Eric P. Dollard

[wyndbag]

It looks simple enough on the page.... some complex variables mixed in with some arithmetic. Why does my brain shut down when I see equations like that on the page?

I guess I will go back to playing in my sandbox with magnets....

[lamare]

Example showing two surfaces S1 and S2 that share the same bounding contour ∂S. However, S1 is pierced by conduction current, while S2 is pierced by displacement current.


Combining these results, the magnetic field is found using the integral form of Ampère's law with an arbitrary choice of contour provided the displacement current density term is added to the conduction current density (the Ampère-Maxwell equation):[5]





This equation says that the integral of the magnetic field B around a loop ∂S is equal to the integrated current J through any surface spanning the loop, plus the displacement current term ε0 ∂E / ∂t through the surface.

The problem with this equation is that it does not take into account that whatever current flows trough the contour MUST flow in a closed loop, because the flowing substance of choice, either "charge" or aether, cannot be destroyed nor created.

And something flowing in a closed loop is by definition rotation.

And thus magnetic induction MUST be a rotational phenomenon.

Q.E.D.

do you have a reference to that rotation definition? a PID circuit then would be considered rotation if it is that general.

What is very interesting in this regard is Stoke's theorem:

Vector calculus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The integral of the curl of a vector field over a surface in R^3 equals the line integral of the vector field over the closed curve bounding the surface.

More here:

Stokes' theorem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Two of the four Maxwell equations involve curls of 3-D vector fields and their differential and integral forms are related by the Kelvin–Stokes theorem. Caution must be taken to avoid cases with moving boundaries: the partial time derivatives are intended to exclude such cases. If moving boundaries are included, interchange of integration and differentiation introduces terms related to boundary motion not included in the results below:

Maxwell-Faraday equation Faraday's law of induction:


Ampère's law (with Maxwell's extension):

In other words: the electric and magnetic fields are defined as the curls of the time derivatives of one another. So, what would be the curl of the curl??

Vector calculus identities - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Curl of the curl


Here, ∇2 is the vector Laplacian operating on the vector field A.

Now we are getting somewhere:

Vector Laplacian - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An example of the usage of the vector Laplacian is the Navier-Stokes equations for a Newtonian incompressible flow:



where the term with the vector Laplacian of the velocity field represents the viscous stresses in the fluid.

Another example is the wave equation for the electric field that can be derived from the Maxwell equations in the absence of charges and currents:

So: curl cur E = u_0 eps_0 times second order time derivative of E.



Update:

And this connects very nicely to what C.K. Thornhill had to say on this:

http://etherphysics.net/CKT4.pdf

ABSTRACT The real space-time of Newtonian mechanics and the ether con- cept is contrasted with the imaginary space-time of the non-ether concept and relativity. In real space-time (x, y, z, ct) characteristic theory shows that Maxwell’s equations and sound waves in any uniform fluid at rest have identical wave surfaces. Moreover, without charge or current, Maxwell’s equations reduce to the same standard wave equation which governs such sound waves. This is not a general and invariant equation but it becomes so by Galilean transformation to any other reference-frame. So also do Maxwell’s equations which are, likewise, not general but unique to one reference-frame. The mistake of believing that Maxwell’s equations were invariant led to the Lorentz transformation and to relativity; and to the misinterpretation of the differential equation for the wave cone through any point as the quadratic differential form of a Riemannian metric in imaginary space-time (x, y, z, ict). Mathematics is then required to tolerate the same equation being transformed in different ways for different applications. Otherwise, relativity is untenable and recourse must then be made to real space-time, normal Galilean transformation and an ether with Maxwellian statistics and Planck’s energy distribution.

But let's not worry too much about the math. Math is like programming in C++. Both are very powerful languages with which one can easily shoot one's own foot, as is perfectly being demonstrated by main stream science, where the mathematical freak Lorentz transform has been turned into a kind of religious dogma that one is not supposed to question nor challenge, while experimental proof that Einstein's relativity theory is incorrect has already existed since 1834 when Wheatstone performed his experiment. Nobody bothered to repeat his experiment and his result were just done away as "an interesting approximation".

IMHO, our science should be based on the understanding of physical phenomena, an understanding that can only be obtained by performing experiments and analysing the results thereof. That does not mean each and everyone HAS to perform his own experiments all the time, though. One can learn a lot by watching videos of experiments performed by others, especially the ones that show results that are not expected by current theories. But it does mean that the theory one is working with should be capable of explaining experimentally obtained results.

As for the existence of propagation speeds in the order of pi/2 times c, there are three accounts of experimental results that observed these speeds, which current main stream theory cannot explain and which pull the bottom from underneath the whole Einsteinian relativity idea:
1. Charles Wheatstone (1834)
2. Nikola Tesla
3. Eric Dollard (system for transmission of telluric waves)

So, if we want to make scientific progress, we will have to do two things:
1. Formulate a theory that includes these fast propagating phenomena and with which we can engineer systems to utilize these phenomena.
2. Experimentally verify the theory.

And both go hand in hand...

[madhatter]

some more fun with math...
[((Pi/2) x C)/frequency] = Electrical length, ignoring propagation velocity factor.
(pi/2) x C = 471,238,898 m/s dielectric velocity
[471,238,898/f]/4 = (1/4 wavelength of f) meters for extra coil. taking this value and dividing by Pi^2/4 = wavelength of secondary coil in meters.

[madhatter]

I'm not sure if this has been covered anywhere, but for those wondering about the 1.57 times the speed of C and where it arises from here goes.

Pi/2 = 1.570796...etc. why Pi over 2? In trigonometric degrees of the ratio of Pi; 2 x pi = 360* and Pi = 180* so Pi/2=90* So 1.57 is 90* why is 90 degrees special? This is Multiplication by ⁻j = rotation by ⁻90⁰ or advance by one-quarter period. Incidentally it's also the radian of 90*.

The question becomes, is that the upper limit? as that 'rotation' removes the radiation resistance to the dielectric field. This is all touched on by Steinmetz in his notes on complex quantities.

Thought I'd share that.

[Aaron]

Eric Dollard

Oh on the other hand if you want this to be all about some guy standing on his soap box spouting whatever and everyone grovelling at his feet for more whatever then by all means just give me the word and I will not post in this thread and Eric can have all the cheerleaders dancing at his feet and the topic will be limited to erics understanding or lack there of.

Since Eric apparently wants to punish everyone else because I challenged his position just give me the word and I will not post in this thread any more if that is the way you want it. I seen enough to get the picture.

Feel free to disagree or argue your points but please do so without insulting those that happen to be interested in Eric's understanding.

Also, please notice that I called this thread "Eric P. Dollard".

[t-rex]

[casarc]

just a couple of thoughts from someone watching the thread.

@Kokomoj0

It was never my impression that the aether was a fluid.. but a gas.

Also, you didn't mention anything about the "tubes of force".. since the theory seems to be that these exist and are real then the "sail" is either the tube moving in the direction of the energy sideways (transverse) or lengthways (longitudinal) through the aether.

There has also been mention of these tubes of force being stressed.. sort of like a rubber hose.. with the longitudinal waves traveling along the tube of force terminating on a conductor and reflecting back along that tube of force to the originating source.

I can appreciate your bringing questions to the forum, however, it would be more helpful if when Eric is simply quoting Tesla, Faraday, Steinmetz and etc that you use them as the focus of your skepticism and say that they have no evidence rather than Eric who is simply relaying what they have said.

1.57 times the speed of light.. what does it look like. My thought is huh? 1.00000001 times the speed of light destroys most of modern physics doesn't it? And who cares what it looks like?

Altough I am not yet convinced that the speed of light has been broken here.. at least not in the coil. From my perspective it only shows that a different path through the coil is being utilized and the difference in path lengths accounts for the apparent speed difference. The transmission once energy has departed the coil is another story and I am looking forward to more observations from the experimenters in that regard.

My other thought is since most are interested in what is observed here, let's not get out the pitchforks for modern physics just yet. They are also presenting theory to fit what they observe. Whether their interpretation is correct or not can certainly be debated. However, eventually all observations will need to be accounted for in any theory that is actually "true".

And finally .. what if capacitance is does not approach infinity as the space between conductors is reduced infintesimally small but rather approaches zero point energy? And what if the aether is the quantum foam? Just a couple of thoughts from another interested idiot.

[Web000x]

No thanks, instead of snarking at me like Eric why dont you take the high road and rebutt my challenges. I laid it out extremely simple so any layman can understand, so take your best shot.

Did I sufficiently explain that this "Eric calls Electricity BOUND ETHER which is bounded by the wires." bought you nothing past the coil itself? I presume you understand.

If electricity is bound ether then sound is bound air fair enough?

Oh on the other hand if you want this to be all about some guy standing on his soap box spouting whatever and everyone grovelling at his feet for more whatever then by all means just give me the word and I will not post in this thread and Eric can have all the cheerleaders dancing at his feet and the topic will be limited to erics understanding or lack there of.

Since Eric apparently wants to punish everyone else because I challenged his position just give me the word and I will not post in this thread any more if that is the way you want it. I seen enough to get the picture.

I do see the arguments being presented by yourself as being valid to some extent. The only problem with your arguments that I have is that they are being done with words alone which is far from real science. In order to solve this problem, we must experiment. If I am to be labeled a fool for experimenting with phenomena that 'cannot work', so be it.

Please don't post here unless you can show video clips of your experiments that PROVE Eric Dollard and Nikola Tesla to be wrong.

Good Luck,

Dave

[Michael Kishline]

Kokomoj0

Oh on the other hand if you want this to be all about some guy standing on his soap box spouting whatever and everyone grovelling at his feet for more whatever then by all means just give me the word and I will not post in this thread and Eric can have all the cheerleaders dancing at his feet and the topic will be limited to erics understanding or lack there of.

Since Eric apparently wants to punish everyone else because I challenged his position just give me the word and I will not post in this thread any more if that is the way you want it. I seen enough to get the picture.

Koko, I trust that you are a man of your word, as you are well spoken.

I officially and unequivocally accept your offer to no longer post at this thread, and as a man of your word, I hold you to your offer.

Warmest Regards Mike

[Kokomoj0]

Eric calls Electricity BOUND ETHER which is bounded by the wires. So the longitudinal wave DOES have something to set up resonance against.

Eric said a lot of things, I only touched upon a few hilites

....and those wires what?

Stretch out invisibly to the receiver is that what you are trying to say?


Only actually BUILDING SOMETHING FOR EXPERIMENTATION will answer your questions. Only TROLLS claim to know all without experimenting to prove/disprove the theory in question.

If it cant be shown to work in theory building something will make me the laughing stock so I can enroll with the tpu tards.

Unfortunately, since you knew all of the answers to the universe WITHOUT EXPERIMENTING according to Eric's proposal,you will not get an answer to your questions. He said he will not be reading the forum anymore and has decided to use the forum for a "transmit only" situation with no more direct interaction. Any information can be mailed to him using the address found in the N6KPH Yahoo Group.

I dont blame him! When the going gets tough the tough get the hell out of dodge.

Kokomoj0, everybody here will be so happy with you for your great contributions to their understanding of electricity. Maybe we should rename the thread...

No thanks, instead of snarking at me like Eric why dont you take the high road and rebutt my challenges. I laid it out extremely simple so any layman can understand, so take your best shot.

Did I sufficiently explain that this "Eric calls Electricity BOUND ETHER which is bounded by the wires." bought you nothing past the coil itself? I presume you understand.

If electricity is bound ether then sound is bound air fair enough?

Oh on the other hand if you want this to be all about some guy standing on his soap box spouting whatever and everyone grovelling at his feet for more whatever then by all means just give me the word and I will not post in this thread and Eric can have all the cheerleaders dancing at his feet and the topic will be limited to erics understanding or lack there of.

Since Eric apparently wants to punish everyone else because I challenged his position just give me the word and I will not post in this thread any more if that is the way you want it. I seen enough to get the picture.

[Web000x]

@Lamare

The thing about sound (which is generally considered a longitudinal wave) is that it needs something to hit up against or a boundary condition to bounce back to set up resonance. It cannot be absorbed.

Eric calls Electricity BOUND ETHER which is bounded by the wires. So the longitudinal wave DOES have something to set up resonance against.

@Lamare

So what creates the axial boundary that would be required to form the tube like arrangement in space so this wave is capable of maintaining its full power at the receiver? To prevent it from simply dispersing in all directions from the source.

If the universe is gaseous and or something else that acts like a "fluid" and we are sending this presumably tight DC beam through space (Erics words SBARC clip) how do we maintain its boundaries to keep that beam tight for a property that wants to expand infinitely?

How do we create this supposed "sail" that slips though space, (Erics words 2007 clip) when we would expect that the media would tend to bunch up and cause big fat expanding crests like a smoke ring machine?

Only actually BUILDING SOMETHING FOR EXPERIMENTATION will answer your questions. Only TROLLS claim to know all without experimenting to prove/disprove the theory in question.

Anyway I do not see anything that has been shown in either thread that would take us anywhere this starship has not already been. I addressed this to you because history has shown that I have no reason to expect an answer from Eric.

Unfortunately, since you knew all of the answers to the universe WITHOUT EXPERIMENTING according to Eric's proposal,you will not get an answer to your questions. He said he will not be reading the forum anymore and has decided to use the forum for a "transmit only" situation with no more direct interaction. Any information can be mailed to him using the address found in the N6KPH Yahoo Group.

“They substitute word’s for reality then they talk about the words”, Nikola Tesla

Kokomoj0, everybody here will be so happy with you for your great contributions to their understanding of electricity. Maybe we should rename the thread...

[Kokomoj0]

@Lamare

The thing about sound (which is generally considered a longitudinal wave) is that it needs something to hit up against or a boundary condition to bounce back to set up resonance. It cannot be absorbed.

Without something to hit to cause it to bounce back or an open tube type boundary condition at f0 you cannot set up a standing wave resonance.

As we can see in the videos posted above that when longitudinal waves are produced in a medium the medium tends to bunch up getting physically fatter like a parachute then gets thinner and when it compresses and it is propelled axially in the direction of the force that created it in the case of a speaker cone for instance and this getting fatter and as soon as crests are created we know there is an associated quadrature. ultimately TEM (if it were electrical)

Here the wire physically creates the axial boundary forcing all compression to be in the same forward direction
Longitudinal waves in a spring in slow motion

However in a fluid (such as ether), this is not or would not be the case
Falconphysics Democast - Longitudinal Waves

So what creates the axial boundary that would be required to form the tube like arrangement in space so this wave is capable of maintaining its full power at the receiver? To prevent it from simply dispersing in all directions from the source.

If the universe is gaseous and or something else that acts like a "fluid" and we are sending this presumably tight DC beam through space (Erics words SBARC clip) how do we maintain its boundaries to keep that beam tight for a property that wants to expand infinitely?

How do we create this supposed "sail" that slips though space, (Erics words 2007 clip) when we would expect that the media would tend to bunch up and cause big fat expanding crests like a smoke ring machine?

What happened to the speed being directly related to mass and size in a given media? Is it massless? How so?

I dont see jerking the garden hose back and forth as a useable example of longitudinal waves because that is not what is happening in a longitudinal wave. When a speaker cone moves forward it causes bunching up or compression of the medium and propels the media forward. The total of the compressed forwardly driven media does not come back to the speaker, it continues on as a compression wave in the forward direction.

Simultaneously this motion causes a decrease in pressure behind the wave, the original compression wave is long gone, then the speaker cone moves backward and causes a sort of vaccuum or negative pressure if you will that sucks surrounding media (air) in toward the center and again forces another compression wave forward. Like the slinky example.

In the case of water you cannot compress it so it bunches up and forms a hill and moves forward

Making standing waves

The water has no place to go but up when a compression is attempted and no place to go but down on rarefraction. and again with styrofoam in a tube
Stationary longitudinal wave

Therefore Erics example showing the garden hose returning to its original position cannot happen but what was the front of the wave or the opposite side of the hose that Eric is holding to Eric if it hits something and bounces back, not the part that is in his hand as he demonstrated it.

Erics representation in that manner might work if the medium was steel or some other rigid and hard material, but not anything that resembles a fluid as I can see it.

It seems to me if we want to deal with ether then we need to consider it in the same light as transmitting being underwater. OR we would need an explanation why the ether in space would be and act any different than water?

Now Meyl is being beaten up severely and accused of academic fraud in germany for even teaching tesla material by bruhn and several other physicists who want his license pulled. I searched and did not see a response to Eric's theories or math, why isnt Eric helping Meyl out? Or showing both Meyl and Bruhn to be frauds? The best way to go down in history as da man or coyote whatever is to publically condemn bruhns work and then send him and these other professors your work so they can respond and get a good paper war going like Meyl did. Now if Eric comes out on top that is the way you go down in history as da man who got the job done. So why is he sitting on his hands and missing the only real opportunity he has to really get in there and show his stuff? He would be buried in money because we now need a way to transmit energy for the upcoming electric car undustry.

Now if someone were to try and tell me that tesla intended to drag or control lightning by creating a condition less than a strike and greater than no flow in an attempt to get a steady flow to ground to convert it to usable current and that the ground makes a reasonably lossless conductor over the whole planet sounds reasonable and I might even buy into that at some level. It comes under the KISS rule.

As far as I know Tesla did not try to violate or create any new laws of physics and his whole gig was about lightning and high voltage electricity. What would be so far out with the idea of tapping into the endless supply of static electric gradient of the atmosphere around the earth and then using a nearly lossless conductor (the earth) to distribute it?

Anyway I do not see anything that has been shown in either thread that would take us anywhere this starship has not already been. I addressed this to you because history has shown that I have no reason to expect an answer from Eric.

[nw7w7]

Mr Lewin

I have learned a ton from Mr. Lewin's videos ... he is a great teacher indeed
I do understand the importance of being able to demonstrate what your teaching and proving it real
However as madhatter pointed out ... some of the concepts most dear to the hearts of physicist and scientist of all walks ...
are from what we know so far ... possibly impossible to prove or disprove ....so where does that leave us
are they the mystics or are we ?

Thx for the post Kokomojo ... I haven't been through all of the Vibrations and Waves lectures Yet


Maybe with a few more weeks / months of study under my belt I will be ready to try and prove or disprove these concepts for myself. The math involved is complex but overall its not rocket science... I am getting there.

Dollards example of a garden hose makes no sense to me since the ether is not a rigid stick that if you push one end the other moves instantly.

The 1.57 difference is barely different than the speed of light, so how does this wave look?

I dont think he is implying that ether is like a rigid stick
I think he is simply trying to show that with the right manipulations that the ether has the ability form this Longitudinal component... thus traveling more efficiently than light through itself

What is instantly anyhow ... yet another term for time that is impossible
I don't think he is implying that either. Just that its faster

I could be way off though...
that's why I have been reading here for months and months without peeping a word ...Scared to sound like an idiot ....
Ooo Well at this point I really don't care ... I know plenty of idiots that think they are genius
I just want to learn

[Kokomoj0]

maybe it would do you some good to build a tree fort...
anyhow my purpose is not to argue on here ...it is to learn
and Yes I openly admitted that others have a much better understanding of the math involved pertaining to the forces at hand... however my hands on experience with what we call electricity is on a daily basis ... not in a lab ...
but in the field ...
the people here have helped immensely in furthering my understanding in this subject ...At this point I can really only contribute by saying THANK YOU


anyone can simply disagree or post stuff off wiki and call it contribution

here is a test that I did over 30 years ago.

See how the teacher teaches concepts then demonstrates that it is real.

Lec 17 | MIT 8.03 Vibrations and Waves, Fall 2004 - YouTube

[nw7w7]

Tree Forts?

maybe it would do you some good to build a tree fort...
anyhow my purpose is not to argue on here ...it is to learn
and Yes I openly admitted that others have a much better understanding of the math involved pertaining to the forces at hand... however my hands on experience with what we call electricity is on a daily basis ... not in a lab ...
but in the field ...
the people here have helped immensely in furthering my understanding in this subject ...At this point I can really only contribute by saying THANK YOU


anyone can simply disagree or post stuff off wiki and call it contribution