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 junglelord » Wed Apr 02, 2008 12:30 pm

Meyl, Dollard, Bearden, Correa's all show the same repeatable lab experiments. Meyl even sells his. Its quite clear that longitudinal electric scalar energy is real and evident in the quaternion work of Maxwell and expounded by Whittaker.

E. T. Whittaker, "On the partial differential equations of mathematical physics," Mathematische Annalen, Vol. 57, 1903, p. 333-355. In this paper Whittaker proved that all scalar EM potentials have an internal, organized, bidirectional EM plane-wave structure. Thus there exists an electromagnetics that is totally internal to the scalar EM potential. Since vacuum/spacetime is scalar potential, then this internal EM is in fact "internal" to the local potentialized vacuum/spacetime. For discovery of the Whittaker-type structure in sonic potentials, see Richard W. Ziolkowski, "Localized transmission of wave energy," Proc. SPIE Vol. 1061, Microwave and Particle Beam Sources and Directed Energy Concepts, Jan. 1989, p. 396-397. For a mention of this same type of bidirectional EM wave Whittaker structure in the potential connected with the Schroedinger equation, see V.K. Ignatovich, "The remarkable capabilities of recursive relations," American Journal of Physics, 57(10), Oct. 1989, p. 873-878. So far, American physicists have shown by their nonreaction to Ignatovich's paper that they have not yet realized that this is a methodology for directly engineering quantum change, and hence physical reality itself.

E. T. Whittaker, "On an expression of the electromagnetic field due to electrons by means of two scalar potential functions," Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society, Series 2, Vol. 1, 1904, p. 367-372. In this paper Whittaker showed that all the classical electromagnetics can be replaced by scalar potential interferometry. This ignored paper anticipated the Aharonov-Bohm (AB) effect by 55 years, and drastically extended it as well. Indeed, it prescribes a macroscopic AB effect that is distance-independent, providing a direct and engineerable mechanism for action-at-a-distance. It also provides a testable hidden-variable theory that predicts drastically new and novel effects.

http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Shadowl ... round.html


I have connected just about every dot since I joined four months ago.
Lets see what dots I have connected as well as unconnected.

The Science of Cosmology is pinned on faith not fact or science. The invention of Dark Energy to explain the movement of galaxies spreading out is based on a false assumption of the red shift and a fantasy understanding of Dark Matter, another fictional creation due to a lack of understanding of Gravity. Gravity is not a primary force! Nor is Gravity understood in modern cosmology, something we can all agree on. After all no one has found a particle of Dark Matter, nor have they found a Graviton, nor have they found Gravity Waves. Therefore the belief in Gravity as a primary force when they cannot come up with a force carrier is therefore not science but faith in a fictional concept. To add more fictional mattter and energy to correct their false assumptions on Gravity is total dogma and not science at all but more fairytale to entertain the masses and lull them into sleep.

The truth of connect the dots with historical and modern evidence is that Einstein was wrong. There is an Aether which is the Scalar gradient primary field which falls off inverse to distance. The second field is the Electric Field which falls off as a inverse square of the distance product. The third field is the Magnetic field which falls off as a inverse cube of the distance product. Gravity is a subproduct of the Scalar Primary Gradient Field and the Electric Secondary Divergent Field. Its is not a primary field at all and therefore there are no gravitons nor are there gravity waves. Therefore there is no dark matter nor dark energy. Gravity is a closed longitudinal field line byproduct Superposition with a constant Electric component and a modulating Scalar component.

The Aether Physics Model describes the quantum structure of the Universe as opposed to the Standard Model, which describes its quantum mechanics. What there is are two spiral vortex opposite structures (Electron/Positron pairs)in various relationships to each other that form all matter (atoms and their three subatomic parts) and energy (EM Radiation ie Light) which are the fundamental archetype from the Scalar(Longitudinal)/Electric(Transverse)/Magnetic (Curl) Universe. This model is expoudned by all the scientists mentioned below and as far back as Plato and was certainly the view of Maxwell.

Of course the proof is in the pudding. Well the pudding cups for me are Tesla, Meyl, Tewari, Johnson, Dolard, Bearden, Correa's, Aspden and many others as well as black ops vehicles. Its a very complete model with three dimensions of space and three of fields. Time is really not a dimension in the traditional sense of Einstein but is change of the Scalar Field itself in the Six Dimension Model of Smith. It's able to explain all Field Effects and supports the work and is the theory of the scientist mentioned and the most complete theory of the EU.
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 1:11 pm

Great stuff Junglelord 8-)

The electromagnetic field
The textbook opinion based on the Maxwell equations names the static
field of the charge carriers as cause for the electric field, whereas moving
ones cause the magnetic field [7, i.e.]. But that hardly can have been the
idea of Faraday, to whom the existence of charge carriers was completely
unknown. For his contemporaries, completely revolutionary abstract field
concept, based on the works of the Croatian Jesuit priest Boscovich
(1711-1778). In the case of the field it should less concern a physical
quantity in the usual sense, than rather the “experimental experience” of
an interaction according to his field description. We should interpret the
Faraday-law to the effect that we experience an electric field, if we are
moving with regard to a magnetic field with a relative velocity and vice
versa.
In the commutability of electric and magnetic field 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 particle free field? Much evidence points to it, because after all a
light ray can run through a particle free vacuum. If however fields can
exist without particles, particles without fields however are 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 induction (2.1 and 2.2),
which more or less have equal rights. Science stands for the question: 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?
What Maxwell’s field equations tell us is sufficiently known, so that derivations
are unnecessary. Numerous textbooks are standing by, if results should
be cited. Let us hence turn to the Faraday-law(2.1). Often one searches in
vain for this law in schoolbooks. Only in more pretentious books one makes
a 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 only is a unimportant special case for lowfre -
quencies.
Küpfmüller speaks of a “special form of the lawof induction”
[12], and cites as practical examples the induction in a brake disc and the
Hall-effect. Afterwards Küpfmüller derives from the “special form” the
“general form” of the lawof induction according to Maxwell, a postulated
generalization, which needs an explanation. But a reason is not given [12].
Bosse gives the same derivation, but for him the Maxwell-result is the
special case and not his Faraday approach [13]! In addition he addresses
the Faraday-lawas equation of transformation and points out the meaning
and the special interpretation.
On the other hand he derives the lawfrom the Lorentz force, completely in
the style of Küpfmüller [12] and with that again takes it part of its autonomy.
Pohl looks at that different. He inversely derives the Lorentz force from
the Faraday-law[14]. We should followthis very much convincing representation.
The equation of convection
If the by Bosse [13] prompted term “equation of transformation” is justified
or not at first is unimportant. That is a matter of discussion.
If there should be talk about equations of transformation, then the dual
formulation (to equation 2.1) belongs to it, then it concerns a pair of
equations, which describes the relations between the electric and the
magnetic field.

Written down according to the rules of duality there results an equation
(2.3), which occasionally is mentioned in some textbooks.
While both equations in the books of Pohl [14, p.76 and 130] and of
Simonyi [15] are written down side by side having equal rights and are
compared with each other, Grimsehl [16] derives the dual regularity
(2.3) with the help of the example of a thin, positively charged and rotating
metal ring. He speaks of “equation of convection”, according to which
moving charges produce a magnetic field and so-called convection currents.
Doing so he refers to workings of Röntgen 1885, Himstedt,
Rowland 1876, Eichenwald and many others more, 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.

3. Derivation from text book physics
We now have found a field-theoretical approach with the equations of
transformation, which in its dual formulation is clearly distinguished
from the Maxwell approach. The reassuring conclusion is added: The
new field approach roots entirely in textbook physics, as are the results
from the literature research. We can completely do without postulates.
Next thing to do is to test the approach strictly mathematical for freedom
of contradictions. It in particular concerns the question, which known
regularities can be derived under which conditions. Moreover the condi-
tions and the scopes of the derived theories should result correctly, e.g. of
what the Maxwell approximation consists and why the Maxwell equations
describe only a special case.

http://www.k-meyl.de/go/60_Primaerliteratur/scalar_wave-effects.pdf
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 1:25 pm

Hi Junglelord,

I have read the paper from Whittaker too but my interpretation was a little different: I think one of his conclusions is that the field description as superposition of plane waves is interchangeable with a field description as longitudinal sync functions ("scalar potentials"). Similar to a description of a signal in the time or frequency domain by using Fourier transforms, so scalar or plane waves are two descriptions of the same thing. My personal conclusion is that these papers use too many formula's to check that they are all correct :?

I think Maxwell's personal opinion about the quaternion description was that it was a dead end.

Best regards,
Steven

P.S. StefanR, thanks for the encouraging words
User avatar
StevenO
 
Posts: 894
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 11:08 pm

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

Unread postby StefanR » Wed Apr 02, 2008 1:46 pm

A possible world equation
Not in a single textbook a mathematical linking of the Poisson equation
with the wave equation can be found, as we here succeed in for the first
time. It however is the prerequisite to be able to describe the conversion
of an antenna current into electromagnetic waves near a transmitter and
equally the inverse process, as it takes place at a receiver. Numerous
model concepts, like they have been developed by HF- and EMC-technicians
as a help, can be described mathematically correct by the physically
founded field equation.

In addition further equations can be derived, for which this until now
was supposed to be impossible, like for instance the Schrödinger equation
(Term d and e). As diffusion equation it has the task to mathematically
describe field vortices and their structures.
As a consequence of the Maxwell equations in general and specifically the
eddy currents (a-c) not being able to form structures, every attempt has
to fail, which wants to derive the Schrödinger equation from the Maxwell
equations.
The fundamental field equation however contains the newly discovered
potential vortices, which owing to their concentration effect (in duality to
the skin effect) form spherical structures, for which reason these occur as
eigenvalues of the equation. For these eigenvalue-solutions numerous
practical measurements are present, which confirm their correctness and
with that have probative force with regard to the correctness of the new
field approach and the fundamental field equation [21]. By means of the
pure formulation in space and time and the interchangeability of the field
pointers here a physical principle is described, which fulfills all requirements,
which a world equation must meet.

The quantisation of the field

The Maxwell equations are nothing but a special case, which can be derived.
(if 1/82= 0). The new approach however, which among others bases
on the Faraday-law, is universal and can’t be derived on its part. 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 of resting 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.
With the field-theoretical approach however the field is the cause for the
particles and their measurable quantisation. 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
understandable according to the model.


A possible world equation
Not in a single textbook a mathematical linking of the Poisson equation
with the wave equation can be found, as we here succeed in for the first
time. It however is the prerequisite to be able to describe the conversion
of an antenna current into electromagnetic waves near a transmitter and
equally the inverse process, as it takes place at a receiver. Numerous
model concepts, like they have been developed by HF- and EMC-technicians
as a help, can be described mathematically correct by the physically
founded field equation.

In addition further equations can be derived, for which this until now
was supposed to be impossible, like for instance the Schrödinger equation
(Term d and e). As diffusion equation it has the task to mathematically
describe field vortices and their structures.
As a consequence of the Maxwell equations in general and specifically the
eddy currents (a-c) not being able to form structures, every attempt has
to fail, which wants to derive the Schrödinger equation from the Maxwell
equations.
The fundamental field equation however contains the newly discovered
potential vortices, which owing to their concentration effect (in duality to
the skin effect) form spherical structures, for which reason these occur as
eigenvalues of the equation. For these eigenvalue-solutions numerous
practical measurements are present, which confirm their correctness and
with that have probative force with regard to the correctness of the new
field approach and the fundamental field equation [21]. By means of the
pure formulation in space and time and the interchangeability of the field
pointers here a physical principle is described, which fulfills all requirements,
which a world equation must meet.
The quantisation of the field
The Maxwell equations are nothing but a special case, which can be derived.
(if 1/82= 0). The new approach however, which among others bases
on the Faraday-law, is universal and can’t be derived on its part. 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 of resting 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.
With the field-theoretical approach however the field is the cause for the
particles and their measurable quantisation. 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
understandable according to the model.


The vortex model of the scalar waves
Howcould a useful vortex-model for the rolling up of waves to vortices
look like?
We proceed from an electromagnetic wave, which does not propagate after
the retractor procedure any longer straight-lined, but turns instead
with the speed of light in circular motion. It also furthermore is trans-
270 Meyl, K.: Scalar Wave Effects according to Tesla
Figure 8. The coming off of the electric field lines from a dipole. The forming
vortex structures found a longitudinal electric wave carrying impulse!
verse, because the field pointers of the E-field and the H-field oscillate
perpendicular to c. By means of the orbit the speed of light c nowhas become
the vortex velocity.
....
Wave and vortex turn out to be two possible and stable field configurations.
For the transition from one into the other no energy is used; it
only is a question of structure.
By the circumstance that the vortex direction of the ring-like vortex is
determined and the field pointers further are standing perpendicular to
it, as well as perpendicular to each other, there result two theoretical formation
forms for the scalar wave. In the first case (fig. 9) the vector of
the H-field points into the direction of the vortex centre and that of the
E-field axially to the outside. The vortex however will propagate in this
direction in space and appear as a scalar wave, so that the propagation of
the wave takes place in the direction of the electric field. It may be called
an electric wave.
In the second case the field vectors exchange their place. The characteristic
of the magnetic wave is that the direction of propagation coincides
with the oscillating magnetic field pointer (fig.10), while the electric field
pointer rolls up.

The antenna noise
Longitudinal waves have, as well known, no firm propagation speed.
Since they run toward an oscillating field pointer, also the speed vector v
will oscillate. At so called relativistic speeds within the range of the speed
of light the field vortices underlie the Lorentz contraction. This
means, the faster the oscillating vortex is on it’s way, the smaller it becomes.
The vortex constantly changes its diameter as a impulse-carrying
mediator of a scalar wave.
Since it is to concern that vortices are rolled up waves, the vortex speed
will still be c, with which the wave runs now around the vortex center in
circular motion. Hence it follows that with smaller becoming diameter
the wavelength of the vortex likewise decreases, while the natural frequency
of the vortex increases accordingly.
If the vortex oscillates in the next instant back, the frequency decreases
again. The vortex works as a frequency converter! The mixture of high
frequency signals developed in this way distributed over a broad frequency
band, is called noise.
Antenna losses concern the portion of radiated field vortices, which did
not unroll themselves as waves, which are measured with the help of
wide-band receivers as antenna noise and in the case of the vortex decay
are responsible for heat development.
Spoken with the fundamental field equation (4.5) it concerns wave
damping. The wave equation (4.9) explains besides, why a Hertz
signal is to be only received, if it exceeds the scalar noise vortices in amplitude.

6. Summary
The proof could be furnished that within the Maxwell field equations an approximation
lies buried and they only represent the special case of a new,
dual formulated more universal approach. The mathematical derivations of
the Maxwell field and the wave equation uncover, wherein the Maxwell approximation
lies. The contracting antivortex dual to the expanding vortex
current with its skin effect is neglected, which is called potential vortex. It is
capable of a structural formation and spreads in badly conductive media as
in air or in the vacuum as a scalar wave in longitudinal way.
At relativistic speeds the potential vortices underlie 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 understands
the field vortex as an even however rolled up transverse wave, then thus
size and wave-length oscillation at constant swirl velocity with c follows a
continual change in frequency, which is measured as a noise signal.
The noise proves as the potential vortex term neglected in the Maxwell
equations. If e.g. with antennas a noise signal is measured, then this
proves the existence of potential vortices. However if the range of validity
of the Maxwell theory is left, misinterpretations and an excluding of appropriate
phenomena from the field theory are the consequence, the noise or
the near field cannot be computed any longer or conclusively explained.

View on the technical solution
If the antenna efficiency is very badly, for example with false adapted antennas,
then the utilizable level sinks, while the antenna noise increases
at the same time.
The wave equation following the explanation could also read differently:
From the radiated waves the transversals decrease debited to the longitudinal
wave components. The latter’s are used however in the transponder
technology as sources of energy, why unorthodox antenna structures
make frequently better results possible, than usual or proven.
Ball antennas proved in this connection as particularly favourable constructions.
The more largely the ball is selected, the more can the reception
range for energy beyond that of the near field be expanded. This effect
can be validated in the experiment.

So far high frequency technicians were concerned only with the maximization
of the transversal utilizable wave, so that this does not go down
regarding the noise. The construction of far range transponders however
require false adapted antennas, the exact opposite of what is learned and
taught so far in the HF technology, inverse engineers and engineering so
to speak. And in such a way the introduction and development of a new
technology requires first an extended viewand neww ays of training.


Appendix
More than 100 Years ago Nikola Tesla has demonstrated three versions
of transportation electrical energy:
1. the 3-phase-Network,as it is used today,
2. the one-wire-system with no losses and
3. the magnifying Transmitter for wireless supply.
The main subject of the conference presentation will be the wireless system
and the practical use of it as a far range transponder (RFID for large
distances). Let me explain some expressions as used in the paper.
A “scalar wave” spreads like every wave directed, but it consists of
physical particles or formations, which represent for their part scalar
sizes. Therefore the name, which is avoided by some critics or is even disparaged,
because of the apparent contradiction in the designation, which
makes believe the wave is not directional, which does not apply however.
The term “scalar wave” originates from mathematics and is as old as
the wave equation itself, which again goes back on the mathematician
Laplace. It can be used favourably as generic term for a large group of
wave features, e.g. for acoustic waves, gravitational waves or plasma
waves.
Seen from the physical characteristics they are longitudinal waves. Contrary
to the transverse waves, for example the electromagnetic waves,
scalar waves carry and transport energy and impulse. Thus one of the
tasks of scalar wave transponders is fulfilled.
The term “transponder” consists of the terms transmitter and responder,
describes thus radio devices which receive incoming signals, in
order to redirect or answer to them. First there were only active transponders,
which are dependent on a power supply from outside. For some
time passive systems were developed in addition, whose receiver gets the
necessary energy at the same time conveyed by the transmitter
wirelessly.


http://www.k-meyl.de/go/60_Primaerliteratur/scalar_wave-effects.pdf
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 » Wed Apr 02, 2008 1:53 pm

StevenO wrote:I think Maxwell's personal opinion about the quaternion description was that it was a dead end.


In what way was it a dead end?
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 junglelord » Wed Apr 02, 2008 6:15 pm

I have much too much information that denies that claim. In fact Maxwell raved about quaternions....something he did to his grave. The fact that others left his original work when he was totally against that shows the disconnect between Maxwell and every other person who gets into EM Theory. The fact Maxwell championed quaternions till his death is the truth and the facts.

This is the one reason I have harped on and championed quaternions to understand EM theory because that is what Maxwell stressed. Quaternions have four components and four degrees of freedom. Vectoral subsets do not and cannot explain EM theory fully as it is only two vectoral degrees of freedom which is a quaternion subset. Subsets while accurate are not the entire story. This is why Maxwell worked in and championed quaternions to understand and to write his thesis on EM theory...nothing else will or would surfice. Heavisides reduced work is not the original work nor the full work. That too is historical facts.

I have proven to myself and most members that the revision of EM history begins with Heaviside. If you spend three months reading Maxwells original work and Faradays original work on Inductance then it is quite clear that longitudinal energy is what Meyl and Tesla and Dollard and Bearden and the Correa's are transmitting with their lab work and according to the theory of Maxwell is what is hidden by the work of Heaviside. The Industrial-Military-Complex and their technology is Scalar technology. Again no one can explain gravity with proof of a charge carrier. That gravity is a primary field is a fallacy and a belief in faith which is dogma, not science. I have scientific proof of the Scalar field and proof that is a primary field. Something they cannot do with gravity as a field....something they believe but cannot prove. Belief does not make science.
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 2012 » Wed Apr 02, 2008 7:24 pm

Even Hamilton's quaternions, improvement as they are, are not the best thing.

The problems started with Gibb's vector calculus (taught to this day in a dumbing-down effort).
The Gibb's system is actually inferior to the Grassman-Clifford algebra, which was already known
before/at the same time. However, Gibbs published his in a more visible journal, so that is what
most people to this day are stuck with, blissfully unaware that this is no more than a historical
accident and a travesty.

The problems are: counter-intuitive "imaginary numbers" without any physical interpretations, inability to generalise the vector cross product to more than 3D, inability to generalise the quaternions beyond 3D, fragmentation of different branches of mathematics into things like geometry, algebra, complex numbers, linear algebra, all of which are in fact one and the same thing.

All these problems are very elegantly solved in the recent revival of Grassman-Clifford algebra, known as Geometric Algebra (GA), a term coined by David Hestenes (also a physicist). GA can systematically handle objects of any dimensionality, all with very clear intuitive (in fact geometrical) interpretations. The quaternions turn out to be just one special case (a set consisting of a scalar and three bivectors) within Geometric Algebra. In GA you can have their equivalent for any number of dimensions, plus lots more of other useful things.

Dr Libor Spacek
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 StevenO » Thu Apr 03, 2008 1:52 am

Hi Libor,

Thanks for the GA update, it is in line with my opinion that things should'nt be made unnecessary complicated. So why use a quaternion for something that can be adequately described as a four-vector? The formula's in physics are only models to summarize measured behaviour and I think we should'nt assign more meaning to them. Progress in physics comes from experiments and measurements.

I think that Meyl's results can simply be described by scalar potential coupling between two electric dipoles (similar to atoms exchanging EM energy). His two spherical capacitors are way less than a wavelenght apart. When I find the time I'll try to come up with some numbers to make the discussion a little more down-to-earth.

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

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

Unread postby 2012 » Thu Apr 03, 2008 7:43 am

Thanks, Steven, for those comments. I am fairly new to this and not sure about the physics details (I am not a physicist).

I do have a view on the methodology though, which is close to yours: all the best things are simple. Also, true understanding means gaining the ability to state the principles involved in simple and general terms.

This brings me to mathematics. I believe it is indespensable for expressing those simple and general laws of nature. However, it is only a tool for building the models which then need to be compared and tested for their ability to predict experiments, their generality, and their elegance.

It would be a big mistake to neglect mathematical models because someone else had built wrong ones. Proper mathematical models are the one thing, above anything else, that will get any "alternative" physics accepted.

The tools can have their imperfections (imaginary numbers = black holes of mathematics) and they can be used to build unsafe houses but you need tools to build the safe house just as much.

This is why I am primarily interested in deriving a proper model that will subsume and consistently explain both the known EM field AND anything else that might be there. This is what Tesla wanted to do but he did not have the right tools (or, if he did it, it was stolen and hidden after his death). I believe I can do this using GA in a very powerful way that would be watertight and therefore convincing.

However, I do not have enough information yet about the exact nature of these missing fields/waves/forces/whatever. Different people say different things, often contradictory, and they seldom offer any mathematical models to back up their claims and experiments. I guess this is only a natural state of affairs before a proper theory is formed.

Do you think that reading Maxwell's original treatise may shed some light on this? Where can I find any "alternative" equations? I see lots of quotes from books here but there are few proper equations. Mostly they are missing or unreadable, which is frustrating.

Libor
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 » Thu Apr 03, 2008 1:20 pm

Hello 2012,

Did you read the .PDF itself? There's equations if you like in easy format, but I have not copy/pasted them 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.
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 junglelord » Thu Apr 03, 2008 2:50 pm

This video is called "Power Enginieering Scalar Field Theory - Faraday vs. Maxwell and Demonstration of Longitudinal waves Transmission (Konstantin Meyl) (2003)". After he expounds on the same details that are included his written works he gives the demonstration with the apparatus discussed in same written works.

First he shows, at 7+ MHZ he is transmitting Longitudinal, or Scalar,or Standing Wave (the three names are synonimous with the same phenomena), and then by reducing the frequency to 4+ MHZ he is transmitting Hertzian Waves. The difference being that the resonant frequency of the coils and capacitive impedance is tuned to the 7+ MHZ frequency, and not to the 4+ MHZ frequency.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 6714&hl=de

As to the distance of Meyls experimental setup, one must realize it was at a seminar and therefore space was limited and that it is of course not the same power as the Tesla orignal. That does not discredit his claim.

Nor does the Meyl experiment use the same old school electonics of Tesla. It is meant to and does transmitt longitudinal current but with IC components. The Dollard team also shows that the original tesla work is not transverse current with old school tech.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 0757457294

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 0445596549

Tesla transmitted his power 36 miles I believe and light up 200, 50watt vacuum tube ights full power.
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 StevenO » Thu Apr 03, 2008 3:00 pm

Hi Libor & Stefan,

I fully agree to your statements. Wish I could express myself as clearly as you. I'm not a physicist myself, just an EE, so my opinions about Maxwell might be biased;)

As for an "easy" introduction to the EM formulas I really recommend "Collective Electrodynamics" from Carver Mead. Just a small booklet of about 100 pages, but great on fundamental insights. As for "alternative equations", most authors go to great lenghts to prove that they are equivalent to Maxwell's equations since these have so much authority. I think the discussion about the Maxwell equations that were "censored" was about Maxwell's use of the Electromagnetic potential that was removed by Heavyside. In the meantime the Electromagnetic potential has been fully restored. Also Carver Mead uses it (and Richard Feynman).

I agree with you that lot's of books and websites rely too much on mathematic smokescreens, but that seem to be the standard practice in physics for the last 100 years...

There is a website gives a great depiction of Tesla's dynamic EM and gravity theory. Unfortunately I have to search for it...Tesla had the opinion that electric charge is not static but is continuously flowing around the universe and that a second order compression effect of this flow on the edge of matter is responsible for mass and gravity effects. I'll send the link tomorrow.

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

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

Unread postby pln2bz » Thu Apr 03, 2008 5:56 pm

I maintain quasi-regular communications with David Thomson, and he's never been afraid of me quoting him. So, his comments regarding Wal's sea of neutrinos vs aether are worth excerpting here. I'm not yet to the point of being able to defend his comments, and you should not expect much clarification without actually learning his APM. Also, it's absolutely critical that people not discount Thomson on the basis of his usage of the term dark matter. We can't assume to fully understand what he means by it (as I suspect his definition is somewhat different than the conventional definition, which you can kind of notice if you read carefully). But furthermore, we cannot allow ourselves to favor one explanation of dark matter over any other unless we have specific justification for that favoritism. In order to develop an opinion that would favor one explanation over any other, we have to listen to all camps that we consider to be reasonable. Certainly, anybody who has created a theory of the aether's quantum structure should be considered to be reasonable by EU advocates, and deserves a hearing.

I'd be glad to help where possible in understanding his response, but Thomson himself strictly avoids forums due to the horrible experiences he's received over time with them. Whatever you do, do not invite him to participate. The proper time to do that would be later once we have at least a few people who understand his APM.

So, what's the value in posting this with so many caveats? If you listen carefully and read everything that Thomson says without allowing yourself to discount him on the basis of any single statement he makes, I'm confident that it will help you to understand just how much he has thought about the subjects of aether and the particle domain. His knowledge of both is not limited to just facts, but has also been enhanced by history and philosophy of science. And this is what matters to us: We should be asking ourselves not whether or not Thomson is exactly right, but how much has he thought about the problem, how strong are his arguments and has he made progress? Can we learn from him? Although some people will actually disagree with me, I personally feel strongly that the answer to this question is a definite YES.

It might help you and Dave Smith to understand the problem's with a neutrino sea by actually studying what is known about neutrinos.

First, they have never been directly observed, which is a hallmark of dark matter. Neutrinos were hypothesized when it was observed that a bound electron and proton has less angular momentum and mass than does a neutron. When a neutron decays, it is clear that an electron and proton are released, but it is not clear what happens to the extra angular momentum. The extra angular momentum is one and a half times greater than the electron angular momentum.

Even more perplexing is that when the electron and proton bind, that exact one and a half times more angular momentum suddenly reappears. It is further perplexing that when the angular momentum is present in the neutron, it contributes mass, which is also equal to one and a half times the mass of the electron. The mass and angular momentum seem to magically appear and disappear with ease.

Part of the trick to hiding this fact is to say that the proton and neutron are the same particle, but that a mutation occurs when an atom forms. A proton is said to be converted to a neutron by the changing of the hypothetical quarks (which have never been observed as free particles). But this quark theory presents another problem. If the proton is converted to a neutron, then it does so by fundamentally absorbing the electron angular momentum. Also, when the neutron "decays," it would actually have to be mutating back into two different particles, the electron and proton. Quark theory does not explain this hypothetical mutation.

Even more inconsistent is the observation of neutrino effects. When the Sun produces neutrinos, the neutrinos can be indicated in heavy water detectors deep within the Earth. This observed neutrino effects support the existence of neutrinos, but then the quark theory would have to show how a neutron decays into two discrete visible particles and one invisible particle. The quark theory does not do this. And even if someone did slap a few numbers on the pile of numbers already in the theory, they still have not shown a neutron mutating into a proton, electron, and neutrino in a laboratory. Yet, there have been countless observations and clear quantification of a bound neutron decaying into an electron, proton, and neutrino.

In SOTA I point out an equation you won't find in modern science. It is a very simple equation and it is indisputable:

h.n - (h.p + h) = h.neutrino

However, modern science also claims the neutrino is massless and they do not point out that:

m.n - (m.p + m.e) = missing mass

That is, the mass of the neutron minus the total mass of the proton and electron leaves a missing mass equal to one and half times the mass of the electron.

The angular momentum of the neutron minus the sum of the proton and electron angular momentum is exactly equal to the missing angular momentum attributed to the neutrino. I present a new equation that calculates the value of the neutrino angular momentum from first principles. You won't see that in modern physics, either. By accounting for the Aether geometry, I am able to predict exactly how much dark matter will be sandwiched between a bound electron and proton. That sandwiched dark matter is the so called "neutrino" angular momentum. The neutrino is nothing but a blob of dark matter that is routinely captured and released during the binding of electrons and protons.

In order for this capture of dark matter to be possible, there must be a huge sea of this dark matter available. An electron and proton can bind anywhere and at any time. So in a sense, Wal's theory is correct, there is a vast sea of neutrinos, or rather, dark matter for making them.

The dark matter is primary angular momentum. It is a primordial soup composed of strings of mass. No doubt, this is why string theory seems to work. String theory is based upon the correct geometry of dark matter. Unfortunately, string theory does not have the structure to produce the Aether units, which give the dark matter its visible matter characteristics.

Another observation concerning neutrinos: It is said that mass and angular momentum must always be conserved. When I claim that new matter can be created by the Casimir effect, I'm saying that dark matter is being converted to visible matter. Mass and angular momentum *are* conserved in the APM. Yet, because modern science does not recognize dark matter as being of a different order of reality from visible matter, they claim I'm violating the conservation laws and therefore I must be wrong. Nevertheless, modern science claims that neutrinos are massless, even though they have angular momentum. Modern science agrees the angular momentum contributes to the mass of the neutron, yet when the neutrino is released, they say it was massless all along. In other words, modern science is having it both ways. The neutrino contributes mass when they need it to, and it never had mass when they don't want it to have any. My view is describing the exact same mechanics as the modern science view, except that my explanation is honest and the official explanation is misguided out of ignorance.

Wal ignores my analysis of the neutrino, and cannot accept it without finding error in his own previous concepts.
pln2bz
 
Posts: 248
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:20 pm

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

Unread postby junglelord » Fri Apr 04, 2008 5:59 am

Great discussion. If your going to seperate the wheat from the chaff its important to realize that gravity plays a vital role in this discussion....how you ask? Because we are talking about the fundamentals of fundamental forces and fields.

I again make the observation that gravity is not a fundamental force. I also make the observation that Maxwell, Klauz/Klein, Tesla and others have all made a clear opinion on the relationship of gravity to EM. This is what leads you to and supports their Aether model of the primary Scalar Field.

If you can prove to me gravity is a primary field and has a field carrier like a graviton or gravity waves then I will giveup on the Aether/Scalar field. Otherwise your beating a dead horse because the current model is not correct and the one glaring obvious reason is the inability to explain gravity and to support it with evidence of a carrier.

Otherwise without the proof of what gravity is and what its carrier is, then I am forced to maintain my position that the Scalar field is real and very well explained by Maxwell in quaternions, Whittaker's seminal work, Klauza/Klein 5th dimension bleedthrough, Tesla's unified field theory, Bearden's work on Scalar wars, Correa's autogenous pulsed abnormal mode plasma vacuum tubes, Aspden's work on the Scalar field, the work of Dollard and Meyl concerning longitudinal current, etc.

Not to mention the fact that Black Projects have obviously conquered technology that shows a new field theory is required to explain the technology they now possess and of course keep above top secret, even higher then the H bomb....thats a fact you know under the freedom of information act. Gravity is the wonderboy of the modern model....a fairytale that is not fact...but still it controls the universe....
:lol:

If you want to disprove the Scalar Field you need to prove gravity....its that simple and the two cannot be seperated.
Last edited by junglelord on Fri Apr 04, 2008 6:14 am, edited 1 time in total.
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 » Fri Apr 04, 2008 6:13 am

27. Faraday versus Maxwell
Numerous phenomena of the electromagnetic field are described sufficiently accurate by
the Maxwell equations, so that these as a rule are regarded as a universal field description.
But if one looks more exact it turns out to be purely an approximation, which in addition
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?
♦ Faraday instead of Maxwell, which is the more general law of
induction?
♦ Can the Maxwell equations be derived as a special case?
♦ Can also scalar waves be derived from the new approach?
♦ Can the gravitation as well be derived and a lot else more?
On the one hand it concerns the big search for a unified physical theory and on the other
hand the chances of new technologies, which are connected with an extended field theory.
As a necessary consequence of the derivation, which roots strictly in textbook physics and
manages without postulate, scalar waves occur, which could be used manifold. In
information technology they are suited as a carrier wave, which can be modulated
moredimensionally, and in power engineering the spectrum stretches from the wireless
transmission up to the collection of energy out of the field.
27.1 Energy out of the field
Neutrinos for instance are such field configurations, which move 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.
But for a technical exploitation a useful model description of the particles and their
interaction is imperative. For the sake of simplicity we imagine the neutrino to be an
oscillating particle, which permanently oscillates back and forth between the state of an
electron and that of a positron. With that the polarity changes from positive to negative
and back again and the charge averaged over time is zero. Because of the change from a
state of matter to the state of an anti-particle also next to no mass can be measured
anymore.
A technical oscillator operated in resonance, which oscillates with the same frequency but
opposite charge, will interact with the particle and build up an oscillating electromagnetic
interaction, with which we already are familiar as the weak interaction in the proximity of
a neutrino.
The propagation of particle radiation as a longitudinal shock wave however can't be
described with the normally used field theory and the Maxwell equations, so that the field
theory at this point must be reworked. Connected with this is the question of what is
oscillating here, a question, which often is answered with an aether of whatever nature. I
speak of field vortices and call the aether a property of the field. With that the set of
difficulties is shifted into the domain of vortex physics.

22.5 Neutrino radiation
The neutrino physicists make the same error. They proceed from the assumption that their
particles are on the way with a speed somewhat less than the speed of light c. This
contradicts the observation according to which black holes should represent strong sources
of neutrinos, which are black only for the reason that no particle radiation is able to escape
them, which is on the way with c or even slower. If a black hole does hurl neutrino
radiation into space, than that must be considerably faster than c, as normal neutrino
physicists still by no means can imagine it today.
But the neutrino radiation only can be detected after it has been slowed down to a value,
which is smaller than c. If the slowing down occurs slightly assymmetrical, then as a
consequence a mean of the mass different from zero appears. The ,,measurement" of such
a rest mass, as it at present is propagated and celebrated, is a classical measurement error!
As long as a neutrino on the way to us still is faster than the light, the mean of its mass is
generally zero. The effective value of the mass of a neutrino is however considerable.
Only it is able to give account for the sought-for dark matter, as far as it must exist in the
today supposed form anyway.
The Tesla radiation, that the discoverer Nikola Tesla already in own experiments had
found out, is faster than light (chapter 9.7 and 17.2). Since this Tesla radiation according
to the description is identical with the neutrino radiation, since it so to say forms a subset,
I will call neutrino radiation all the scalar waves, which are faster than the light. This
stretches from the weak radiation at low frequencies up to the hard neutrino radiation of
cosmic origin. But the hardness of the radiation does not only increase with the frequency,
it in particular increases with the velocity.
The neutrino radiation first of all is carrying energy. On top of this basic wave radiation in
addition information can be modulated. Doing so extremely complex modulation variants
are offering. Of this kind we must imagine thoughts, as being complex modulated vortices,
which can propagate as scalar wave in space. Rupert Sheldrake calls this vortex field a
morphogenetic field. At this place merely is pointed at his very interesting research
results<i>.
Thoughts can be standing in space, in the form of localized noise, but they also can move
with speeds faster than light. According to that a communication with intelligent beings
from other star systems by all means wouldn't be an Utopia anymore.
Every fast neutrino forms an individual ring-like vortex (fig. 7.12). The slower the scalar
wave is, the more dependent the vortices become. The photon already can consist of two
ring-like vortices (fig. 4.6), whereas plasma waves and other slow scalar waves can form
from a multitude of individual vortices, which are rotating around each other, to form
vortex balls and vortex streets (chapter 4.9 - 4.11). From this circumstance already results
very different scalar wave behaviour in the different areas of the velocity of propagation.
This trend for small velocities can as well be observed towards lower frequencies. For a
certain wavelength the frequency after all (according to eq. 22.1) is proportional to the
velocity of propagation


7.12 beta-decay
In the case of the calculated quasistable particles, the myon and the neutron, the verification by
means of the well-known decay processes is still due. Also free neutrons, those which are
not bound in an atomic nucleus, decay. But with an average life of 918 seconds they are
by far the longest living among the quasistable elementary particles.
Should the neutron decay be triggered by neutrinos, then obviously a distant flying past
does not suffice. For that the electron is bound in the proton too tight. There probably has
to occur a direct "crash", in which a neutrino is used, since the decay equation reads:
(7.15)
As could be expected a proton p+, an electron e- and the mentioned electron-antineutrino
are formed. What here is written down as the emission of an antiparticle, is equivalent
in the absorption of the particle<i>, in this case of the neutrino. The reaction equation 7.15
can be reformulated accordingly<i>:
(7.15*)
Also for the decay of the myon an electron-neutrino is used. In both cases it provides the
energy necessary for the decay. But we can really understand the beta-decay only, after we
have got to know these particles better.
Without charge and without mass neutrinos show hardly any interactions with matter and
as a consequence they possess the enormous ability of penetration - as is well-known.
They are said to participate in the ,,weak interaction", which should trigger a conversion of
the concerned particles, which is their decay. Pauli already has postulated the neutrino
1930 theoretically, because the transition from a half-integer spin to an integer spin for the
n0 -decay otherwise wouldn't have been explicable.
If we imagine an elementary vortex is being born, but the local field strength and energy
isn't sufficient for obtaining a quantized state. The result is an incomplete potential vortex,
which has an open vortex centre and as a consequence shows no localization at all. In the
form of a vortex ring it oscillates around itself, while it continually turns its inside to the
outside and then again to the inside.
One moment the vortex ring is green, then it is red again, one moment matter, then antimatter,
one moment positively charged and the next moment negatively charged. In
contrast to the photon the number of the involved elementary vortices Ze for the neutrino is
odd (for the VeZe= 1). Perpendicular to the direction of propagation the neutrino has a spin (s/h= 1/2)
for reason of a rotation, which overlaps the pulsating oscillation.
This vortex ring is, as said, not a member of stationary matter, because it doesn't form a
"black hole" in its centre, where the speed of light becomes zero. But it has an absolute
stability like every elementary vortex, even if it only occurs incomplete and hence not in
any quantized form,. This concept of the electron-neutrino as an open oscillating
elementary vortex in the form of a ring-like vortex covers the experimentally determined
realizations unexpectedly well
http://www.meyl.eu/go/index.php?dir=30_Books&page=2&sublevel=0

Seems like they talk about the same thing to me. Of course not exactly but still.
Pln2bz, may I ask, I have not his book yet, in what way does the Casimir-effect relate to materialization?


StevenO wrote:As for an "easy" introduction to the EM formulas I really recommend "Collective Electrodynamics" from Carver Mead. Just a small booklet of about 100 pages, but great on fundamental insights. As for "alternative equations", most authors go to great lenghts to prove that they are equivalent to Maxwell's equations since these have so much authority. I think the discussion about the Maxwell equations that were "censored" was about Maxwell's use of the Electromagnetic potential that was removed by Heavyside. In the meantime the Electromagnetic potential has been fully restored. Also Carver Mead uses it (and Richard Feynman).

Thanks for the tip. Do you say that Mead en Feynman have re-incorporated/restored the Electromagnetic Potential in a quantum physical way ?
I'm not a physicist either, nor a EE per diploma or degree, so my bias may be even greater ;)
Curious to your link, I remember something vaguely like that.
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 1 guest