Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Theoretical and experimental progress on aether theory and Tesla's longitudinal waves

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Theoretical and experimental progress on aether theory and Tesla's longitudinal waves

    Hi guys,

    First of all wanted to share some recent experimental results into superluminal FTL signals aka Tesla's longitudinal wave. I finally managed to repeat Wheatstone's 1834 experiment with modern equipment by working with a mercury wetted relay in order to obtain extremely fast rise-times and an active, capacitively coupled probe. Turned out Dr. Steffen Kuehn also managed to transmit information trough a coaxial line with a velocity much faster than light, so now we have two independent measurements of superluminal signals:

    https://www.researchgate.net/post/Di...ativity_theory


    However, that does not yet gives us an antenna for tansmitting / receiving these longitudinal waves through the air rather than through the earth as Tesla did with is TMT. Biggest problem towards achieving that goal is to solve the problem of how to couple a coaxial feed into a longitudinal wave propagating along an antenna wire.

    When I experimented with a 4 turn coil wound around a piece of coax cable, in parallel with a trimmer capacitor, I was able to find a "hot spot", whereby the resonances in the system (the dips on the screen) would suddenly just shift, as if there were two possible wave propagation modes along the dipole and it would shift between the two. I made a screen capture of the measurement and underneath the video there is a link to a few photographs of this rather simple setup:

    https://youtu.be/CFEsklvbP-k

    The sound is very bad, but at around 2:30 in the video you can see what happened. I believe this is the trick to be able to couple a HF signal from a coaxial feed into either a longitudinal mode or a normal EM mode wave propagating along a piece of wire. Interesting and significant detail is that the 4 turn coil was measured to have a negative reactance at the frequencies I was working (70 cm band), which means the coil actually behaves like a capacitor on this frequency band, thus enabling capacitive coupling rather than inductive coupling, even though we are working with a coil.


    Finally, I have been working on a new physics aether theory for years now and have now mathematically proven that Maxwell's equations are incorrect, because they violate the fundamental theorem of vector calculus, the Helmholtz decomposition. Turns out Maxwell entangled a model for the medium, the aether, with the macroscopic Faraday law, thus destroying the fundamental symmetry dictated by the Helmholtz decompositon. And this not only led to Einstein's relativity, but also to the vector and scalar potential fields having not been uniquely defined. This left a hole upon which pretty much the complete "standard model" rests upon, as it is a "gauge theory":

    https://www.researchgate.net/publica...39;s_Equations

    Even though there are still some errors in this paper, I believe this theory will sooner or later lead to a revolution in physics, whereby it shall be recognized that Tesla was right after all:

    "According to the relativists, space has a tendency to curvature owing to an inherent property or presence of celestial bodies. Granting a semblance of reality to this fantastic idea, it is still self-contradictory. Every action is accompanied by an equivalent reaction and the effects of the latter are directly opposite to those of the former. Supposing that the bodies act upon the surrounding space causing curvature of the same, it appears to my simple mind that the curved spaces must react on the bodies and, producing the opposite effects, straighten out the curves. Since action and reaction are coexistent, it follows that the supposed curvature of space is entirely impossible.


    But even if it existed it would not explain the motions of the bodies as observed. Only the existence of a field of force can account for them and its assumption dispenses with space curvature. All literature on this subject is futile and destined to oblivion. So are also all attempts to explain the workings of the universe without recognizing the existence of the ether and the indispensable function it plays in the phenomena."


    You may also be interested in a more intuitive background article I wrore a couple of years ago, wherein I investigated where all of our theories come from and concluded we needed to take a close look at Maxwell's equations:

    http://www.tuks.nl/wiki/index.php/Ma...FabricOfNature



  • #2
    fantastic project you have been working on. just wondering, in your resonant circuit that you were changing the capacitance in, were you driving the circuit at 1/4 the wavelength (4 times the frequency) of it's natural resonance when you had it tuned for thge signal to propagate faster than light ?

    Comment


    • #3
      I aimed for half a wavelenght, calculating with a propagation speed of pi/2 times c, because the anteanna (used a piece of about 50 cm of coaxial cable for that) is floating and not connected to ground. So, you get the analog of an organ pipe with two open ends rather than an organ pipe with one closed and one open end.

      From the mercury wetted relay experiment, it seems that the longitudinal waves propagates a bit faster than that along a wire coated with a dielectric.

      Note that with Tesla's tower, there was also a substantial underground structure and Tesla's wave propagated subsurface, so in that case it was the underground structure that was the actual antenna.

      Have been working on trying to build an antenna for transmitting longitudinal waves through the air for almost a decade now and the biggest problem has been the question of how to couple a coaxial feedline to a current-less longitudinal surface wave propagating along an antenna.

      It seems a short coil is capable of doing just that, while it can be tuned with a trimmer cap as shown.

      I measured the coil itself as well and it had a negative reactance at the 70 cm band I was aiming for, which means at that band it behaves like a capacitor rather than an inductor and that seems to be the all important trick.


      This is a really interesting area of research and a nanoVNA offers a lot of bang for the buck. A couple of years ago, one could not have a VNA unde like ten grand. Now one can have a nanoVNA for than $150, which can be coupled to a PC.

      A handheld 70 cm transciever can be had for like $30 and a "satfinder" makes a cheap field strength meter that can be modified to be powered by two 9V batteries and that way one can test antenna's cheaply as well.

      Wavelength measurements can be done by making 3 antenna's. Hook up two of them to a transmitter using a "T" connector and you will get an interference pattern. Knots and nodes will be half a wavelength apart and you can find these with a third antenna coupled to a satfinder field strength meter.

      Last edited by lamare; 09-09-2020, 03:13 PM. Reason: typo

      Comment


      • #4
        For an idea about the subsurface antenna at Wardenclyffe see:

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by lamare View Post
          Hi guys,

          First of all wanted to share some recent experimental results into superluminal FTL signals aka Tesla's longitudinal wave. I finally managed to repeat Wheatstone's 1834 experiment with modern equipment by working with a mercury wetted relay in order to obtain extremely fast rise-times and an active, capacitively coupled probe. Turned out Dr. Steffen Kuehn also managed to transmit information trough a coaxial line with a velocity much faster than light, so now we have two independent measurements of superluminal signals:

          https://www.researchgate.net/post/Di...ativity_theory


          However, that does not yet gives us an antenna for tansmitting / receiving these longitudinal waves through the air rather than through the earth as Tesla did with is TMT. Biggest problem towards achieving that goal is to solve the problem of how to couple a coaxial feed into a longitudinal wave propagating along an antenna wire.

          When I experimented with a 4 turn coil wound around a piece of coax cable, in parallel with a trimmer capacitor, I was able to find a "hot spot", whereby the resonances in the system (the dips on the screen) would suddenly just shift, as if there were two possible wave propagation modes along the dipole and it would shift between the two. I made a screen capture of the measurement and underneath the video there is a link to a few photographs of this rather simple setup:

          https://youtu.be/CFEsklvbP-k

          The sound is very bad, but at around 2:30 in the video you can see what happened. I believe this is the trick to be able to couple a HF signal from a coaxial feed into either a longitudinal mode or a normal EM mode wave propagating along a piece of wire. Interesting and significant detail is that the 4 turn coil was measured to have a negative reactance at the frequencies I was working (70 cm band), which means the coil actually behaves like a capacitor on this frequency band, thus enabling capacitive coupling rather than inductive coupling, even though we are working with a coil.


          Finally, I have been working on a new physics aether theory for years now and have now mathematically proven that Maxwell's equations are incorrect, because they violate the fundamental theorem of vector calculus, the Helmholtz decomposition. Turns out Maxwell entangled a model for the medium, the aether, with the macroscopic Faraday law, thus destroying the fundamental symmetry dictated by the Helmholtz decompositon. And this not only led to Einstein's relativity, but also to the vector and scalar potential fields having not been uniquely defined. This left a hole upon which pretty much the complete "standard model" rests upon, as it is a "gauge theory":

          https://www.researchgate.net/publica...39;s_Equations

          Even though there are still some errors in this paper, I believe this theory will sooner or later lead to a revolution in physics, whereby it shall be recognized that Tesla was right after all:

          "According to the relativists, space has a tendency to curvature owing to an inherent property or presence of celestial bodies. Granting a semblance of reality to this fantastic idea, it is still self-contradictory. Every action is accompanied by an equivalent reaction and the effects of the latter are directly opposite to those of the former. Supposing that the bodies act upon the surrounding space causing curvature of the same, it appears to my simple mind that the curved spaces must react on the bodies and, producing the opposite effects, straighten out the curves. Since action and reaction are coexistent, it follows that the supposed curvature of space is entirely impossible.


          But even if it existed it would not explain the motions of the bodies as observed. Only the existence of a field of force can account for them and its assumption dispenses with space curvature. All literature on this subject is futile and destined to oblivion. So are also all attempts to explain the workings of the universe without recognizing the existence of the ether and the indispensable function it plays in the phenomena."


          You may also be interested in a more intuitive background article I wrore a couple of years ago, wherein I investigated where all of our theories come from and concluded we needed to take a close look at Maxwell's equations:

          http://www.tuks.nl/wiki/index.php/Ma...FabricOfNature

          What does this video mean? I don't know how well I can see this screen data. Does this prove something or is it fun experiments sharing? Or both? What can I do with it?

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by BroMikey View Post

            What does this video mean? I don't know how well I can see this screen data. Does this prove something or is it fun experiments sharing? Or both? What can I do with it?
            It's a screen recording of a frequency sweep with a VNA of an antenna consisting of a piece of coax cable with a 4 turn coil and a trimmer cap.

            The upper left of the screen shows how much power is reflected from the power sent to the antenna by the VNA as a function of frequency. At the points where you have a dip, that's where the antenna is in resonance and little power is reflected back to the VNA. So, that's where most power is radiated into space.

            Normally, these dips are stable. Sure, they vary a bit, but not like what you can see on this video. After some tuning of the cap, the dips (meaning resonances in the antenna) suddenly moved back and forth all over the place, which is very, very strange. Should not happen, as far as I can tell.

            So, after many, many attempts to try and build an antenna for longitudinal Tesla waves through air at higher frequencies, like 400 MHz or so, this was the first time I measured something strange and I think what happens is that the antenna flips back and forth between normal Hertzian mode and superluminal Tesla mode and that that is why the resonances shift around.

            If that is true, we have solved the problem of how to couple a coaxial feedline to an antenna designed for the transmission and reception of Tesla waves. And that would be an important step, enabling further experimentation with different antenna structures.



            Comment


            • #7
              sounds like you have figured out the coupling, and what you describe is just like commercial antenna tuners, only I have never seen one for that high of a frequency. highest frequency I have one for 55Mhz (6M band) for tuning antennas I have a grid dip meter, or a solid state version of one. I am sure the modern electronic analyzers are much more handy to use. if you are using the tesla waves, seems like you should be able to make radio contact past things like hills and such do you have anyone else near by that will help with the testing ? I am in the middle of california (currently under smoke) and have lots of radio hardware and I can also build antennas so that we have a matching set. I would suggest testing in the 420MHz to 430MHz range as it is a ham radio band without much activity in most places.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by spacecase0 View Post
                sounds like you have figured out the coupling, and what you describe is just like commercial antenna tuners, only I have never seen one for that high of a frequency. highest frequency I have one for 55Mhz (6M band) for tuning antennas I have a grid dip meter, or a solid state version of one. I am sure the modern electronic analyzers are much more handy to use. if you are using the tesla waves, seems like you should be able to make radio contact past things like hills and such do you have anyone else near by that will help with the testing ? I am in the middle of california (currently under smoke) and have lots of radio hardware and I can also build antennas so that we have a matching set. I would suggest testing in the 420MHz to 430MHz range as it is a ham radio band without much activity in most places.

                The key is indeed the coupling from the coaxial feed to the antenna structure. With this, I've only scratched the surface.

                What is most important is that I measured the coil I used to have a negative reactance at the "70 cm" ham band (actual longitudinal wavelength is about 1.6 times as long), which indicates it behaves like a capacitor at that frequency band. So, the coupling seems to occur because of parasitic capacitance between the coil windings and thus the coupling coil should be dimensioned such that it has a negative reactance at the frequency band you're interested in.

                It seems that this find is what enables us to experiment with various antenna structures in order to be able to recieve and transmit Tesla waves at higher frequency bands some day. It may very well be that this simple dipole I experimented with is actually capable of transmitting and receiving Tesla waves, but I haven't tested that yet. Most important to measure is the transmitted wavelength. If that's not about 1.5 times as long as the Hertzian wave, you're not tramsmitting a Tesla wave. You'd need three identical antenna's to test, two of which for transmission by connecting to one transmitter and the third one for receiving c.q. measuring field strength. Don't need a lot of space at the 70 cm band for that, something like 10 meters should do.

                I'm not that good with experimenting. Usually, it takes a long time to get started, so my progress goes very slowly. Hopefully others are inspired to play with this and make progress. Ultimate experiment would be to mount a longitudinal antenna on a big dish and perform a longitudinal moon bounce. In our country, a 25 meter radio telescope is available for experimentation:

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwinge...io_Observatory

                I have been dreaming about doing such an experiment for almost a decade now:

                Originally posted by lamare View Post
                Hi all,

                I'm sure many of you know about moon-bouncing in amateur radio:
                So far I have not been able to build a working antenna and I think that's because I never got the coupling right. Once someone can build a working antenna AND it can be confirmed Tesla waves reflect on a dish, such as a satellite dish, things could become very interesting.
                Last edited by lamare; 09-09-2020, 03:21 PM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by lamare View Post
                  N


                  The key is indeed the coupling from the coaxial feed to the antenna structure. With this, I've only scratched the surface.
                  Great work. Grid dip is a standard. Coupling needs to be more complex than 2 or 3 parts. You can do it. The question is do you have a long wave and how to tell. Please repeat for those of us long out of the loop thinking on this subject. very interesting so far.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by BroMikey View Post

                    Great work. Grid dip is a standard. Coupling needs to be more complex than 2 or 3 parts. You can do it. The question is do you have a long wave and how to tell. Please repeat for those of us long out of the loop thinking on this subject. very interesting so far.
                    How to tell is to connect 2 identical antenna's via a "T" connection to one transmitter, so you get an interference pattern whereby the knots and anti-knots are 1/2 wavelength apart. You can find these with a 3d antenna connected to a field strength meter.

                    I've used a "satfinder" like this for that purpose, which I modified by soldering leads for two 9V batteries in series to the board for power supply:

                    maxresdefault.jpg


                    I've used this to test a few antenna's I built in the past and that works well.

                    Essentially the same thing as Dollard shared a couple of years ago, but with a built-in amplifier allowing much higher frequencies and having a 70 Ohm input impedance:

                    Dollard_beer_can_field_meter.jpg

                    Comment


                    • #11

                      Re-post of what I posted in Ernst' thread:

                      Originally posted by Ernst View Post
                      Remove those terms and replace them with what?
                      We know that a changing magnetic field creates an electric field and vice versa. We use this principle in transformers. You cannot just throw that out of the equation.
                      This is a good point, but it's not actually true.

                      When you simply throw these terms out and don't replace them with anything else, you indeed loose the thight coupling between the time varying E and B fields. And it is said: "then you only have static fields", but the equations are exactly the same for fluid dynamics and the "static" Maxwell equations, so it's actually BS to state that these equations are static equations.

                      The idea that a magnetic field creates an electric field an vice versa is wrong. It comes from experiments with coils and slow varying currents. However, the actual relation between a magnetic field created by a coil and what happens at it's terminal is by *current*, not voltage. The induced voltage is a result of ohmic resistance of the coil wire and measuring equipment because a current flows. It is this explicit coupling in Maxwell's equations between the E and B field that causes only one resulting wave equation, even though there are three distinctly different wave phenomena:

                      1) the "near" field;
                      2) the "far" field;
                      3) longitudinal waves.

                      What happened is that Maxwell entangled Faraday's law with the medium model and that is the root of a lot of problems.

                      What you are really looking at with respect to the magnetic field created by a coil is an "irrotational vortex", strange as it may sound:

                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vortex...ional_vortices

                      And since Ampere's law without time dependent BS can be rewritten to:

                      [J] = curl [H],

                      We see that what we call "(spatial) current density" actually represents the vorticity ω, apart from a single constant e, the value for elemental charge. This way, all units of measurement make sense and match perfectly to the fluid dynamics domain, and we can actually understand what current IS and why Tesla's wave does NOT have "current".

                      However, within a(n irrotational) vortex, you need a force to get the fluid to move in circles. This force is caused by differences in pressure, a pressure gradient. This relates to the electric field by means of a gradient in the scalar potential Phi. So, an electric field is there as well, but it follows from the physics of the vortex and is NOT a fundamental relation whereby the E and B fields are always at a 90 degree angle as forced by the equation curl E = -dB/dt.

                      In other words: removing the time dependent terms from Maxwell leaves you with a fluid dynamics model for the medium, whereby the E/B relations associated with the presence of a magnetic field follow from vortex physics. This way, Tesla's longitudinal wave is simply the analogy of a sound wave, while the other two wave phenomena are also quite simple.

                      The "near" field is a "transverse" surface wave, which does not radiate itself and is akin to a "water" surface wave, involving both rotational movements as well as longitudinal ones, as shown in this picture:

                      WaterWaves.gif

                      Elmore has shown that this wave can be guided along a wire and can be used to make a very low loss, very wideband communication system:
                      http://www.tuks.nl/pdf/Patents/Elmor...0Conductor.pdf



                      The "far" field consists of vortex rings, in the case of radio waves these are expanding vortex rings, which is not hard to see from this picture showing the radiation pattern of a Hertzian dipole:

                      ElectroMagneticRadiationFromOscillatingDipole.png



                      In the case of "particles" and "photons" these rings are stable and do not expand. A number of these vortex rings can be "sticked" together to form "particles", which finally solves that "wave particle duality" mystery:

                      dualtorus_big.gif


                      Maxwell showed that he could derive the speed of light from the elasticity and density of the ether (the solid part). This has been "translated" into the electric permittivity and magnetic permeability of "the vacuum". Being decoupled from the ether it had to be the same everywhere and for everyone and that led to Relativity and the other madness. Going back to Maxwell's original work, one would immediately understand that there is no reason to assume an equal density of the ether throughout the universe and that variations in this density can easily explain gravitational lensing among other observed phenomena.
                      Permittivity can be equated to the mass density of the ether.
                      Permeability can be equated to the viscosity of the ether.

                      Both are not universal constants, hence no fixed speed of light.

                      I think we both are familiar with the work of Koen van Vlaenderen and how he derives two longitudinal wave equations from Maxwell's equations, one electromagnetic and one purely electric. Although I, and many more capable scientists have not been able to point out errors in Koen's work, it leads to things as magnetic potential and thus magnetic monopoles, things I am not willing to accept. The other thing is that he replaces the original Ampere's force law with Whittaker’s force law which is not based on the same ether model as the other equations.
                      Maxwell started out with a model of the ether and he shows that all his equations follow from this model, and thus form a consistent unit.
                      Yep, I know Koen's work. I was intrigued by the Helmholtz decomposition and noted that neither the scalar nor the magnetic potential have been uniquely defined. After quite some puzzling, I found that the Helmholtz decomposition is actually containted/hidden within the vector LaPlace operator, the second spatial derivative. All I did was take the definition for the vector LaPlace operator and labeled the terms in that equation, which is the fundamental theorem of vector calculus. Just as fundamental as Pythagoras' theorem. And from that fundamental theorem it follows that curl E = 0. So, that way one can mathematically prove that Maxwell is incorrect, because dB/dt is not the same as zero and therefore Maxwell's model is actually mathematically inconsistent. One cannot get away with violating fundamental mathematical theorems forever. This is like having Pythagoras:

                      a^2 + b^2 = c^2

                      and Maxwell writes:

                      a^2 + b^2 = c^2 + db/dt,

                      which is simply plain WRONG.

                      My work is based upon Paul Stowe's and we describe the ether as a fluid, which results in a model whereby all quantities are expressed in just three fundamental ones: mass, length and time.


                      I remember having read about the electron as a harmonic oscillator but I didn't quite get it at that time. Can you link to some papers/videos/websites describing that idea?
                      It is included in my paper, but the idea comes from Paul Stowe:

                      https://www.researchgate.net/publica...39;s_Equations

                      In eq 16, I took Stowe's eq 25:

                      https://vixra.org/pdf/1310.0237v1.pdf

                      The important thing with this is that this way, the units of measurement around the Coulomb force map perfectly with those used within the fluid dynamics domain and it leads to an actual understanding of what charge IS. However, it does lead to a problem, namely that in our model charge is no longer polarized. There are no negative charges, which means that either our model is incorrect or that the attractive force measured with "static" charged objects is not actually caused by charge itself, but either the result of standing longitudinal waves (since all elektrons oscillate at the same frequency) or is the result of magnetic forces since electrons do have a magnetic field as well.

                      Note that the solution F=0 in my paper is incorrect, because if your force field is zero, your derivatives are also zero. I found the correct solution, but have not yet written that all down, partly because it may be patentable for application in simulation software. Have not decided yet whether I want to apply for a patent before publishing or not.


                      In a nutshell, our model starts with only two hypothesis to which we stick:

                      1) The ether behaves like a fluid and should therefore be described as such.
                      2) There is only one ether and therefore all forces of nature *must* propagate through that single medium.

                      Comment


                      • #12

                        Originally posted by Ernst View Post
                        Yes, there is a lot of work that has been done here.
                        I'm a bit unsure how to proceed here because I want to focus on Tesla's theories and I see a number of points where your (Lamare) theory deviates from Tesla's.
                        Let's continue this discussion here.

                        You actually sum it up quite nicely in these two points:

                        " 1) The ether behaves like a fluid and should therefore be described as such.
                        2) There is only one ether and therefore all forces of nature *must* propagate through that single medium."


                        Both Maxwell and Tesla would have a problem with this. (and consequently, you have a problem with their theories).
                        I'm not aware of anyone who sticks to this, except Paul Stowe. To me it's rather strange that everyone seems to agree that the aether behaves like a fluid, yet no one seems to simply describe it as such.

                        The first problem with considering it as a possibility to have forces propagating trough vacuum without actually propagating through the medium shows itself with the famous Michelson-Morley experiment. Because gravity was considered as a force that was separate from the EM domain, it was considered that the Earth revolving around the Sun would necessarily induce turbulence in the aether and that should be measurable. When a null result was obtained, it was concluded that the aether does not exist. The logical conclusion, however, is that the aether simply moves along with the Earth and vice versa. The Earth is moved by the eather like a cork floating in a river. And gravity does not actually exist as a separate force that somehow magically propagates through the vacuum without having a need for a medium to propagate that force.

                        The same reasoning goes for the so-called "strong" and "weak" nuclear forces. Once again, no one has a clue about how these forces are supposed to propagate through the medium and thus we went further and further from the original concept of the aether, namely that all space is assumed to be filled by some kind of substance that behaves like a gas/fluid.

                        This is an excellent video by David LaPoint, who shows in the lab that the magnetic field plays a dominant role in shaping the Universe and can also account for these "strong" and "weak" nuclear forces:



                        Highly recommend this video, because it makes quite a lot of interesting phenomena visible in the lab, using plastic bowls with a lot of holes in them wherein magnets are placed.



                        This is also why I started a separate thread, so you can expand on your theory without being bothered with my comments which are based on my work trying to recover Tesla's theories.
                        I think I have been able to recover quite a bit of that, maybe 90%-ish, but there are still bits and pieces that I have not been able to reconstruct. For that reason, I am also looking at the work of others (such as Koen) and will look at your work as well. Hoping that looking at things from a different perspective will bring new insights.
                        My aim has not been to recover Tesla's theories, but to find a theory that has the potential to form a basis for that "theory of everything" we need. And I found that in Paul Stowe's work. Even though his work is a bit hard to follow, I found it absolutely amazing that he has been able to express all quantities in terms of three fundamental ones: mass, length and time. One of the things he has been able to do, is to predict the Pioneer anomaly with just one formula. This illustrates that planetary bodies move along with the aether and vice versa, while artificial objects launched into space are actually slowed down by that aether wind which could not be detected by M-M.

                        To me, that simple and fundamental basis offers a different perspective, which also brought me many new insights. It is very powerfull, because analogies can be used and that allows one to vizualise in many ways what actually happens in the aether, as illustrated by the pictures shared in my previous post.



                        That will take some time, for sure.
                        Some quick points though....
                        If you look at Maxwell's original work (1864, “A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field”) and only rewrite his 20 equations in a modern form, you'll get this:
                        1. J tot =J cond + ∂ D/∂t
                        2. ∇ A=μH
                        3. ∇H =J tot
                        4. E=μv H−∂ A /∂t−∇ Φ
                        5. D=εE
                        6. E=R J cond
                        7. ∇⋅D= ρ
                        8. ∇⋅J +∂ ρ/∂t=0
                        You'll see your "[J] = curl [H]," as equation 3. I think the time variance that you refer to is introduced in eq. 1 as the displacement current?
                        Yes, and here we seem to agree that introducing the concept of "charge" should not come just out of the blue, like you said:

                        Originally posted by Ernst View Post

                        We all know his equations but very few know how he arrived at these. According to his model, the ether consists of 4 components:
                        1 - there is a fluid medium upon which ...
                        2 - a force acts
                        These are the first two components and you can read in Tesla's work that he also believed in this part of the model.
                        Out of this interaction, 2 more components emerge:
                        3 - ether whirls
                        4 - tiny particles that move between these whirls.
                        These ether whirls behave like a solid. Their axes of rotation are what makes up magnetic field lines.
                        Although Tesla also mentions these whirls he does not say they behave like a solid, nor say anything that would relate them to magnetism.
                        Finally, there are these tiny particles that cause electric effects.
                        And this is where Tesla and Maxwell go in different directions.
                        According to Maxwell, these particles are electrically charged. That does not provide us with a description of what electricity is. It is explaining electricity with electricity which is indeed what modern science is also doing. This is a dead-end, this could never explain all electrical phenomena because you are just assuming that at a fundamental level electric charge suddenly appears.
                        Tesla's model is much more helpful in this respect. According to this, these particles form a gaseous medium that creates electric effects.
                        Notice the difference! These particles are not charged but they can create an electric charge in 'matter' (most likely referring to those ether whirls).
                        Where I object to is the introduction of "particles" that move in between the whirls. From what I understand from Maxwell, these were introduced in order to solve a perceived problem with friction between the magnetic vortices which he assumed to fill all space. In a background article I wrote a couple of years ago, I quoted Malcolm Longair:

                        http://www.tuks.nl/wiki/index.php/Ma...FabricOfNature

                        Maxwell began with a model in which all space is filled with vortex tubes. There is, however, an immediate mechanical problem. Friction between neighbouring vortices would lead to their disruption. Maxwell adopted the practical engineering solution of inserting ‘idle wheels’, or ‘ball–bearings’, between the vortices so that they could all rotate in the same direction without friction. Maxwell's published picture of the vortices, represented by an array of rotating hexagons, is shown in figure 2.
                        Maxwell_vortex_sponge.jpg


                        He then identified the idle wheels with electric particles which, if they were free to move, would carry an electric current as in a conductor. In insulators, including free space, they would not be free to move through the distribution of vortex tubes and so could not carry an electric current. I have no doubt that this rather extreme example of the technique of working by analogy was a contributory cause to ‘a feeling of discomfort, and often even of mistrust,…’ to which Poincar alluded when French mathematical physicists first encountered the works of Maxwell.


                        Remarkably, this mechanical model for the aether could account for all known phenomena of electromagnetism. As an example of induction, consider the effect of embedding a second wire in the magnetic field of a wire carrying a current I. If the current is steady, there is no change in the current in the second wire. If, however, the current changes, a rotational impulse is communicated through the intervening idle wheels and vortices and a reverse current is induced in the second wire.


                        Part III of the paper contains the flash of genius which led to the discovery of the complete set of Maxwell's equations. He now considered how insulators store electrical energy. He made the assumption that, in insulators, the idle wheels, or electric particles, can be displaced from their ‘fixed’ equilibrium positions by the action of an electric field. He then attributed the electrostatic energy in the medium to the elastic potential energy associated with the displacement of the electric particles. In his subsequent paper of 1865, he refers to this key innovation as electric elasticity.

                        I'm not very familiar with Tesla's theories, but within our theory there is also the idea that the aether itself probably consists out of some kind of elemental entities that Paul used in the most basic part of his model. However, because all particles we know of show that wave-particle duality, these fundamental entities cannot be actual particles as we know them. Further, because with the fluid dynamics model we use to describe the dynamics of the medium we work with the continuum approximation and the only way to interact with the medium we have is by means of electromagnetic phenomena, we cannot know the properties of the constituents of the medium.

                        So, we can think of the aether as if consisting of some kind of elemental "particle", our model cannot reach down to that level of accuracy. All we can say is that there is a lower limit to the applicability of the model, because when the scale becomes small enough, one can no longer consider the medium as a continuum.


                        You say:

                        "The actual relation between a magnetic field created by a coil and what happens at it's terminal is by *current*, not voltage. The induced voltage is a result of ohmic resistance of the coil wire and measuring equipment because a current flows."

                        An easy experiment comes to mind: Replace the copper secondary of a transformer with zinc (higher resistance, non-magnetic) wire and you should get a higher voltage. Am I correct?
                        I don't think so. The devil is in the details.

                        The flow of ether is not one and the same thing as a flow of electrons through a wire. When you take an electromagnet and connect it to a battery, at the moment you make contact, it's the aether that moves first in the shape of two guided surface waves that propagate along the surface of your wire. The one related to current is that guided surface wave Elmore described, which actually propagates with the speed of light along an unshielded conductor rather than at 0.95% or so of the speed of light:

                        http://www.tuks.nl/pdf/Patents/Elmor...0Conductor.pdf

                        It is this surface wave that forms the interface between the aether (and electrons) that's enclosed within your coil wire and the aether in the space surrounding your coil wire and that is the mechanism wherby energy is exchanged with the aether in the space around your wire in the shape of rotational movements, magnetic energy.

                        By the time maximum current is reached, no energy is exchanged anymore between the current you measure and the aether and at that point all energy you put in to keep the current going is converted into heat because of ohmic resistances. At that point, the magnetic field around your coil has become an irrotational vortex, for which by defintion the curl of the magnetic field is zero. So, even though you have a steady-state magnetic (ring) vortex around and through the axis of your coil, the curl of the magnetic field is zero and therefore it's current density is zero as well. And that is why the magnetic field of a permanent magnet does not induce a current in a wire wound around it.

                        Note that "(displacement) current" is not the same thing as "(aether) flow". Current is essentially the turbulence that may or may not occur when the aether flows and is one and the same thing as "vorticity" in fluid dynamics:

                        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vorticity

                        In continuum mechanics, vorticity is a pseudovector field that describes the local spinning motion of a continuum near some point (the tendency of something to rotate), as would be seen by an observer located at that point and traveling along with the flow.

                        The way I see it, is that energy can be exchanged between a current-carrying wire and a magnetic field as long as turbulence is present, which is a kind of friction.

                        It is this mechanism that causes the relation between magnetic flux and the time derivative of the current trough the coil wire. So the time dependent part follows from the physics of the vortex and this turbulence, this friction, this "(displacement) current density". And for an ideal coil, the voltage across the terminals is determined by the resistance (or impedance) of the load.


                        However, as I stated before, the electric field also plays a role in vortex physics, because that is the force that's needed to force the aether to flow in circles. It's this required centripetal force that's related to the electric field by means of a gradient in the scalar potential which is akin to pressure.


                        What it eventually comes down to is that Faraday's law holds in practice for all phenomena involving a magnetic field because of the physics of the vortex, but NOT because of the physics of the medium itself.

                        And at the end of the day, Maxwell entangled his medium model with Faraday's law in such a way that ANY changing electric field is considered to necessarily induce a changing magnetic field, even though it is clear that for Tesla's longitudinal wave we do have a changing (oscillating) electric field but NO rotation of the aether and therefore NO magnetic field and thus Maxwell is found to be incorrrect. A (changing) magnetic field DOES induce a (changing) electric field (the centripetal force it requires to be present), but NOT the other way around.

                        A (changing) electric field does NOT necessarily imply a (changing) magnetic field.

                        To put it another way: virtually all electromagnetic phenomena can be accurately described in practice by Faraday's law except for one: Tesla's superluminal wave.

                        And that is why Faraday's law has to go from Maxwell's equations c.q. the medium model and as stated before, it can be easily proven that curl E must be equal to zero because of the fundamental theorem of vector calculus.

                        This means that Faraday's law needs to be rewritten as well, even though in practice it holds well. The 90 degree angle between the E and B field is correct, but the E field has to remain curl free, so at the fundamental level Faraday's law does not hold.


                        Recently, we've obtained two independent measurements of superluminal signals, which prove that some other phenomenon that is NOT a classic electromagnetic wave exists. While my measurement can be improved upon, I was told that Dr. Kuehn's measurement is very hard to dismiss:

                        https://www.researchgate.net/post/Di...ativity_theory
                        Attached Files
                        Last edited by lamare; 09-08-2020, 09:47 AM.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Repost of reply on Ernst' thread:


                          Originally posted by Ernst View Post
                          Thanks! I had come to the same conclusion. Allow me some time, though, to understand your theory.
                          I had a preliminary look at your response in your thread and noticed that we have come to the same conclusion regarding the M-M experiment, as well as on some other points.
                          (I think you would enjoy my latest book )
                          But discussing points where we have different views is obviously more interesting.
                          Yesterday I had a first look at your paper and many questions came to mind. Now I re-read your post above and found:

                          "Note that the solution F=0 in my paper is incorrect,"

                          That was definitely one of the points where you lost me.

                          PM-ed you the solution I found. Still needs to be worked out, not of much use to a bigger audience now.


                          You also write that your theory cannot explain electric polarity. That is a real pity because that means that your theory is incomplete at best, AND that is the exact thing that I am most interested in.
                          Well, that is the big question. For most experiments c.q. applications the polarity of charge is irrelevant, because those are all about differentials in potentials (voltage), which goes for pretty much all electronics as well as Tesla technology and wave mechanics. So, for electrical engineering and radio applications, there is no problem at all as far as I can tell.

                          The idea that charge itself is polarized, comes from experiments with "statically charged" spheres, etc. However, if we are correct and the force/field emitted by electrons is indeed such a Tesla wave at a frequency of about 175 GHz for the electron, then in principle this can be validated by experiment. Problem for now is that we can't measure those Tesla waves, especially not at higher frequencies, but that may change. See my experiment with a short coil wound around a short piece of coaxial cable.

                          Also, we know that electrons, THE most important "charge carrier", also emit a magnetic field, so there is a) room for interpretation and b) a possibility for experimental verification one way or the other.

                          To me, the fact that the computed frequency of the electron seems to match observed cosmic microwave background, apart from red shift, suggests we may very well be correct, while current interpretation is wrong. But time will have to tell.


                          Tesla says that electric charge is created in a particle through interaction with "the medium". By "the medium" he refers to a gaseous medium immersed in the fluid ether. But I have not been able to find what exactly that interaction would look like. So that is what I am currently after.
                          I am working from the idea that "particles" consist of a number of vortex rings stitched together in various configurations, such as shown in the picture I shared. The most basic particle would be the electron and the working hypothesis at this moment is that an electron can be considered to be a single vortex ring aka toroidal ring:

                          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toroidal_ring_model

                          With a toroid, there's two axis of rotation, namely the big R and the small r:

                          RingVortex.png

                          And it is the combination of these two axis of rotation which give rise to two possible polarizations, which would thus be magnetic in nature and not electric. So, we do have polarization, but it's just in the other half of the Helmholtz decomposition. The rotational, incompressible magnetic half rather than the longitudinal, compressible (di)electric half.


                          Stowe wrote some on this, but it needs further thought and refinement:

                          http://www.tuks.nl/wiki/index.php/Ma...AQ#StoweBasics


                          This term e, becomes 2P/r in a torroidal topology (predominantly consisting of vortex rings {this is an assumption based on the spinor topology of superstring theories and consistent with the earlier atomic vortex theories}), A=4π2Rr and S=2π2Rr2 {R is the large toroidal radius and r the poloidal axis} and represents an intrinsic fluctuation of the quantized particulate momentum in the limiting volume element.

                          So, from my point of view, the "elemental" particle is the single vortex ring, whereby the mass "caught" by the vortex is equal to the mass of the particle and the intereaction between a particle and the medium can be fully described by the physics of the vortex. Now besides the rotational (magnetic) part, it seems that such a vortex ring also oscillates longitudinally, it rythmically contracts and expands and thus emits the analogy of a soundwave in the aether.

                          A further interesting detail with respect to a vortex ring is that it's direction of propagation is always perpendicular with respect to the large axis R. This can be seen in a rather interesting yet simple experiment in a swimming pool:



                          A steady state vortex ring is known to propagate at a constant speed along its axis of symmetry, which undoubtedly has implications with respect to the relation between the propagation direction and the E and B fields emitted by electrons and other particles:

                          https://www.ams.org/journals/tran/19...-0946444-X.pdf

                          There are bits and pieces here and there but so far no clear description, and it is possible that Tesla didn't even have a clear picture of this neither.
                          This is the best I have found so far:

                          "Now, precisely what the ether surrounding the molecules is, wherein it differs from ether in general, can only be conjectured. It cannot differ in density, ether being incompressible; it must, therefore, be under some strain or in motion, and the latter is the most probable."

                          This is from 1891, and the problem here is that this is just before he came to realize that electricity is a gaseous medium:

                          "But he must remain in doubt as to whether the effects observed are due wholly to the molecules, or atoms, of the gas which chemical analysis discloses to us, or whether there enters into play another medium of a gaseous nature, comprising atoms, or molecules, immersed in a fluid pervading the space. Such a medium, surely must exist,..."
                          With the idea that particles and molecules consist out of vortex rings, one comes to a layered model, whereby the model for the medium itself forms the basic medium.

                          It is possible to consider a secondary medium level on top of that, which could be equated to a "vortex sponge". Some of Stowe's calculated constants have to do with that idea (a/o Planck's constant, IIRC). He assumes that secondary layer to fill all space (as far as I understand), while I think that secondary layer is limited to spaces wherein "matter" or particles are present. So, in my view Maxwell's "vortex sponge" equates to "space filled with particles", but that's open for discussion.​


                          Comment


                          • #14
                            have you read the ideas from the guy that was suppose to have inspired tesla ? Carl Frederick Krafft, the book is titled "Ether and its Vortices" if you don't have a copy I can email it to you, just PM me with your email address. And while I am sharing, next book has lots of similarities of what you are talking about, although the math is not as detailed as what I see here, it might put together some details http://www.rexresearch.com/smith/newsci.htm And last idea that I see that might help you is about voltage. There are there are 2 separate things that show up as voltage (a static and an induced), but they are not fundamentally the same. I have experimentally verified this is true. and it seems odd, but you can have very large fields that are opposite that have clear effects on things despite the total voltage being apparently zero... http://www.rexresearch.com/hooper/hooper1.htm it is fantastic insight into the field forces.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              A short one on charge polarity;
                              You say:
                              Well, that is the big question. For most experiments c.q. applications the polarity of charge is irrelevant, because those are all about differentials in potentials (voltage), which goes for pretty much all electronics as well as Tesla technology and wave mechanics. So, for electrical engineering and radio applications, there is no problem at all as far as I can tell.
                              I would say in organic chemistry, for example, it does make a difference. And as for experiments:
                              Two highly charged (let's say positive) conductors, one slightly higher than the other, do they attract or repel?

                              Ernst.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X