Eric P. Dollard

[dR-Green]

Do you recognize it when you see it?

The standing presumed principles have gaping holes in them, just look at my previous posts, feel free to answer the questions I pose or respond.

We can start from the beginning. How does an electric charge that (is moving) flows not have a current and hence not have a magnetic field intrinsic to that flowing current?

I recognise it when I see it. If it's interesting enough and I deem it worthy of investigation, then I do so, other people's claims isn't enough because anyone can claim anything. I heard Tesla's claims, and I saw Eric's 1988 video, so I wanted to find out for myself if there was any truth to it. That was a simple matter of spending some time building a coil according to the instructions in said video. It worked as was claimed and demonstrated, and on that basis I concluded that it's worth investigating even further. If I hadn't built it then I would still be wondering whether any of it was true or not, all this would just be interesting talk but ultimately having no foundation.

It makes no difference if someone is sick and you can't borrow their machine when you have your own. The only thing preventing you from having what they have is you. This is just information and you have the same as everyone else has got, so you're not at any disadvantage. So it makes no difference what "someone else" is doing, they can't be blamed for your lack of a device to test and measure.

I can't answer your questions because I'm not an electrical engineer. I just do things and then see what happens as direct effect. I'm not actually all that interested in having equations and explanations in advance, it's of no use to me without any practical knowledge to put it into context. What happens as a result of doing it is what happens, enough said. No need for an equation to be able to kick a ball and watch it bounce off your foot.

[Martin_L]

garretm4's deleted posts in "Peter, where is Eric Dollard!"

Hi, I had pm'ed Garrett (garrettm4) if he would agree to make his posts available again. He didn't oppose against this idea, so I looked for a quick & easy way to do this for now & put his posts I could grasp in one html document and printed them into a pdf.
Some pages are missing still, so I show up with an update later.

As the post sequence no. and the original url & page no. of the thread "Peter, whatever happened to Eric Dollard ..." are displayed, it helps you to orientate in the flow of discussion.

Martin.

[Kokomoj0]

I recognise it when I see it. If it's interesting enough and I deem it worthy of investigation, then I do so, other people's claims isn't enough because anyone can claim anything. I heard Tesla's claims, and I saw Eric's 1988 video, so I wanted to find out for myself if there was any truth to it. That was a simple matter of spending some time building a coil according to the instructions in said video. It worked as was claimed and demonstrated, and on that basis I concluded that it's worth investigating even further. If I hadn't built it then I would still be wondering whether any of it was true or not, all this would just be interesting talk but ultimately having no foundation.

It makes no difference if someone is sick and you can't borrow their machine when you have your own. The only thing preventing you from having what they have is you. This is just information and you have the same as everyone else has got, so you're not at any disadvantage. So it makes no difference what "someone else" is doing, they can't be blamed for your lack of a device to test and measure.

I can't answer your questions because I'm not an electrical engineer. I just do things and then see what happens as direct effect. I'm not actually all that interested in having equations and explanations in advance, it's of no use to me without any practical knowledge to put it into context. What happens as a result of doing it is what happens, enough said. No need for an equation to be able to kick a ball and watch it bounce off your foot.

well and you hit the bullseye on one of the points. I was trying to make.

Everyone is getting all this math thrown at ya and marginal practical hands on style information. Key points are simply not forth coming. Everyone here is drowning in theory, and how many of the people here even know where to start to test these attributes.

Thats right you cannot answer these questions but dont feel bad because the acclaimed engineers of the group arent doing so well either.

For me, I pick out pivotal points that would be required to properly put everything in perspective. without that knowledge the puzzle does not fit right. I dont think its unreasonable to presume that if someone is going to show us how its done and they presumably have lots of experience in these matters that one would expect that they would be capable of properly answering the questions asked of them, or at least commenting on them.

Me, well I am just a big dummy who cant seem to figger out what counterspace is, and how you can have movement of a charge without current, hence without the intrinsic magnetic field, and worse what in the world we need 1/x except for summing resistors in parallel and caps in series etc. and the author did not tell us what that advantage is and now is silent on the matter.

So I am left to draw my own conclusions that they are pretty useless. What other choice do I have? I cant find a use for it and the author aint talking. If it had real value the author would have no problems going right to the merits and substance of the matter of exactly why it has to be used and why the dummy einsteiners methods are for well dummies and wont work.

That and when its all said and done most coil designs you can wipe your butt with the paper they are written on. What coil has anyone here designed that was right on and they did not need to tweak it?

So what good is splitting every mathematical hair that one can dredge up when in the end its a game of horse shoes and close enough is good enough because you have to tweak it all in anyway, so just make it a couple percent larger!

Hell I tuned up and transmitted off of a picket fence just to prove it can be done and never touched a calculator to do it either.

Like I said earlier I simply disagree about some very specific points that are being promoted here and hoping that someone has the goods to refute my points and show me to be wrong in a "substantive" way.

and incidently I do not recall tesla having anything to do with a log-periodic dipole array

In telecommunication, a log-periodic antenna (LP, also known as a log-periodic array or log periodic beam antenna/aerial) is a broadband, multi-element, directional, narrow-beam antenna that has impedance and radiation characteristics that are regularly repetitive as a logarithmic function of the excitation frequency. The individual components are often dipoles, as in a log-periodic dipole array (LPDA). Log-periodic antennas are designed to be self-similar and are thus also fractal antenna arrays. The log periodic antenna was invented by Dwight E. Isbell, Raymond DuHamel and variants by Paul Mayes. The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign had patented the Isbell and Mayes-Carrel antennas and licensed the design as a package exclusively to JFD electronics in New York. Lawsuits regarding the antenna patent which the UI Foundation lost, evolved into the Blonder-Tongue doctrine. This precedent governs patent litigation. [1]

log-periodic dipole



log-periodic dipole

Oh and my compliments go out to Lamare for taking a shot at it but frankly I think he has some pretty tough theoretical holes that need to be plugged.

[dR-Green]

Everyone is getting all this math thrown at ya and marginal practical hands on style information. Key points are simply not forth coming. Everyone here is drowning in theory, and how many of the people here even know where to start to test these attributes.

Maybe, but you have been advised to build and experiment on a number of occasions. The simple explanation as far as my opinion is concerned being that if we both work on and experiment with the same technology, then we will both develop the same intuitive understanding, so there is no need to waste time writing explaining practical things. You will already know what I'm talking about. That is universally accessible knowledge.

Thats right you cannot answer these questions but dont feel bad

I don't

Me, well I am just a big dummy who cant seem to figger out what counterspace is, and how you can have movement of a charge without current, hence without the intrinsic magnetic field, and worse what in the world we need 1/x except for summing resistors in parallel and caps in series etc. and the author did not tell us what that advantage is and now is silent on the matter.

What do you suppose would happen if you built something without understanding counterspace in advance? And how might you do it differently if you did understand it? I don't understand it because I haven't been paying much attention to that stuff up to this point, yet the thing works. In fact it was designed and built before Eric turned up here at all, without any of this new information, without equations for calculating coil dimensions and wire lengths, only "two layers per turn and matched primary and secondary copper weight" from an old video to go by. And it still worked. So I'm afraid I fail to see where it all breaks down here. There is more than enough information. Kind of takes the coil building and testing fun out of it Nearly

Anyway the theories of Viktor Schauberger may help explain, as there are always two "opposing" forces acting in nature, thesis, anti-thesis, with synthesis being the combination of both. May help explain, probably from a completely different perspective.

Sacred Living Geometry -Enlightened Environmental Theories of Viktor Schauberger

[lamare]

I'm stumped when it comes to flying. With big enough capacitances and receiving plates it's possible to get some power without any physical connection (and unmatched coils), but the power drops off very quickly using the grounded side as coil output. So I have no idea how he intended to do that. This video shows someone achieving flight, but we all know that if he moved further away from the coil then it would come crashing down to the ground.

Worlds's 1st wireless Flight of A Tesla Coil powered helicopter(no batteries) - YouTube

And I assume this thing is powered with the radiated (wasted) field (not to mention the construction is wrong but ignoring that). Then seeing as Tesla could bias the ground currents vs radiation depending on how it was set up, it doesn't look like that one transmitter would have been capable of doing everything he proposed all at the same time. Unless I'm missing something very important

WOW! Awesome video!

I just LOVE this flying saucer thing.

These are the websites mentioned, which appear to be very interesting:

The Energy Lie (Suppression of Technological Evolution) - Home
Antigravity-The_Reality

These are the guys YouTube channels:
JOHNROMANIWASZKO - YouTube
AURUMSOLISTECHNOLOGY - YouTube


All right. So, the question is: what is the difference between a Tesla coil and a Tesla transmitter? They look very much alike....


Let's take a look at what Eric had to say on these systems. First, the TMT:


Tuks DrippingPedia : Principles Of Wireless Power

The Tesla transponder (T.M.T.) can be divided into FIVE distinct components:

1 ) EARTH
2 ) REFLECTING CAPACITANCE
3 ) ENERGY TRANSFORMER
4 ) COUPLING TRANSFORMER
5 ) RESONANT COIL

The interconnection of these five components is shown by figure (5).

In this arrangement energy is continuously bounced back and forth between the earth and the reflecting capacitance at a rate tuned to a natural rate of the earth. This standing wave of energy pulsation is maintained by the energy transformer which delivers electric energy to this standing wave via the coupling transformer. A certain percentage of this energy in the standing wave is refracted thru the earth-transformer reflection point and into the earth. This refracted energy establishes another standing wave in the earth. Hence, a pair of standing waves are produced which communicate energy thru the refraction. The oscillating resonant coil, tuned to an earth harmonic, establishes a virtual ground at one terminal of the coupling transformer thus rendering the earth terminal active from the standpoint relative to the electric conditions surrounding the apparatus. The coil terminal deginated as the reflecting capacitance appears active and the earth terminal appears to be neutral, whereas from the earth's standpoint the earth terminal is active. Thus, the reason for the popular notion that the reflecting capacitance is the output of the apparatus. In light of the virtual ground theory this is obviously not correct.

Now the Tesla coil:

http://www.tuks.nl/pdf/Eric_Dollard_Document_Collection/Condensed_Intro_Tesla_Coils_OCR.pdf

The complete Tesla transformer is shown in Fig. 3. The electrical length is 360 degrees at the fundamental of oscillation.
The earth connection must have negligible transient impedance, a star radial system preferred. The earth terminal is the M.M.F. counterpart to the E.M.F. capacity terminal. Like the capacity terminal, it is quite possible that the magnetic gradient and force will increase as the wave penetrates the earth. Hence the 5 sections of the Tesla transformer:

1. Earth
2. Primary system/ power supply
3. Secondary wave coil
4. Tesla or magnification coil
5. Dielectric antenna

It should be born in mind that Tesla designed this system for the transmission of electric waves.

Note two distinct differences between the two systems:

1) In the Tesla coil, the primary and secondary are connected in series, while in the Tesla transmitter, the primary is isolated electrically from the secondary.


2) In the Tesla coil, the top capacitor is supposed to be a "Dielectric antenna", while in the transmitter it is supposed to be a "reflecting capacitance".


So, the TMT is designed to transmit power into the "ground" connection of the secondary, while the Tesla coil actually is a transmitter for radio waves.

Depending on the frequency it is operated on in relation to the geometry of the extra coil, it can emit Herzian waves as well as longitudinal dielectric waves. The earth or a ground plane is supposed to reflect the waves propagating towards the ground(plane). With the proper dimensions, the extra coil behaves as a longitudinal waveguide, which radiates along the length direction of the coil. Addition of a sphere or other structure with the proper dimensions/geometry to the top of the waveguide-coil can be used to influence the radiation pattern of the wave guide.

Note that Eric writes that "a star radial system" is preferred for proper operation of the Tesla coil. And that happens to be exactly what is used as a "ground plane" with quarter wave antenna's for radio transmitters aka "ground plane antennas":

Ground-plane Antennas for 144, 222 and 440 MHz : KJ4PWP

Here we have a ground plane antenna mostly used for 144, 222, 440 Mhz. Its one of the simplest antennas to make. New hams can build this with little to no experience in antenna building.

A picture, similar to the one at the above site:

In other words: for the proper operation of the Tesla coil as a transmitter, you need a proper ground plane, which may be constructed in the exact same manner as you would construct a standard ground plane antenna. You just bury it into the ground.


Break. More to follow later...

[lamare]

Are you sure he's using the water as a conductor between transmitter and receiver, because I can't see any wires going into the water, and he explains the water as being the "return path to earth". That is, he is describing it in conventional terms. He's not saying the energy is coming in from the earth/water, he is saying it's returning to earth through the water?? Like a normal circuit. And in this case, why is his terminal capacitance sphere so high in the air? If it was working properly then he could make it a lot neater than that, no need to have a big mast on the boat sticking up in the air.

If he was "cheating" then he could use something like an AV plug and employ the water as a virtual ground, not needing any connection between transmitter and receiver. This way the water would be the "return" path like he describes.

Bill Alek has some photographs of Meyl's demonstration at Teslatech 2007:

SmartLINK

High-res versions of these pics:
Tesla Tech 2007

http://intalek.com/Index/Projects/TeslaTech2007/Photos/KonstantinMeyl/DSC00343a.jpg

http://intalek.com/Index/Projects/TeslaTech2007/Photos/KonstantinMeyl/DSC00347a.jpg

Some close-up pictures of Meyl's coil can be found here:
Tesla's Scalar Waves Still Beaming On!

Note the white print on the pcb: "INDEL" and then "Flachspule", which is German for flat coil. And note that the text is positioned across from where some components are soldered on the pcb and thatn next to "INDEL" we have a support rod for the antenna.

If you look very carefully, you can see that the outer terminal of the spiral coil is connected to a connector at the left of the pcb.

When you look to the other side of the pcb, the primary, you can see from the position of the supports and some component soldering stuff that the connections to the primary are at the side opposit to where it says "INDEL".


All right.

Now when you go to the high res picture of the boat, you see two blue wires which are connected to the primary of the coil and the motor. This is where the power is available.

The outer connection of the spiral coil goes to the black wire. That either goes to the metal of the motor and thus makes a connection to the water trough the propeller, which would then be made out of metal or otherwise makes a connection with the water. One cannot judge that from the picture.


However, on the picture with the transmitter, we clearly see a blue wire coming of the outer winding of the secondary leading somewhere. Where else could it possibly lead but to the water???


Another picture of Meyl's coils here:

Konstantin Meyl -- Tesla Scalar Wave Theory

And his schematic:

All this CLEARLY shows that there is a "ground" connection in Meyls system.

Also see his documentation pdf: http://www.tuks.nl/pdf/Reference_Mat...20of%20ele.pdf


Update: images, etc. now also at my site: Directory contents of /pdf/Reference_Material/Meyl/

More info, including Meyl's book here: Index of /docs/meyl/english

[wyndbag]

The Victor S. reference is very fascinating! Another one of those outside the box guys.

[Kokomoj0]

All right.

Now when you go to the high res picture of the boat, you see two blue wires which are connected to the primary of the coil and the motor. This is where the power is available.

The outer connection of the spiral coil goes to the black wire. That either goes to the metal of the motor and thus makes a connection to the water trough the propeller, which would then be made out of metal or otherwise makes a connection with the water. One cannot judge that from the picture.


And his schematic:

All this CLEARLY shows that there is a "ground" connection in Meyls system.

So then to be blunt, the only complaint that I can see that Eric could possibly have about the Meyl's "Tinker Toy" as he put it, is that Meyl is using a sine wave instead of an impulse. Yet it works or seems to work.

That makes sense that he would have one terminal in the water creating a ground plane, in fact he mentions the need for a ground plane in one of his talks and if I remember right tesla talked about transmitting power anywhere including through space, no earth connection there or in an air plane.

Which makes this a bit more intriguing and takes us beyond the limitations of telluric.

the really nice thing about Meyls version is that there is no mess. When you etch a board the spacing is precise.

Meyls board seems to meet what I would expect for requirements to build the 2 coil system and I guess I was wrong, its a 5 turn primary not a 4 turn.

Thanks for getting us back on topic.

[lamare]

So then to be blunt, the only complaint that I can see that Eric could possibly have about the Meyl's "Tinker Toy" as he put it, is that Meyl is using a sine wave instead of an impulse. Yet it works or seems to work.

That makes sense that he would have one terminal in the water creating a ground plane, in fact he mentions the need for a ground plane in one of his talks and if I remember right tesla talked about transmitting power anywhere including through space, no earth connection there or in an air plane.

Which makes this a bit more intriguing and takes us beyond the limitations of telluric.

the really nice thing about Meyls version is that there is no mess. When you etch a board the spacing is precise.

Meyls board seems to meet what I would expect for requirements to build gbthe 2 coil system and I guess I was wrong, its a 5 turn primary not a 4 turn.

Thanks for getting us back on topic.

The toy as such is pretty nice to start with. However, it does NOT transmit longitudinal dielectric waves, which he calls scalar waves.

So, his theories and explanations are full of holes, even though his derivation of his version of the Maxwell equations appears to be all right and his explanation of the existence of vortexes in the ether is a step in the right direction.

Other than this demonstration and these two points, the guy has managed to put out an awful lot of disinformation.

[lamare]

I'm stumped when it comes to flying. With big enough capacitances and receiving plates it's possible to get some power without any physical connection (and unmatched coils), but the power drops off very quickly using the grounded side as coil output. So I have no idea how he intended to do that. This video shows someone achieving flight, but we all know that if he moved further away from the coil then it would come crashing down to the ground.

I don't have the time to really dig into this, and certainly not now, but if you look at what HAARP does and how HF waves can propagate very far by bouncing in between different layers in the higher atmosphere, it may be possible to use some property of the upper atmosphere to prevent the energy you put up from radiating away into space.

At some point, Tesla thought about putting balloons high up in the air and use those as transmitting antenna to transmit power trough a conducting layer high up in the air.

So, there are some directions in which to think, but they are very complicated.

This article may give some clues:
Tesla's Big Mistake?

[Aaron]

recovering your posts

Garrett,

If you are ok with it, I can recover your posts in the original thread. Nobody is starting off with a perfect understanding as it will inevitably evolve and I think most people know this without a disclaimer. You can always post some disclaimer in your signature line if you feel it is necessary.

Anyway, let me know. Thanks.

[Martin_L]

Garretm4's posts back ...

Hi Aaron, thanks for your offer!

Martin.

[Armagdn03]

Originally Posted by Kokomoj0 View Post

We can start from the beginning. How does an electric charge that (is moving) flows not have a current and hence not have a magnetic field intrinsic to that flowing current?

This is one way I have looked at the problem. You are imagining a charge as a point particle moving relative to a set point in space, thus causing a magnetic field. This is option one.

The second option is tied to the nature of the supposed "point charge" which is actually field gradient radially extending from a the dimensionless point or center. If you take any two arbitrary "shells" around the point, you will notice a potential difference on each surface area, giving you the tools to calculate field gradients characteristics. If you change the intensity of the potential gradient (pointing radially towards the center) you change the entire gradient causing a re-ordering of the surroundings, but there is no movement of the center relative to our chosen reference frame (the arbitrary point in space we are referencing).

You could have a metal sphere charged to 64 volts with a diameter of 1 meter. 2 meters away you will see an intensity of 16v. Here are your two arbitrary reference points to measure field intensity, and the potential of the center of the sphere. If you change the center to 4volts, you will see an intensity of 1volt at 2 meters. You have changed the potential gradient radiating away from a point source, but you have not changed the position of this "macroscopic charge" relative to its environment.

[lamare]

The magnetic field is just a special case of the electric field, because the electric field is nothing other than the pressure of the aether, a fluid-like medium, which can obviously rotate, which is what magnetism is.

Sure but a charge is only a charge, a scalar potential that sits there like a pretty princess doing nothing.

As soon as that charge does something (moves or is directed to move) there is that pesky intrinsic magnetic field that sets up right with it as a result of flow, current.

What is a charge?
What is a scalar potential?
What is a potential anyway?

Let me first share a bit of my background, so you have an idea where I come from. I hold a Masters degree in Electrical Engineering from the University of Twente, where I graduated in 1996. I just looked at my profile and I became a member of this forum in october 2008. I wrote my article at Peswiki in 2010. So, it took me at least 4 years to make some sense of various free energy devices that I studied. I went trough numerous documents and video material, from a.o. John Bedini / Tom Bearden, Joseph Newmann, Edwin Gray, Konstantin Meyl, Claus Turtur, Hans Jenny, Stan Meyer, Ron Stiffler and of course Nikola Tesla and Eric Dollard.

I almost forgot Nassim Haramein. You should definitely watch his "string theory" vid: Naaim Haramein 21/45 - YouTube - It clearly shows the importance of "rotation" in the real world....

Anyway, basically my world turned upside down and inside out. And what most of all got me where I am now is the willingness to seek answers to the questions I encountered. What really blew me away was the little demonstration by Bedini where he lit a neon bulb, holding one contact in his hand and the other at the insulating part of a battery being charged by his monopole motor. What put me on the right track was the presentation by Tom Bearden about "don't kill the dipole" with his references to zero-point energy, because it made sense at the time and one could tell this guy had a decent background in mathematics and physics and he had a point. Even though I don't like much of his other work, I still like his "don't kill the dipole" concept.

Over the years, I found out that main stream physics basically is like a Swiss cheese. It is really *full* of holes that have been covered up. Two important experiments that baffle any engineer are these:

MIT Physics Demo -- Dissectible Capacitor - YouTube
Leedskalnin Perpetual Motion Holder Demonstrated With One Coil - YouTube

But let's quote Paul Stowe on some of the holes one encounters:

Tuks DrippingPedia : Stowe Foundation Unification Physics

Many of apparent inconsistencies that exist in our current understanding of physics have results from a basic lack of understanding of what are called fields. These fields, electric, magnetic, gravitational...etc, have been the nemesis of physicists since the birth of modern science, and continues unresolved by quantum mechanics. A classical example of this is the problem of an electron interacting with it's own field. This case results in the equations of quantum mechanics diverging to infinity. To overcome this problem, Bethe (1) introduced the process of ignoring the higher order terms that result from taking these equations to their limit of zero distance, in what is now a common practice called renormalization.

These field problems result in class of entities called virtual, existing only to balance and explain interactions. These entities can (and do) violate accepted physical laws. This is deemed acceptable since they are assumed to exist temporarily at time intervals shorter than the Heisenberg's uncertainty limit. It has been known for some time that such virtual entities necessitate the existence of energy in this virtual realm (Field), giving rise to the concept of quantum zero point energy.

As a result of this presentation I will propose the elimination of both the need for renormalization and any such virtual fields. This will be accomplished by replacing the virtual field with a real physical media within which we define elemental particles (which more precisely should be called structures) and the resultant forces which act between them.

To name just two more of these holes: we got the "strong" and "weak" nuclear forces, we got "black matter".

And in Electrical Engineering we have our "near" and "far" fields, as I posted some time ago:

And actually, in the area just around a transmitter antenna the fields have different characteristics than further away from an antenna. Remember what I said about the possibility of having transversal waves at the border of two media? How about the border between antenna and the air?

This distinction is known as "near field" versus "far field":

Near and far field - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The "far-field", which extends from about two wavelengths distance from the antenna to infinity, is the region in which the field acts as "normal" electromagnetic radiation. The power of this radiation decreases as the square of distance from the antenna, and absorption of the radiation has no effect on the transmitter. By contrast, the "near-field", which is inside about one wavelength distance from the antenna, is a region in which there are strong inductive and capacitative effects from the currents and charges in the antenna, which do not behave like far-field radiation. These effects decrease in power far more quickly with distance, than does the far-field radiation power.

[...]

So, in essence, Tesla did not realise that there was such a thing as a near field and a far field. And actually, modern science literally makes "things" known as "virtual photons" up in order to hide the fact that they don't have the slightest idea what they are really talking about:

In the quantum view of electromagnetic interactions, far field effects are manifestations of real photons, while near field effects are due to a mixture of real and virtual photons. Virtual photons composing near-field fluctuations and signals, have effects which are far shorter range than do real photons.

Yes, that's what it says. Near field effects are due to a mixture of something real and something completely made up aka "virtual", which is literally another word for "imaginary" or "not real".

And with Einstein's relativity theory, they even managed to explain gravity as the result of space being curved. I guess that must also be due to virtual space-o-tons or something.


All right. Now back to moving charges.

The properties associated with "charge" come from the observation of real world "things", just like "gravity" and "magnetism". These are all considered to be separate "forces" and "fields" that describe seemingly unrelated properties of physical "things" we call "particles". Now one of the most important experiments, if not THE most important, is the well known double slit experiment:

Double-slit experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The double-slit experiment, sometimes called Young's experiment, is a demonstration that matter and energy can display characteristics of both waves and particles, and demonstrates the fundamentally probabilistic nature of quantum mechanical phenomena.

And this led to the well established Wave–particle duality principle:

Wave–particle duality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wave–particle duality postulates that all particles exhibit both wave and particle properties.

Through the work of Max Planck, Albert Einstein, Louis de Broglie, Arthur Compton, Niels Bohr, and many others, current scientific theory holds that all particles also have a wave nature (and vice versa). This phenomenon has been verified not only for elementary particles, but also for compound particles like atoms and even molecules.

So now we got ourselves a nice catch-22:

The properties associated with "particles", most notably "charge" and "magnetic momentum", are the same properties that are required for electro-magnetic waves to exist.

In other words: a charge supposedly is an electromagnetic wave caused by the movements of charges, which are electromagnetic waves, which are caused by the movements of charges, which of course are also electromagnetic waves caused by the movements of charges, ......

As far as I know, there is only one way to get out of this mess and that is to conclude that there must be a deeper cause for electromagnetic waves to exist. There must be a medium capable of sustaining electromagnetic waves consisting of something that does NOT consist out of "particles". And since it ust be capable of sustaining EM waves, it must be capable of moving.

And that is what we call the aether.

William H. Cantrell, Ph.D. made a very nice argument for the existence of the aether:

A Dissident View of Relativity Theory by William H. Cantrell, Ph.D.

Given that the nothingness of a perfect absolute vacuum is bestowed with the physical properties of a permittivity, e_0 = 8.854 pF/m, a permeability, mu_0 = 4 pi x 10-7 H/m, and a characteristic impedance of 377 ohms, is the concept of an aether really that outlandish?

Now to answer your question:

No, you cannot have a moving charge without creating a magnetic field, because any real, physical charge is an electromagnetic wave, which by definition has electric as well as magnetic properties.

But that does not mean that the eather itself cannot flow without causing magnetic fields while moving. Just like water and air can move without causing vortexes or rotational movements.

[Kokomoj0]

This is one way I have looked at the problem. You are imagining a charge as a point particle moving relative to a set point in space, thus causing a magnetic field. This is option one.

The second option is tied to the nature of the supposed "point charge" which is actually field gradient radially extending from a the dimensionless point or center. If you take any two arbitrary "shells" around the point, you will notice a potential difference on each surface area, giving you the tools to calculate field gradients characteristics. If you change the intensity of the potential gradient (pointing radially towards the center) you change the entire gradient causing a re-ordering of the surroundings, but there is no movement of the center relative to our chosen reference frame (the arbitrary point in space we are referencing).

You could have a metal sphere charged to 64 volts with a diameter of 1 meter. 2 meters away you will see an intensity of 16v. Here are your two arbitrary reference points to measure field intensity, and the potential of the center of the sphere. If you change the center to 4volts, you will see an intensity of 1volt at 2 meters. You have changed the potential gradient radiating away from a point source, but you have not changed the position of this "macroscopic charge" relative to its environment.

Fine but the point I am trying to make here is that causing a gradient shift or modulating the intensity of the gradient is a change and any change produces flow and any flow produces a magnetic field regardless of the medium. Can it be any other way? I cant imagine it being any other way.