor adequately explain it. Besides Tesla, Wilhelm Reich, who has collected the vortices in his orgone accumulator, should be mentioned.

For the most part, only certain aspects were observed and investigated: the planar vortex by Tesla, the influence on the weather by Reich, the water vortices by Schauberger, and by all three their medical and biological aspects. The list of names is incomplete and could arbitrarily be continued.

With the discovery of the potential vortex in 1990, the basis for the building of a gauge and the technical application of the physical phenomenon is prepared. It not only concerns the search for water, but also the detection of the vortex balls and vortex streets, of the standing waves of the energy radiation in the air, at the workplace, in the bedroom, in clinics, in recreational areas and in hotels. As explained at the start, neither the field strength of a Hertzian wave nor the arising heat development can be made responsible for biological or technical harm.

It’s primarily the newly discovered vortices of the electric field which take effect. The effects can, as we have seen, be both good for health as well as bad for health. Intensity, plane of polarization, vortex configurations and many other characteristics play a role here. Vortex gauges will be needed to research these influential factors.

We have to realize that in the technical domain the electromagnetic compatibility of an apparatus is determined by its sensitiveness to vortices, thus by the fact how many and which vortices can cause a function trouble. To determine the environmental compatibility of a product, the emitted vortices, the energy radiation, have to be measured. Limits for high tension lines and for screens or handheld phones must be given in units of the potential vortices. The potential vortex has shown us the way to a unified theory and has brought along a new picture and understanding of our environment. It wants to show us an ecologically compatible way of using scalar waves in nature.
pln2bz
 
Posts: 248
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:20 pm

Re: recovered: Meyl's Modifications to Maxwell's Equations

Unread postby StefanR » Thu Mar 20, 2008 6:14 pm

Seems like there's something wrong with my translation. I don't quite get it. Any ideas?


Your translation is fine and you will get what he means. But it is difficult to condense the subject matter as you can also see in the thread you made about Maxwell.

The Hafele–Keating experiment was a test of the theory of relativity. In October of 1971, J. C. Hafele and Richard E. Keating took four caesium-beam atomic clocks aboard commercial airliners and flew twice around the world, first eastward, then westward, and compared the clocks against those of the United States Naval Observatory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele-Keating_experiment

This experiment you can find back in the book on page 271 13.2 The clock paradox

...............
.......... ( ) ........The reason for the measured difference in going is seen in the field and here specially in
the different gravitational field. The centrifugal force directed opposite to the gravitational
force at least is not the same, because for a westward flight along the equator the speed of
the plane vf should be subtracted from the velocity of rotation of the earth vE, whereas in
eastward direction it should be added (eq. 13.1).
For the steering quanta supplied by the caesium resonator now the energy balance is put
up (13.5 with 13.4) and the change of the reference frequency is calculated (13.7). With
the change in frequency is connected directly a change of the at the two clocks readable
times t1,2 (13.8). For a journey around half the earth, where one clock is flown westwards
and the other one eastwards, the difference in going should, according to the calculation,
amount to 207 ns. Interesting of the result (13.11) undoubtedly is, that the velocity of the
planes doesn"t play a role. It is cancelled out.
October 1971 caesium atomic clocks were sent around the world in scheduled planes in
the Hafele-Keating experiment. To be able to estimate the inaccuracy in going of the
clocks and with that the measurement error, four clocks were used. Between the westward
journey (273 ±7 ns) and the eastward journey (59 ±10 ns) a difference in time of 214
nanoseconds was determined. This under strict scientific conditions determined result
once more proves the correctness of the theory of objectivity by confirmation of the
calculated value. That however is not valid for the special theory of relativity, because that
doesn't appear in the calculation at all!
Who now believes, we would have less problems with the dimension of space, I must
disappoint. The determination of the linear measures equally ends in a fiasco.
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.
User avatar
StefanR
 
Posts: 1371
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:31 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Rudjer Boskovic (Boscovich, 1711-1787)

Unread postby StefanR » Thu Mar 20, 2008 6:28 pm

Quote:
The greatest and most famous Croatian philosopher and scientist Rudjer Boskovic (Boscovich, 1711-1787), was born in
Dubrovnik, where he was educated in the Jesuit Collegium. He was a member of the Royal Society of London, a member of
St.Petersbug Academy, "membre correspondant" of the French Academie Royale des Sciences, a member of the Accademia
dell'Arcadia, a professor at many European universities. Very delicate work on repairing the cupola of St. Peter's church
in the Vatican (diameter: 42m) was entrusted to R. Boskovic, a proof that he was a leading European authority for static
computations and civil engineering of that time. Upon the request of Austrian Empress Maria Theresia, Boskovic was
solving the problem of stability of Royal Library (now National Library) in Vienna.
Image

He was also the founder of the astronomical observatory in Brera near Milan. In 1773 a charter granted by Louis XV made
him a French subject. Soon he was appointed by Louis XV to a very prestigious position and became the Director of
Naval Optics of the French Navy in Paris (Optique Militaire de la Marine Royale de France). He left to his adoptive
country an achromatic telescope and micrometer. Boskovic spent nine years in France, and became a good friend
to many outstanding scientist, like the mathematician Clairaut, Lalande, Buffon. When D'Alembert took him for
Italian, he hastened to correct him.

Boskovic stayed 7 months in England and met many famous scientists there: James Bradley (famous astronomer),
George Parker (president of the Royal Academy), Samuel Johnson (Lexicographer), Edmund Burke
(philosopher and political writer), Joshua Reynolds (the first president of the Royal Academy of Arts), and others.
It is interesting that in England he designed a telescope filled with water in all its components, which was implemented
at the Greenwich observatory in 1871, that is, 84 years after his death. He also met Benjmanin Franklin, who
showed him some of his electrical experiments, see an article by Branko Franolic.

When Charles Burney, a well known English musicologist, met Boskovic in Milan, he wrote: ...if all Jesuits were like
this father, who uses the higher science and the work of mind to advance science for the happiness of
mankind, then it were to be wished that this society were as durable as is this world. Boskovic was buried in the
church of S. Maria Podone in Milano.

William Thompson-Kelvin, the English physicist (19/20 centuries), once expressed his opinion that his atomic
theory is a pure "Boskovicianism." Still earlier, Sir Humphry Davy, professor of physics and chemistry at
the Royal Institution in London from 1802 till 1827, mentioned the name of Boskovic on several occasions in his Diary
(Commonplace Book), accepting his atomistic theory. The diary is kept in the archives of the Royal Institution in London.
Also a famous Irish mathematician and physicist R.W. Hamilton wrote extensively about Boskovic's theory of forces.

With his theory of forces R. Boskovic was a forerunner of modern physics for almost two centuries. It was
described in his most important book Theoria Philosophiae naturalis (Vienna 1758, Venice 1763, London 1922,
American edition in 1966).

Werner Heisenberg (Nobel prize for physics in 1932) wrote the following:

Among scientists from the 18th century Boskovic occupies outstanding place as a theologian, philosopher,
mathematician, and astronomer. His "Theoria philosophiae naturalis" announced hypotheses which were confirmed only in
the course of last fifty years.

Indeed, see his graph of regions of attractive and repelling forces between material points (elementary particles), the closest
region being repelling, tending to infinity (nuclear force!; see here; published in his Dissertationes de lumine pars
secunda, 1748), and the farthest region is repelling, corresponding to gravitational force:

Image
This graph was since 1763 called the Boskovic curve (curva Boscovichiana).

Robert Marsh, the author of Physics and Poets, credits Boskovic with the idea of FIELD. Faraday and others took the i
dea from him, see here. He was the first to apply probability to the theory of errors. Laplace and Gauss
acknowledged their indebtedness to his work which led to the Legendre principle of least squares in statistics
(stating that the best fitting line is the one with the smallest sum of squared residuals).


http://www.croatianhistory.net/etf/et111.html

Quote:
Boskovic's magnum opus, Philosophiae naturalis theoria redacta ad unicam legem virium in natura existentium,
was published in Vienna in 1758. A bilingual Latin-English edition was published in Chicago and London in 1922 under
the title A Theory of Natural Philosophy. Boskovic always wanted to visit Newton's homeland. Finally his wish became
reality when he was sent on a mission to London, and on 23 January 1760 he landed at Dover. The following day he
went to Greenwich to see the famous observatory. In London he was well received in all circles, as his
reputation amongst scientists and scholars had preceded him. He met Benjamin Franklin, who demonstrated
to him his electrical experiments, and he dined with Dr Samuel Johnson. He also had discussions with representatives
of the Church of England, and visited Oxford and Cambridge.
Image

Boskovic attended several meetings of the Royal Society in London, at which he stressed the importance of observing
the imminent transit of Venus across the sun. He even submitted a Latin treatise to the Society entitled De Proximo
veneris sub Sole Transitu, which was published in volume 51 of Philosophical Transactions (1759-60). Soon
afterwards, he dedicated to the Society his Latin poem De solis et lunae defectibus (On the eclipses of the sun and
the moon), which was printed in London in the autumn of 1760. On 15 January 1761, the Royal Society elected
Boskovic a Fellow, a month after he had reluctantly left England (on 15 December 1760).

After Ruder Boskovic visited England, his theory of atomism spread throughout Great Britain and served as
the basis for a number of scientific points of view during his lifetime. There is a long tradition in Britain relating
to Boskovic's theory of natural philosophy, set out in his seminal work Theoria philosophiae naturalis . . .
(2nd edn, Venice, 1763). While he was still alive his theory was accepted by the famous British philosophical scientists
Joseph Priestley and John Robinson. Although Boskovic's theory and its application were discussed throughout Europe,
there were differences between Great Britain and the rest of Europe. In Europe the theory was considered more critically,
especially because of Boskovic's belief that the fundamental particles of matter were immaterial atoms. It is certainly
relevant that in Boskovic's tune the British were already trying to combine purely empirical facts with the philosophical
tradition: this explains the subsequent attempts to reconcile Boskovic's abstract natural philosophy with
empiricism. Particularly important is Boskovic's influence on five great men of British science: Humphry Davy,
Michael Faraday, James Clerk Maxwell, Lord Kelvin and Joseph John Thomson. (((Of course the writer
of this piece ought to have added Nicola Tesla!)))


http://www.hic.hr/books/latinists/01latin.htm

Quote:
His unusual talents manifested themselves particularly during the years devoted to literary and philosophical
studies at the Collegio Romano, the most celebrated of the colleges of the Society of Jesus. Thus, for example,
young Boscovich discovered for himself the proof of the theorem of Pythagoras. His professor, especially
Father Horatio Borgondi, professor of mathematics, knew how to cultivate talents, and he made such progress, especially
in mathematics, that he was able to take the place of his former professor at the Roman College even before the completion
of his theological studies......

He performed the duties of this office with much distinction for a whole generation, as is evidenced by the numerous
Latin dissertations which he published nearly every year, according to the custom of the time. These show Boscovich's
preference for astronomical problems. Among them may be mentioned:

* The Sunspots (1736);
* The Transit of Mercury (1737);
* The Aurora Borealis (1738);
* The Application of the Telescope in Astronomical Studies (1739);
* The Figure of the Earth (1739);
* The Motion of the heavenly Bodies in an unresisting Medium (1740);
* The Various Effects of Gravity (1741);
* The Aberration of the Fixed Stars (1742).

Image
Problems in pure mathematics as well as philosophical speculations regarding the various theories on the constitution
of matter also engaged his attention and he took an active part in all scientific discussions which agitated the learned
world of his time. To these belong his The Deviation of the earth from the probable Spherical Shape; Researches
on Unusual Gravitation; The Computation of a Comet's Orbit from a Few Observations, etc........

Pope Benedict XIV commissioned him and his fellow Jesuit, Le Maire, to carry out several precise meridian arc
measurements, and it seems to have been due chiefly to his influence that the same pope, in 1757, abrogated the
obsolete decree of the Index against the Copernican system.......

Many universities outside of Italy sought to number Boscovich among their professors. He himself was full of the spirit
of enterprise, as was shown when King John V of Portugal petitioned the general of the Jesuits for ten Fathers to make
an elaborate survey in Brazil. He voluntarily offered his services for the arduous task, hoping thus to be able to carry
out an independent survey in Ecuador, and so obtain data of value for the final solution to the problem of the figure
of the earth, which was then exciting much attention in England and France. His proposal lead to the initiation
of similar surveys in the Papal States, the pope taking this means of retaining him in his own domain.

Besides his work in mathematical astronomy, we also find Boscovich speculating, upon scientific grounds, on
the essence of matter and endeavoring to establish more widely Newton's law of universal gravitation. As early
as 1748 we meet essays from his pen in this field of thought, e.g. De materiae divisibilitate et du principiis
corporum dissertatio (1748); De continuitatis lege et ejus consectariis pertinentibus ad prima materiae elementa
eorumque vires (1754); De lege virium in natura existentium (1755); Philosophiae naturalis theoria redacta ad
unicam legem virium in natura existentium (1758). Boscovich, according to the views expressed in these
essays, held that bodies could not be composed of a continuous material substance, nor even of contiguous material
particles, but of innumerable point-like structures whose individual components lack all extension and divisibility.
A repulsion exists between them which is indeed infinitesimal but cannot vanish without compenetration taking place.
This repulsion is due tocertain forces with which these elements are endowed. It tends to become infinite when
they are in very close proximity, whereas within certain limits it diminishes as the distance is increased and finally
becomes an attractive force. This change is brought about by the diverse direction of the various forces. Boscovich
divided his last-mentioned exhaustive work into three parts, first explaining and establishing his theory, and
then pointing out his applications to mechanical problems, and finally showing how it may be employed in physics.
His attempt to reduce the complicated laws of nature to a simple fundamental law aroused so much interest
that in 1763 a third, and enlarged edition of his "Theoria philosphiae naturalis" (Venice, 1763) had become necessary.
The publisher added as an appendix a catalogue of Boscovich's previous works. There are no less than sixty-six treatises
dating from 1736--a proof of his literary activity. Some have already been mentioned, and to these may be added his
"Elementorum matheseos tomi tres," in quarto (1752)......

While in England he gave the impulse to the observations of the approaching transit of Venus, on 6 June, 1761,
and it is not unlikely that his proposal to employ lenses composed of liquids, to avoid chromatic aberration, may have
contributed to Dolland's success in constructing achromatic telescopes......

Boscovich, by his rare endowments of mind and the active use which he made of his talents, was preeminent among
the scholars of his time. His merits were recognized by learned societies and universities, and by popes and princes who
honored him and bestowed favors upon him. He was recognized as a gifted teacher, an accomplished leader in
scientific enterprises, an inventor of important instruments which are still employed (such as the ring-micrometer, etc.) and
as a pioneer in developing new theories............
Image

The invention of the ring-micrometer, just mentioned, which Boscovich describes in his memoir "De novo telescopii
usu ad objecta coelestia determinanda" (Rome, 1739), has been ascribed without reason by some to the Dutch natural
philosopher Huygens. The chief advantage of the simple measuring instrument designed by Boscovich consists in
its not requiring any artificial illumination of the field of the telescope. This makes it useful in observing faint objects,
as its inventor expressly points out in connection with the comet of 1739. The novel views of Boscovich in the domain
of natural philosophy have not, up to the present time, passed unchallenged, even on the part of Catholic
scholars. Against his theory of the constitution of matter the objection has been raised that an inadmissible actio in
distans is inevitable in the mutual actions of the elementary points of which material bodies are supposed to be
composed. The theory therefore leads to Occasionalism. Acknowledgement must, however, must be
made of the suggestiveness of Boscovich's work in our own day, and the germs of many of the conclusions of modern
physics may be found in it. His illustrious successor at the Observatory of the Collegio romano, Father Angelo Secchi, in
his "Unita delle forze fisiche" has in many respects followed in his footsteps, and in fact the cosmological
views held by many later natural philosophers furnish unequivocal proof of the influence of the theories maintained by
Boscovich.

Among his many smaller works (for a full list, cf. Sommervogel, cited below), the following deserve special attention:
De annuis stellarum fixarum aberrationibus (Rome, 1742); De orbitus cometarum determinandis ope trium observationem
parum a se invicem remotarum (Paris, 1774); De recentibus compertis pertinentibus ad perficiendam dioptricam (1767).
His chief works, however, are:

* De litteraria expeditione per Pontificam ditionem (1755);
* Theoria philosophiae naturalis (1758);
* Opera pertinentia ad opticam at Astronomiam maxima ex parte nova et omnia hucusque inmedita (1785).

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02691a.htm
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.
User avatar
StefanR
 
Posts: 1371
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:31 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: recovered: Meyl's Modifications to Maxwell's Equations

Unread postby StefanR » Thu Mar 20, 2008 6:59 pm

[b]It is important that experts try to solve problems. Only if the discussion about limits doesn't come to a result which can be grasped and verified, then also in the environmental compatibility the willingness will grow, to accept a not yet known phenomenon as a further and possibly crucial influential factor.[/b]

This part is more of a bridge from the previous page to this one and is not really necessary for the content of the page.


What is the rotary field?


In 1882, Nikola Tesla identified the rotating magnetic field principle, and pioneered the use of a rotary field of force to operate machines. He exploited the principle to design a unique two-phase induction motor in 1883. In 1885, Galileo Ferraris independently researched the concept. In 1888, Ferraris published his research in a paper to the Royal Academy of Sciences in Turin.
http://aes.iupui.edu/rwise/NoteofMonth/matthew_patayApril2007Serbia&Montenegro.htm

or for the electrically challenged :lol: ;)
Rotary Engine Theory
http://www.aviation-history.com/engines/rotary-theory.htm


all used neglects have been tested individually and have undergone an error consideration.

Do we now have to deny the cutting action, which had been plotted by Gibbs, Heaviside and others, as having the necessary scientific soundness? Do we have to review and rework all textbooks concerning the illegal neglect? Since the cutting action a gap gapes in the field theory!

He is questioning here the reasons and validity of neglecting parts of mathemetical representations of physical models for the mere fact of simplification. Which is done in more fields of science. And with that running the risk of using a equation which will not describe the subject correctly and thereby drawing the wrong conclusions.

thus by the fact how many and which vortices can cause a function trouble

plain electromagnetic interference in German vortex slang. think of conductor losses in the for of heat or just walk around your Hertz-antenna and see what interferes.
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.
User avatar
StefanR
 
Posts: 1371
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:31 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: recovered: Meyl's Modifications to Maxwell's Equations

Unread postby pln2bz » Fri Mar 21, 2008 10:27 pm

StefanR --

What are your thoughts about learning David Thomson's Aether Physics Model? Is there something in particular that is holding you back? It seems to me that if you already understand Meyl, then you understand how to work with scalar waves in a computational manner. But, you won't fully understand why those equations work until you actually attempt to learn a model for the aether's structure. From what I can tell, Meyl doesn't offer that. David Thomson is the only one who offers that, and from what I can tell so far, the APM is pretty much compatible with Meyl's scalar wave work. The APM uses the exact same data as quantum physics. Thomson just provides the aether perspective for that data. The idea that the physical constants derive from the geometry of the aether is so fundamental that it is difficult to argue with. Thomson's claim that there are two separate charge carriers is based entirely upon the fact that electromagnetic charge tends to distribute over the surface of a conductor. The proper dimension for electromagnetic charge is in fact e^2. If you don't correct for this problem, it will lead to others. I see much logic in Thomson's approach, and we need more people like you, who are already familiar with Meyl, taking a look at his work. I feel strongly that *both* the APM and Meyl are the future of the Electric Universe. I think that they say the exact same thing from two different perspectives, and that both are compatible with the EU. We have to start this process of synthesizing all of these theories together, and the first step, IMHO, is convincing people to learn all three.

What are your thoughts?
pln2bz
 
Posts: 248
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:20 pm

Re: recovered: Meyl's Modifications to Maxwell's Equations

Unread postby StefanR » Fri Mar 28, 2008 4:23 am

plnbz wrote:[What are your thoughts about learning David Thomson's Aether Physics Model? Is there something in particular that is holding you back? It seems to me that if you already understand Meyl, then you understand how to work with scalar waves in a computational manner. But, you won't fully understand why those equations work until you actually attempt to learn a model for the aether's structure.

I would not mind getting to know his Model, but time is short. Could you point me to the best places to inform myself concerning Thomson?

plnbz wrote:From what I can tell, Meyl doesn't offer that. David Thomson is the only one who offers that, and from what I can tell so far, the APM is pretty much compatible with Meyl's scalar wave work. The APM uses the exact same data as quantum physics. Thomson just provides the aether perspective for that data. The idea that the physical constants derive from the geometry of the aether is so fundamental that it is difficult to argue with. Thomson's claim that there are two separate charge carriers is based entirely upon the fact that electromagnetic charge tends to distribute over the surface of a conductor. The proper dimension for electromagnetic charge is in fact e^2. If you don't correct for this problem, it will lead to others.

Meyl has ideas about an "aether", but I'm not sure of course what Thompson says about it, and if/how they differ. What do you mean by using data as quantum physics? The physical constants derived from geometric relations sounds quite familiar, in a way.

plnbz wrote: I feel strongly that *both* the APM and Meyl are the future of the Electric Universe. I think that they say the exact same thing from two different perspectives, and that both are compatible with the EU. We have to start this process of synthesizing all of these theories together, and the first step, IMHO, is convincing people to learn all three.
[/quote]
I know the feeling. Although it still have some troubles determining how far that compatibility goes. Also I really would like to here Thornhill more about how he imagines the neutrino-sea he states and the practicality of such an neutrino-sea. Meyl also goes in that direction in a way, but if it is meant the same.
How do you see such an synthesizing of theories apart from the learning of the different models? And is it something for in this part of the forum or ought it be done in the Mad Ideas section? Little confused about that.

Regards
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.
User avatar
StefanR
 
Posts: 1371
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:31 pm
Location: Amsterdam

an analogy?

Unread postby StefanR » Sat Mar 29, 2008 7:44 am

There was a little story I came across that in a way was familiar in regard to the 'aether'-discussion.
Maybe you like it too.

The weather-cock

Said the weather-cock to the wind,
"How tedious and monotenous you are!
Can you not blow any other way but in
my face? You disturb my God-given
stability."
And the wind did not answer. It only
laughed in space.

Kahlil Gibran
The Forerunner
1920
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.
User avatar
StefanR
 
Posts: 1371
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:31 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: recovered: Meyl's Modifications to Maxwell's Equations

Unread postby pln2bz » Sun Mar 30, 2008 12:11 pm

I would not mind getting to know his Model, but time is short. Could you point me to the best places to inform myself concerning Thomson?


The only way currently to learn the APM is to purchase "Secrets of the Aether" for around $60. I've been moving through the text. David Thomson generally responds to requests for assistance, so you get support with your purchase. I've found that a conceptual understanding of physics is helpful -- possibly even necessary -- to move through the work. You will need to understand what all of the major concepts of physics are -- things like permitivity, strong force, Plank's constant, etc. At the same time, however, there are advantages to learning these things along the way: our minds are actually unable to ignore any prior knowledge we've gained about these things which may interfere with understanding the APM. I'm taking the approach of learning quantum mechanics concepts with the APM, at the same time.

Meyl has ideas about an "aether", but I'm not sure of course what Thompson says about it, and if/how they differ. What do you mean by using data as quantum physics? The physical constants derived from geometric relations sounds quite familiar, in a way.


There is a set of data associated with quantum mechanics which is somewhat undeniable and lacks any controversy. The real difference is in how you interpret these things. Thomson generally does not dispute these items. But, there are also apparently serious problems with quantum mechanics: like the act of modeling charge and particles as point sources, the idea that collisions can tell us *everything* we need to know about the particle domain, the idea that particles are merely composed of more particles (as opposed to more fundamental concepts) and the sloppy usage of units. Even if Thomson is wrong on key points, many of these strategies are surely on the right track.

Also I really would like to here Thornhill more about how he imagines the neutrino-sea he states and the practicality of such an neutrino-sea. Meyl also goes in that direction in a way, but if it is meant the same. How do you see such an synthesizing of theories apart from the learning of the different models? And is it something for in this part of the forum or ought it be done in the Mad Ideas section? Little confused about that.


In my own opinion, we should not consider discussions of the particle domain as a Mad Idea. There needs to be a push to extend the Electric Universe into the particle domain. It should be considered a natural evolution for the Electric Universe -- the next big item on the long-term roadmap. The reason is that the public expects technology to follow from science. Science in the absence of technology that demonstrates it is comparable to software "vaporware", and it will be dismissed by the public. There are very few technologies that can follow from the Electric Universe alone. The field of quantum computing is an example of trial-and-error science. If we can leverage our understanding of the EU to guide us to a proper particle domain model, then we can possibly innovate products far faster than establishment science.

There needs to be a reading guide that introduces people to Wal's neutrino sea, Meyl's Scalar Vortex Theory, quantum mechanics and David Thomson's APM. This is the project that I'm working on right now, but it's going to take many months to finish it. Each of these ideas has their own pluses and minuses. All of them can legitimately claim legitimacy. We cannot, and should not, attempt to generate consensus on which is correct. The only consensus we need is with regards to the arguments themselves. Once we learn all of these paradigms, then we can try to figure out tests to evaluate them.

The point is that we should not necessarily expect any astrophysical observations to convince the public of the EU. There should be a long-term plan B.
pln2bz
 
Posts: 248
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:20 pm

Re: recovered: Meyl's Modifications to Maxwell's Equations

Unread postby StefanR » Sun Mar 30, 2008 2:58 pm

Thank you, these were kind of the answers I was hoping for.

I will try to make that my next book to buy. Currently I 'm waiting for the book of Boskovic (post a little up)
as that, I hope, will give me some more insight into the history of the subject.

Before I comment about the QM-part from the Meyl-perspective, I think it will be necessary how Meyl is
viewing the interaction between theory, model and "experienced reality".
I'm glad you brought up Thomson in relation to QM and EU. I think you are right that maybe a inroad
can be made for EU to be extended in that domain even further, even if it is just tentatively.

We cannot, and should not, attempt to generate consensus on which is correct. The only consensus we need is with regards to the arguments themselves.

You won me over with that argument. 8-)
Thank you for the nice use of language.

I agree, the astrophysical observations are nice but if one could include the 'quantum'-realm too in a likewise way, it would broaden the picture, so to say.
It's why I also would like to see a good biological approach of the matter, just like you said, in view of a long-term plan B.
Thanks again Pln2bz, I will try to make my next post again more from the Meyl perspective here. Maybe there will be the possibility to open a Thomson-thread, as that will be needed too, if we are to get a good view of the ideas proposed.
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.
User avatar
StefanR
 
Posts: 1371
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:31 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: recovered: Meyl's Modifications to Maxwell's Equations

Unread postby 2012 » Tue Apr 01, 2008 3:38 pm

Could someone please post here those deleted original Maxwell's equations, or at least a clear reference (URL link) to them? I keep reading about them but they are nowhere to be seen.

When people write on this topic and make an important point about these equations, why don't they list them right there and then and show the missing solution?
User avatar
2012
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2008 4:39 pm
Location: UK

Re: recovered: Meyl's Modifications to Maxwell's Equations

Unread postby StefanR » Wed Apr 02, 2008 12:31 am

Here is a thread about Maxwell;

James Maxwell's Physical Model
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.
User avatar
StefanR
 
Posts: 1371
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:31 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: recovered: Meyl's Modifications to Maxwell's Equations

Unread postby StevenO » Wed Apr 02, 2008 6:07 am

Hi,

Apologies if my remarks are off topic, but I was triggered by the opinion that laws outside Maxwell's equations would be necessary to explain certain phenonema. All Maxwell formula's have been extensive measured by many experiments. The whole set of formula's might seem intimidating and things like gauges might look like arbitrary boundary conditions. To gain more insights, a new simplified approach to solving electromagnetic problems based on the collective behaviour of electrons is described in a booklet by Prof. Carver Mead called "Quantum Foundations of Electromagnetism". In this document he uses the four-vector Riemann-Sommerfeld description of the Maxwell equations, which lists as:

[]^2 A = -uo I, where

[] = four-vector gradient operator
A = electromagnetic potential (four-vector)
u0 = magnetic permeability
I = current density (four-vector)

Freely translated this states: "The second derivative of the Electromagnetic potential is proportional to the current density". Which one abstraction level further translates into an energy conservation law: Electromagnetic energy exchanges between EM potential and current density. The individual Maxwell equations can all be derived from this one equation.
Inside the booklet Prof. Mead explains many hard to understand EM phenomena in an easy way, e.g. (on p 96/97) why electric dipoles are such efficient radiators for long wavelenght signals (compared to the size of the dipole). I think this can provide a conventional explanation for the effects that are sometimes described to longitudinal waves as done by e.g. Dr. Meyl and Nicola Tesla.

On the other hand though I think the Maxwell equations only describe the collective behaviour of electrons (where the mass of the charge carrier can be ignored) and not of mixtures of electrons and ions/protons as inside a plasma. Many effects that Tesla described were plasma effects and are only learned by experimentation and not from Maxwell formula predicted results.

Thanks for the link's to Boscovich's work. I have been looking for that for some time. Tesla was very fond of him and I'm very fond of Tesla. He described the complete electric universe already before the year 1900, even measured (as he stated) that the Sun's potential with respect to the Earth was about 216 GigaVolt. A result I yet have to see repeated by NASA 8-)

Steven O.
User avatar
StevenO
 
Posts: 894
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: recovered: Meyl's Modifications to Maxwell's Equations

Unread postby junglelord » Wed Apr 02, 2008 7:15 am

On the contrary, Oliver Heavisides reduced theorums have been fully investigated. Maxwells original work in quaternions has been explained by several notable people and fully investigated by few. One must be carefull when applying the term Maxwells Theorum to Oliver Heavisides reduced theorum. Of course 99.99% of the electrical engineers work with the heaviside vectors vs Maxwells Quaterninons. Those who research and function in the orignal work are fully aware of longitudinal energy and that the reduction by Heaviside is a vectoral subset.

There are still three pages of recovered material to post on that link so please do not post there until it is finished.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... 05&start=0
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord
User avatar
junglelord
 
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
Location: Canada

Re: recovered: Meyl's Modifications to Maxwell's Equations

Unread postby StefanR » Wed Apr 02, 2008 8:16 am

Goodday Steven,

Your thoughts are very welcome here and certainly on topic.
You are quite right by saying that Maxwells equations have been tested extensively. But as Junglelord points out below
it's usually the mix up between the originals and the Heavisides.
Prof. Carver Mead might be quite right in the way he got to were he came. I'm not qualified to comment on his work, but
I think the difference between Mead en Meyl for instance lie more in the approach itself. Meyl goes back to the field-theoretical approach and still keeps Maxwell, but only as a special case. Of course it is always dangerous to speak of a Unifying Theory, and Meyl is quite clear several times in his book that the theory he proposes is done to see how far one can come with the field-approach. Also another reason is causality :

Our physical view of life strictly obeys the rules of causality, the principle of cause and
effect. But there are numerous cases, where causality at first could not be fulfilled
anymore. Here alternate solutions had to be found to not endanger this very successful
principle. A few examples should clarify this:
1. Technically it is impossible to produce a magnetic monopole. When a north pole is
produced then the accompanying south pole is also formed. In the same way only the
positive and negative pole can be assembled as the so called dipole. In the microcosm
however we find monopoles. Electrons are such particles. To restore causality we must
grant the microcosm its own laws that are not valid in the macrocosm! But this
monocausal hypothesis contradicts the observation that the microcosm represents an
image of the macrocosm and vice versa. Doubts if this assertion is allowed are
reasonable.
2. Like charges repel each other and that the more the smaller the distance gets. In an
atomic nucleus positively like charged protons are together at the smallest possible
room without any repulsion happening. Arithmetically seen all atomic nuclei would
have to explosively fly to pieces. But because this doesn't happen, shortly a new and
supposedly fundamental interaction, the strong interaction, was introduced to save
causality. Nevertheless this interaction now holds the like particles in a not explained
manner together. Causality could be obtained only by the introduction of a new
fundamental phenomenon.
3. When causality should hold as the supreme principle, it should be demanded with
priority for the fundamental phenomena of physics. Instead, in quantum
electrodynamics the particle is attributed the same physical reality as the field. With the
wave-particle duality Heisenberg has given out the corresponding formula of
compromise. This slaps the face of the principle of cause and effect.
Causality on principle allows only two approaches for a solution: the quantum physical
approach. which holds the quanta as the cause for the fields, and the field-theoretical
approach. wherein only the fields act as the cause. For both approaches there are good
arguments. The field theorists cite that fields can exist also in the vacuum, so that there
exist fields without particles but never particles without fields. Against that the quantum
physicists hold that somewhere, even when quite far away, there exist particles and that
the measurable fields merely are their action at a distance.
Both approaches first arouse the impression to be fully equal. In the course of the
discoveries in the area of quantum physics, the corresponding approach has been able to
establish. But it demands that all phenomena have to be understood as a consequence of
particles. So should gravitons make gravitation possible, should gluons hold everything
together and the quarks form the basic building parts. Meanwhile there is only worked
with hypotheses. Out of poverty quantum physics meanwhile has said goodbye to strict
causality, after the number of the violations of causality has risen that much and in every
respect there is a lack of models of explanation. It seems as if the end is reached, as if the
quantum physical approach to a large extend is exhausted.
http://www.meyl.eu/go/index.php?dir=30_Books&page=1&sublevel=0

He comes to a fundamental field equation wherefrom quantum physical postulates and axioms can be
derived. So the funny thing may be that quanta are an effect of the fields not visa versa. If you like
Tesla and this subject I can only say that Meyl's book is really fun and easier to read in the book
than some of the PDF's. I'm not plugging here, but for me it was I nice tentative possibility
incorporating EU.
By the way, I just recieved Boskovich' Theoria Philosophiae Naturalis, and by the looks of it, I can only
advise to try to find it too. That man had some mind 8-) , and this was noted by other big minds as stated
in that post above. So there must be something very inspiring inside or else it might give a glimpse into what was
formative for those minds to get to their ideas.

Thanks Steven for the input,

Greetings Stefan ;)
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.
User avatar
StefanR
 
Posts: 1371
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:31 pm
Location: Amsterdam

PreviousNext

Return to The Future of Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests