 |
There are currently, 184 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online.
You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here
| |
|  |
Tom Bearden's EFTV Model is Attainable/Obtainable Right Now
Posted on Wednesday, November 16, 2005 @ 20:28:21 UTC by vlad
|
|
Another good & informative synopsis on Tom Bearden's theoretical
work posted by Leslie R. Pastor to the New Energy Congress forum (less
than two months old and still in identity forming growing pains):
Tom
Bearden has valiantly presented http://www.cheniere.org/misc/adas.htm
clarification regarding our flawed energy systems of current delivery. The
flaws are obvious and present a picture of dynamic 'controls' upon the
populations of planet Earth. Energy is ubiquitous and free for the
'extraction.' All that is needed are the right tools and the right delivery.
This can be accomplished immediately, but what is necessary is the will to do
so, and a clear understanding of the MODEL presented. Tesla's 'wheelworks of
nature' are still 'moving' waiting patiently for us to harness them. He showed
us how to accomplish this a long time ago. We need to correct our flawed
'models,' so that we may properly 'view' this basic reality of 'natures laws.'
Then we may truly be free to further ourselves and save our planet and its
indigenous population.
Tom http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1380
explains what these errors and omissions are. He further uses the concept of
the electret to explain the static dipolar http://www.cheniere.org/references/electret.htm
'potential' between two opposite 'charges.' E. T. Whitaker http://www.answers.com/topic/e-t-whittaker
showed that every scalar potential decomposes http://www.cheniere.org/misc/Whittak/index.html
into sets of internal EM energy flows in the form of bi-directional longitudinal
EM wave pairs.
Hence Van Flandern's analogy http://www.cheniere.org/techpapers/vanflandern.htm
is correct and the standard EM textbook is wrong, as to the nature of a "static
potential". Indeed, every "static" EM field or potential decomposes into just
such sets of internal energy flows, as shown by combining two papers by
Whittaker http://www.cheniere.org/references/superpotential.htm
in 1903 and 1904.
As a dipole, the electret is already a
system, which extracts virtual state energy from the vacuum and transduces it
into real, observable EM energy pouring steadily from the dipolarity. This
process, evidenced by the steady presence of the potential, totally violates the
present hoary old second law of thermodynamics because it steadily produces
negative entropy. Instead of the "truly frozen static" potential taught in
CEM/EE theory, the "static" potential is a nonequilibrium steady state (NESS)
system. It is continuously producing negative entropy (absorbing the totally
disordered virtual state fluctuation energy of the vacuum, re-ordering it,
coherently integrating it to observable (quantum) size, and then re-emitting the
energy as real observable EM energy flow). http://www.cheniere.org/references/electret.htm
>From my previous http://pesn.com/2005/07/24/9600128_ZPE_Drop_in_Ocean/
discussions with Tom Bearden we discovered that the amount of available
'extractable' energy from the vacuum is literally unlimited and eternally viable
literally till the end of 'time.'
John Bedini http://freeenergynews.com/Directory/Inventors/JohnBedini/bk/page1/
an associate and close friend of Tom Bearden has provided his own source data on
similar subject-matter corroborating the above information.
As I
see it, the real problem is understanding and properly presenting the correct
MODEL in physics, which clearly identifies the appropriate objectives we all
seek. In a recent email Tom Bearden explains:
"For energy
systems, the worst falsity is Lorentz's arbitrary symmetrization of the
equations circa 1892, which arbitrarily discarded all asymmetrical Maxwellian
systems. Nature does not discard them; Lorentz did and EE professors (check
Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics, e.g.) continue to symmetrize the equations -
thereby eliminating all COP>1.0 energy-from-the-vacuum systems from the
model."
Tom Bearden has already provided http://twm.co.nz/Beard_scal_vac.html
significant 'documentation.' He further explains, "There are also many models
for the active vacuum. One "close" model is the zero-point energy model. The ZP
is the lowest level of an OBSERVABLE particle, which (because of QM) has motion
and energy left even at its lowest observable level (zero absolute temperature).
Classically, it would have no movement left at all, but quantum mechanically it
does." However, that IS NOT the virtual state (nonobservable) disordered
fluctuation energy of the vacuum! Instead, it is the lowest OBSERVABLE energy
state. Therefore the two are quite different [ZPE, EFTV]. Tom Bearden clarifies
his position and explains the nature of the problem:
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Shadowlands/9654/bearden/testunify.html
"But a regular scientist has a problem. The ZPE is of course experimentally
established. So he can work in that area, and the academic community will
begrudgingly permit it without calling him a perpetual motion nut and worse.
But if he gets over the line and goes after the VIRTUAL FLUCTUATION ENERGY OF
THE VACUUM ITSELF, then he's viciously attacked, suppressed, hounded, and the
entire works."
To hide the absolute necessity for going after
that DISORDERED virtual fluctuation energy of the vacuum, the experimental fact
has been ruthlessly suppressed that every charge already does it, already
produces continuous negative entropy, already reorders and coherently integrates
its continually absorbed virtual state fluctuation energy for coherent virtual
excitation to the next quantum level, then abruptly decays by emission of a real
photon.
Every charge in the universe is thus a Feynman
ratchet, http://www.eprairie.com/printer/article.asp?newsletterID=4574
which consumes positive entropy of the virtual state, and produces negative
entropy of the observable state. That can easiest be understood if one switches
to the more modern (and more complete) Leyton geometry than the hoary old Klein
geometry of 1872, still used today in most of physics. In Klein geometry, when
symmetry is broken at a given level, the information and ordering at that level
is lost, and so the symmetry is reduced to the next lower level. That's a
"wired-in" positive entropy operation, due strictly to the choice of the groups
and their characteristics that the geometry employs.
When Leyton's
geometry and more modern groups are used, then when symmetry is broken at a
given level, the information and ordering at that level is not lost but remains.
Also, a new symmetry at the next higher level automatically is produced -- and
that is a "wired-in" negative entropy operation. In short, it absolutely
requires changing and extending the hoary old second law of thermo to include
production of continuous negative entropy -- proven possible in real systems by
Evans and Rondoni a few years back.
Nature favors Leyton geometry, and
every charge and dipole in the universe proves it. And every charge in the
universe already extracts real useful EM energy from the virtual state
fluctuations of the vacuum, NOT from the ZPE remaining energy. We ourselves do
not have to find how to build a system at the elementary level that will extract
energy from the virtual state vacuum. Every charge does it, and every EM field
and potential is made that way by its associated source charges. Every joule of
usable observable EM energy in the universe has been extracted from the seething
non-observable energy of the vacuum, that way.
Just assemble some charge
or make a dipole. That beast will then sit there and automatically and
continuously emit real observable photons in all directions, without any
OBSERVABLE energy input. The energy input is there, of course, and conservation
of energy is observed -- but between virtual and observable state. But the
ordinary professor will be totally ostracized and destroyed if he allows that
VIRTUAL disordered energy can be changed into OBSERVABLE ordered energy. It
cannot be done in the Klein geometry model. But it certainly can be done in
Leyton's model. And nature favors Leyton.
Once the correct MODEL
has been clearly defined and understood, then another problem must be
addressed:
"The EFTV area seems to be the only area that the
individual inventor/researcher is supposed to somehow be able to combine the
capabilities of a whole physics department and a large fully equipped and
staffed lab, and just get everything done through ALL the research stages,
including (1) exploratory development, where the phenomenology is painfully and
expensively worked out, proper modeling is done, etc., (2) engineering
development, where early lab prototypes are kluged together and tested until one
finds the most promising system directions, and (3) after sufficient maturing
ED, then progression into full-blown production engineering, to develop actual
final production prototypes to be eventually produced and marketed. Those
research areas and the appreciable and costly work in each of them are what has
to be done, if the work is to be done scientifically.
In
addition, a new theoretical model must also be developed that matches the
results of the ED, since the normal power system models do not even contain what
is being attempted and is to be done.
But that's not the way the
orthodox scientific establishment does business. Instead of that, they very
strongly constrain the "work and research" into already-approved channels. Hence
they are not solving the energy crisis, and will not do so. But they will
continue to reap ever more billions - even a trillion for the new pebble bed
nuclear reactor power plants - and retain the control and status quo, including
of the large cartels.
What is so sorely needed is (1) funding of
highly selected inventors and researchers, and (2) for those who are producing
the results needed, add a full and highly capable team (say, of about eight
specialists) to work with them on those three stages of research and
development.
And also fund some of the sharpest and best young
doctoral candidates and post doctoral scientists to rapidly correct the present
terribly flawed CEM/EE model, so that we finally have an updated model that does
allow EM energy from the vacuum to be asymmetrically collected and
asymmetrically used to power loads without destroying the source of potential
energy flow." [Bearden]
I agree with Tom Bearden with respect
to funding and I propose that what is needed is a group R&D budget for most
'inventors.' Most serious 'mainstream' corporations usually maintained a
significant R&D Research Facility, such as ATT's former 'Bell Labs', neither
of which is in existence today. Forget about 'investors.' Serious 'research'
requires access to an unlimited budget for Research and
Development.
In my opinion, what is needed is access to
individuals with 'deep pockets' who are willing to fund significant [serious]
research into 'first principle' and 'novelty of fact' existing 'models of
performance' [fully documented in the open literature]
presentations.
If you recall this is what happened to Nikola
Tesla, he traveled to both sides of the Atlantic giving speech after speech
regarding his 'rotating magnetic field' and 'alternating current' discoveries.
He filed 40 significant 'patents' regarding his 'novelty of fact' principles.
But nothing happened, because the 'educated idiots' couldn't understand him.
They were clueless, spellbound, and 'needed to be educated' themselves. If you
recall even Thomas Alva Edison was the single most 'obstinate' stubborn
antagonist, who stymied and sandbagged Tesla with the 'war of the currents.'
George Westinghouse who fortuitously attended one of those Tesla
lectures, listened to Tesla's presentation, believed Tesla, offering him, a cool
$$$$ million on the spot for all of his patents on AC [40 patents in all].
Tesla, grateful, for the 'acknowledgement,' accepted the offer, and later
'forgave' the most profitable aspect of that offer, the $2.50 per kWh portion.
Nikola Tesla and George Westinghouse formed a lifelong partnership [friendship]
thereafter. Tesla had to go to Pittsburgh and 'educate' Westinghouse's
engineers in building those 'novelty of fact' AC three phase and single phase
motors. The rest is history.
We should explore inviting
significant 'individuals of means' with 'deep pockets' who are willing to
'explore' alternative 'novelty of fact' systems of 'energy' generation. If we
could create a buffer insulating and protecting 'inventors' from harassment and
greed factors, then a possible solution to future energy development is
approachable. Once that is accomplished, and research is underway, any
resultant 'findings' of significant value, demonstrating 'marketability' could
be licensed to 'manufacturers' with the rights to 'manufacture' given to 'right
of first refusal' deep pocket collaborators [those who provided the initial R
& D monies in the first place].'
All the Best
Leslie
R. Pastor
PS:
It is interesting, that, changing
from a non-technological age [horse & buggy] to a(n) [initial] developmental
'technological' stage, did not incur 'intransigence' on the part of the
developing 'financial politicians.' [Ferdinand Lundberg: The Rich & The
Super Rich]
http://www.namebase.org/sources/dZ.html
and http://www.raken.com/american_wealth/encyclopedia/comment_1924.asp
Indeed an association transpired among the original elite financial
'superstructure' and the emerging technocrats: Ford, Edison, and Westinghouse.
Investment money flowed freely, while the 'infrastructure' was developing and
establishing itself. But once the initial 'foundational' superstructure was 'in
place,' future 'investments' were only aloud to 'maintain' that 'initial'
superstructure. Any deviation met with significant curtailment of funding for
any other 'non-approved' investment. [Tesla: Niagara Falls/AC Generation:
Success] verses [Tesla: Wardencliffe: Free Energy: Failure]. Tesla lived
between two ages [1856- 1943] and knew first hand what this changeover
represented. He knew the implications of his discoveries and where they would
take the future 'industrial' giant. But he was stopped 'cold,' by the
investment strategists and made into a non-person after Wardencliffe. Every
human-being on planet Earth should research the life of Nikola Tesla on the
Internet, in the public libraries, and all the book vendors, only then will they
appreciate what Thomas E. Bearden has accomplished in furthering Tesla's
research into the future.
Research: Tom Bearden:
CEM/EM Factual Data
http://www.cheniere.org/techpapers/CEM%20Errors%20-%20final%20paper%20complete%20w%20longer%20abstract4.doc
Problems with the Standard CEM/EM Model
http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1543
Energy
Observations & Comments: Tom Bearden
http://www.cheniere.org/images/Energy/index.html
The
Final Secret of Free Energy: Tom Bearden
http://www.akasha.de/~aton/BeardenFreeE(2).html
The Russians Acknowledge Tom Bearden
http://physics.nad.ru/cgi-bin/forum.pl?forum=eng&mes=1657
Notes
and Reference on the Fogel Transistor
http://www.eskimo.com/~ghawk/fogal_device/notes.htm
E.
T. Whitaker
http://www.csonline.net/bpaddock/scalar/1904.htm
http://www.csonline.net/bpaddock/scalar/default.htm
A
Summary of Research Not Present - Patrick G. Bailey, Ph. D.
http://www.padrak.com/ine/INE22.html
Archived
Emails: Tom Bearden
http://www.navi.net/~rsc/physics/beard14.txt
Miscellaneous
http://www.hempcar.org/ford.shtml
http://www.tesla-coil-builder.com/radiant_energy.htm
http://www.tesla-coil-builder.com/creating_the_ideal_tesla_magnifi.htm
http://www.teslascience.org/
http://www.teslascience.org/archive/archive.htm
http://www.tfcbooks.com/articles/monument.htm
http://www.tfcbooks.com/articles/twp6.htm
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Tesla_Wardenclyffe_Project/
http://www.explorepub.com/articles/energetics_notes.html
http://pacenet.homestead.com/Transmutation.html
|
| |
Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like theme manager, comments configuration and post comments with your name.
| |
Average Score: 3 Votes: 2

| |
|
"Tom Bearden's EFTV Model is Attainable/Obtainable Right Now" | Login/Create an Account | 12 comments | Search Discussion |
| The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content. |
|
|
No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register |
|
Re: Tom Bearden's EFTV Model is Attainable/Obtainable Right Now (Score: 1) by sparks35 on Wednesday, November 16, 2005 @ 23:32:47 UTC (User Info | Send a Message) | Leslie....You sign this with...
"All the Best Leslie R. Pastor"
Les...what you have become the "BEST" at is posting a whole group of stuff that very few people, if anyone, are going to take the time to read.
CAN YOU BOTTOM LINE THIS LESLIE...???
We need energy now..Not a frigging... Newton's Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica.
Sparks35
|
|
|
Re: Tom Bearden's EFTV Model...NOT! (Score: 1) by DoItDontJustWriteAboutIt on Friday, November 18, 2005 @ 13:47:36 UTC (User Info | Send a Message) | Bearden has been writing about his variant of EM theory for years (decades) and as best as I can tell, nobody has been able to confirm any of his claims independently despite his broad audience. I hate to be a downer, but it would seem he's just plain wrong.
...Are we wasting time yet? Perhaps it is time to move on to more fruitful endeavors.
"It is easier to write ten volumes on theoretical principles than to put one into practice." -Tolstoy |
|
|
Ken Rauen: He had a question regarding our Previous Post (Score: 1) by vlad on Tuesday, November 22, 2005 @ 20:17:25 UTC (User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com | Subject: Fw: Ken Rauen: He had a question regarding our Previous Post
--- "Leslie R. Pastor" wrote:
"Bearden does not present a clear description nor does he demonstrate
the supposed energy that flows in a static dipole, such as in an
electret. The clear evidence is missing and what is presented is
just flowery words. Science is done in the details." - Ken Rauen
Ken is referring to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FlyingSaucerMachine/message/475
"As a dipole, the electret is already a system, which extracts virtual state energy from the vacuum and......"
Do you have a source statement for Ken Rauen? If you point me in
the right direction, I can help you via the appropriate proper research
of the proper data.
All the Best,
Leslie R. Pastor
------------------------
From: Tom Bearden
Les,
The problem is in terms of the model one uses in one's head and in
one's approach. Sadly, even today students are not taught that they are
only mastering a particular CEM/EE model and its application. Instead,
increasingly it has become fashionable to imply that the model is
already perfect. It isn't, and in fact it is horribly flawed,
containing many falsities which I gathered together and listed at
http://www.cheniere.org/techpapers/CEM%20Errors%20-%20final%20paper%20complete%20w%20longer%20abstract4.doc
. Note that only two of these were uncovered by me; the rest are all
pointed out in various places in the literature by eminent scientists
themselves (Feynman, Wheeler, Margenau, Bunge and many others).
One does not have to "explain" that the static field or potential is
not truly "static"; it's been done experimentally. Or simply: Just take
a very long transmission line and go to its middle. Apply a substantial
voltage across it there - and the "static scalar potential - the
voltage" - takes off in both directions at near light speed (if the
conductors had no impedance, it would be at light speed). Now try to
explain how anything "static and immovable" can race off in two
directions.
So every time one potentializes an EM circuit, one invokes and uses the
fact that a so-called "static" field is NOT truly static and fixed.
We give quotes and references on the "static field" problem. It is
actually quite well known to foundations physicists that every charge
in the universe continually emits real photons - real useful EM energy
- yet there is no measurable (observable) energy input to the charge.
If one doesn't believe that, then let him repeat any of those
experiments he wishes. Set up a line of instruments at regular
intervals in a straight line, and suddenly assemble some charge (or
suddenly make a dipole; any "isolated" classical charge actually
polarizes its vacuum, and there are two infinite charges with infinite
energy involved - see explanation in Nobelist Weinberg's words:
"[The total energy of the atom] depends on the bare mass and bare
charge of the electron, the mass and charge that appear in the
equations of the theory before we start worrying about photon emissions
and reabsorptions. But free electrons as well as electrons in atoms are
always emitting and reabsorbing photons that affect the electron's mass
and electric charge, and so the bare mass and charge are not the same
as the measured electron mass and charge that are listed in tables of
elementary particles. In fact, in order to account for the observed
values (which of course are finite) of the mass and charge of the
electron, the bare mass and charge must themselves be infinite. The
total energy of the atom is thus the sum of two terms, both infinite:
the bare energy that is infinite because it depends on the infinite
bare mass and charge, and the energy shift . that is infinite because
it receives contributions from virtual photons of unlimited energy."
[Steven Weinberg, Dreams of a Final Theory, Vintage Books, Random
House, 1993, p. 109-110.].
Well, an entity having infinite energy (or two infinite energies) is
certainly capable of pouring out any finite amount of energy -
regardless of how large -- for any finite amount of time - no matter
how long. So the source charge can and does sit there and continuously
pour out real EM energy, without any observable energy input, and it
will do it indefinitely or until the end of the universe.
All electrodynamicists assume that the EM field and the potential - and
their energy -- are produced by their source charges. The point is
that, if you suddenly produce some charge at a fixed point, the
so-called "static" EM field appears at that point and spreads outward
at the finite speed of light. The "static" field thus spreads
continuously in all directions at light speed, and at every point it
appears in its radial spread it establishes an energy density of EM
energy in space.
Well, what is "spreads continuously in all directions?" Is that not
"flow"? The where the devil did the "static" field ever become truly
static? It never was. In 1903 and 1904 Whittaker showed that any EM
field or potential decomposes into an on-going set of EM energy flows -
and so it does in nature.
Now just wait a little - say, a year. The spreading "static" field has
now reached out beyond the solar system, and it is still spreading.
Now just calculate the total "energy density change in space" established by that continuous outpouring of real EM energy.
NOW try your best to explain where that energy came from and continues
to come from, in terms of the conventional sad old EE model. No
instrument known to man can detect any observable energy input to that
source charge. And yet real EM energy is pouring out continuously. That
silly charge will continue to pour out real usable EM energy (real
photons) at light speed in all directions for the next 13 billion
years, if the universe lasts that long.
So the "static field" is not at all "fixed and immovable" as the EEs
are taught and almost all believe. Van Flandern sums it up very nicely,
by pointing out that the usual (mistaken) notion of the static field is
that it is like a frozen waterfall. But that instead it is like an
unfrozen waterfall. Specifically, he states that
"To retain causality, we must distinguish two distinct meanings of the
term 'static'. One meaning is unchanging in the sense of no moving
parts. The other meaning is sameness from moment to moment by continual
replacement of all moving parts. We can visualize this difference by
thinking of a waterfall. A frozen waterfall is static in the first
sense, and a flowing waterfall is static in the second sense. Both are
essentially the same at every moment, yet the latter has moving parts
capable of transferring momentum, and is made of entities that
propagate." [Tom Van Flandern, "The speed of gravity - What the
experiments say," Physics Letters A, Vol. 250, Dec. 21, 1998, p. 1-11].
And yes, the physics is in the details - including the details of that
source charge experiment, and the fact that any "static" field is
actually a nonequilibrium steady state (NESS) system thermodynamically,
with parts in constant motion that continually establish and replenish
the "static field" at every point in space that it occupies.
But the source charge also produces a quandary in physics. Either (1)
it freely and continuously creates (from nothing at all) that energy
that continuously pours out, or else (2) it reorders and coherently
integrates the virtual state vacuum fluctuation energy it continually
receives, from virtual state to observable state (real photons).
In alternative one, the conservation of energy law and most of present
physics is falsified, as is most of present thermodynamics. Can't have
it any other way.
In alternative two, conservation of energy together with physics and
thermodynamics are saved, but the charge is a real physical system that
steadily produces negative entropy, in total falsification of the hoary
old second law of thermodynamics.
Not to worry! One can violate the second law at will, and in fact the
parts of every usable macrosystem are always violating it anyway, as
long ago pointed out by Maxwell when he stated:
"The truth of the second law is . a statistical, not a mathematical,
truth, for it depends on the fact that the bodies we deal with consist
of millions of molecules. Hence the second law of thermodynamics is
continually being violated, and that to a considerable extent, in any
sufficiently small group of molecules belonging to a real body."
[Maxwell, J. C., Tait's Thermodynamics II, Nature 17, 278-280 (7
February 1878)].
And finally, continuous production of negative entropy by a real
physical system is indeed theoretically possible. CF the rigorous
thermodynamics proof by D. J. Evans and Lamberto Rondoni, "Comments on
the Entropy of Nonequilibrium Steady States," J. Stat. Phys., 109(3-4),
Nov. 2002, p. 895-920. With my discovery of the solution to the source
charge problem in 1999 and its publication in 2000 and subsequently, I
nominated the source charge and the source dipole as the first known
real physical systems that can be rigorously shown to produce
continuous negative entropy. Specifically, the charge continually
consumes positive entropy of the virtual state (the seething vacuum
fluctuations) and continually produces negative entropy in the
observable state.
That should be enough discussion on what is involved in correcting the
erroneous notion that a static EM field is "fixed and immovable". It
isn't, unless one gives up just about all of physics and thermodynamics.
Best wishes,
Tom Bearden
---------------
Leslie R. Pastor wrote:
For those who do not understand the nature of the question. A
proper analogy would be to explain the workings of an 'ordinary'
Televsion set. A marvelous 'CRT' device that we all presently
take for granted, but was a developed 'process' necessitating the
intervention of prerequisite data from Faraday, Maxwell, and Tesla [all
necessary prior knowledge.....needed to begin to understand] Philo T.
Farnsworth's marvelous 'invention.' For without the prior 'art'
of Faraday, Maxwell and Tesla, Farnsworth would have been unable to
'create' the crt device that we so amazingly take for granted today.
All the Best,
Leslie R. Pastor
------------------------------------
Good Afternoon, Tom
Just posted this now......
Will research your statements later tonight.
Obviously, more questions will be possed, you can bet on it.
Do you think Jean-Louis Naudin would help with this one?
All the Best,
Leslie R. Pastor
--------------------------------
Les,
I don't know whether Jean-Louis would have the time or not; I doubt it. He's basically a bench person anyway.
The problem gets very fundamental and one must discuss
foundations of physics rather than some "model of the particular
physics in a given area".
Take the little analogy of applying electrostatic scalar
potential (voltage) to the midpoint of a transmission line. If
something (voltage) is truly static in Van Flandern's "fixed"
frozen waterfall sense, it cannot move or flow, for that is a vector
concept. If it has velocity, or if it is an envelope of form that is
filled with parts that have motion and flow, it isn't static. It cannot
be static on first principles.
A boot set on a line is truly "static" in that of itself
it does not and cannot move off down the line with a "boot flow". But
so-called "static" voltage on a line will not just "sit" there in place
where you apply it, like that old static boot. Instead, it will take
off like a scalded hog - and in both directions simultaneously. Zounds:
That's a bidirectional concept. Well, of course! In 1903 Whittaker
rigorously showed that the static potential "as an envelope" decomposes
into a set of bidirectional EM energy flows, ongoing continuously. The
paper is E. T. Whittaker, "On the Partial Differential Equations of
Mathematical Physics," Mathematische Annalen, Vol. 57, 1903, p. 333-355.
In 1904 Whittaker showed that any EM field pattern also
decomposes into two static potentials with differential functions
applied. This paper initiated what today is known as "superpotential"
theory. If for each of those two scalar potentials one then applies
Whittaker 1903 decomposition, then voila! One has two marvelous and
additional things: (1) all EM fields and field patterns are produced by
"scalar" interferometry, and (2) the field is also a special
combination set of internal bidirectional flows, in interference.
For a modern and rigorous proof of scalar interferometry, see
M.W. Evans et al., "On Whittaker's Representation of the
Electromagnetic Entity in Vacuo, Part V: The Production of Transverse
Fields and Energy by Scalar Interferometry," Journal of New Energy,
4(3), Special Issue, Winter 1999, p. 76-78.
When such a common experience is universally available, one does not have to "reprove" it.
But indeed, anyone not discussing and explaining the source
charge's continuous emission of observable photons, with absolutely no
observable energy input, is not and cannot intelligently discuss energy
from the nonobservable (virtual state fluctuations of the) vacuum.
Anyone who accepts the standard CEM/EE model - which just
assumes an inert and totally inactive vacuum - does not and cannot
understand energy from the active vacuum, nor where the EM field and
potential energy in a circuit actually come from and how.
Let me use the following example of how the desire to believe or
accept a model can "trap" us and does trap a great many people.
Take the fact that mass is a component of force, by the simple F
= d/dt(mv). Put in "0" for that little m, for the case where mass is
absent. Now F = 0 in that case. That is, whenever mass is absent,
there is not and there cannot be any force. It's as simple as that.
When we speak of EM force, we mean force on a charged mass q.
But the mass must be there in the q. Using the E-field (force field) as
an example, F = Eq. Note that this equation actually states that
electromagnetic force F is generated on charge q by the interaction of
the "field in space" called E. Now - for the case of the absence of
charged mass - put in a "0" for that charged mass q. Instantly F
= 0 once again. There is no EM force in massfree space, but only in
charged matter systems.
It follows that there is no EM force field in the vacuum,
whenever and wherever charged mass q is absent. Instead, there is only
a "condition in space itself" (a change in spacetime such as a warping)
that exists in space. That's general relativity, of course, but the
CEM/EE model only assumes special relativity. It specifically prohibits
general relativity in its equations.
Also, the folks who formed the old CEM/EE model in the 1880s did
not believe in an "empty" space or vacuum. Instead, they believed that
all space was filled with a thin material ether, everywhere in the
universe. So to them, there was not a single point in all the universe
where mass was totally absent, because - in their belief - the thin
matter of the ether was there. In that case, were that true then
obviously there would have been a force field there, at any point,
because there was already matter there and in the EM equations m = 0
never occurred anywhere in the universe.
Well, the material ether was falsified experimentally in 1887.
But not a single CEM/EE equation was changed (corrected to eliminate
that innate assumption of the luminiferous material ether). None has
been changed to do it, to this day.
In CEM/EE, the situation continues to just be shrugged off.
E.g., the extraordinarily capable and highly recognized classical
electrodynamicist, Jackson, says it this way:
"Most classical electrodynamicists continue to adhere to the
notion that the EM force field exists as such in the vacuum, but do
admit that physically measurable quantities such as force somehow
involve the product of charge and field." [J. D. Jackson, Classical
Electrodynamics, Second Edition, Wiley, 1975, p. 249].
Now examine Jackson's statement from the standpoint of sheer
logic. Jackson admits that force requires the product (interaction of)
field and charge. Hence whenever we have force, we have the interaction
of field and charged mass.
Yet he has first stated that - nevertheless - most
electrodynamicists just accept the "notion" that force fields somehow
do exist in space devoid of charged matter.
So essentially we have the false premise or assumption by most
classical electrodynamicists that the "charged matter" situation
equals or is identical to the "situation without charged matter".
And that is a simple logical non sequitur. Any sophomore student
in symbolic logic can rigorously see it and express it with the proper
logic symbology.
But at least Jackson courageously points it out and admits that
the acceptance of the force field in massless space is just a "notion".
How many other EE profs and textbooks have done that same thing, and
admitted that it's just a notion? None that I'm aware of.
Feynman discussed this very well in his three volumes of sophomore physics. Specifically, he states:
".in dealing with force the tacit assumption is always made that
the force is equal to zero unless some physical body is present. One of
the most important characteristics of force is that it has a material
origin." [Richard P. Feynman, Robert B. Leighton, and Matthew Sands,
The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, Vol. 1,
1964, p. 12-2].
He also states:
".the existence of the positive charge, in some sense, distorts,
or creates a "condition" in space, so that when we put the negative
charge in, it feels a force. This potentiality for producing a force is
called an electric field." [Richard P. Feynman, Robert B. Leighton, and
Matthew Sands, The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Addison-Wesley,
Reading, MA, Vol. 1, 1964, p. 2-4].
One must note that, rigorously, the potentiality to do something
does not necessarily mean that it is done in a particular situation. A
man always has the potentiality for committing suicide, but in a
particular death rigged to look like suicide, the lawman must
investigate to see if it was really suicide or murder.
But Feynman admirably tells it like it is. The field is there
around the positive charge, but as just an "altered condition of
space". In general relativity, Feynman knew that any field in space has
energy density in space, and any change in energy density in space is a
curvature (or torsion) of that space. But in the CEM/EE model, there is
no curvature of space allowed in the model itself.
Feynman "cinched the saddle" when he stated:
"We may think of E(x, y, z, t) and B(x, y, z, t) as giving the
forces that would be experienced at the time t by a charge located at
(x, y, z), with the condition that placing the charge there did not
disturb the positions or motion of all the other charges responsible
for the fields." [ibid, vol. II, p. 1-3.]
There he clearly tells you that, only when the interacting charge is placed there does force exist upon it.
For anyone who cannot or will not see all that for himself, it will just be assumed away (as in Jackson's statement).
We are in fact discussing foundations of physics rather than
applied physics. The two things are not at all the same thing.
Best wishes,
Tom
|
|
|
|
|