On Aug 8, 12:21*pm, Uncle Al wrote:

* *1) Maxwell's Equations.

They are clearly wrong. Provide proof of displacement current and
Maxwell induction please!

* *2) First World power grids: generation, dsitribution, use.

All Developed by Tesla without use of Maxwell's equations. He did it
wiith "models" and a new "point of view". His professor "proved" to
him that it was imposable to build an electric motor that did not have
a commutator. Obviously that professor was as big an idiot as the
ones pretending to be knowledgable who are posting here. Plus ca
change.

* *3) "Metod kraevykh voln v fizicheskoi teorii difraktsii" by Pyotr
Ufimtsev then stealth.

Sorry I use my brain to think not to store useless databases like
languages I don't speak.

* *4) Maxwell's equations are covariant right out of the box.

Which means what? Are the form in which Maxwell's equations are
usually written causal? Sorry dumbass, they are not! They only show
that the right side of the equations EQUALS the left side. The right
side does NOT "cause" the left side or vice versa.

You know "Unc." unless you start to learn to think, you are never
going to amount to **** in science. A Handbook is filled with huge
amounts of data just like your photographic memory, and similarly
nobody ever saw a handbook develop any new theories on its own without
help.

You think simply repeating pat bumper sticker slogans over and over is
some kind of argument or debate? Just how ignorant are you?

snip rest of "Unc. Al's" unthinking nonsense.

Oh yeah.
Idiot!

On Aug 8, 1:20*pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
*"Benj" ...

5. Finally we must observe that the E field induced by changing
currents in Faraday Induction is NOT the same E field found in
electrostatic Coulomb attraction. It has different properties and
force directions.

Could you give some details?

To blindly exchange these two E fields in equations
is clearly nonsense. A few researchers have made this point for a long
time.

Do you remember the names?

Of course I do. Start with P.W. Bridgeman "the logic of modern
physics" 1928, then move on to "New horizons in Electric Magnetic and
Gravitational Field Theory" by W. J. Hooper, and finally get the
icing on the mathematical cake from Oleg Jefimenko "Causality,
Electromagnetic Induction and Gravitation".

But are you sure you'd really like to understand what I'm talking
about? Most of the replies here are by people whose idea of "research"
is to dig out their freshman class notes and look up and repeat what
the professor told them was "true". If faith isn't spoon-fed to them
they can't deal with it. You need to remember that although the
persons referenced above are (were) full professors, it seems they
"went bad" after they got tenure, becoming insane "cranks" who started
publishing ideas that did not have the stamp of approval from
establishment faith-based physics. So, like me, they are Ignorant,
uneducated, and insane, and it would be MUCH easier for you to join
the braying crowd here and simply note that there is nothing that this
bunch of cranks could possibly say that might change your already made-
up mind. No doubt they are the most "debunked" men in science. And
you certainly don't need to read any of their books to know that they
are full of ****. Just ask Uncle Al. He remembers EVERYTHING! Do you
want your career to go down the drain with theirs? Best you keep the
faith and stick to "approved" explanations for things. Wikipedia is
always a good authority with which to start.

Benj
the troll

On Aug 8, 2:29*pm, " wrote:

I've had quite enough "Benj Bullcrap". *Now its your call.

Harry C.

Then why don't you simply shut your arrogant pie hole and quit reading
this thread?

Do I detect just a tiny bit of doubt that just maybe there is
something wrong with the emperor's new clothes? Shame on you! True
believers never have ANY doubts! Please go repeat Maxwell's equations
100 times as penance!

Moron. Oh wait! I'm sorry, Bigoted arrogant moron.

On Aug 8, 8:43*pm, "Sue..." wrote:

Run a "brute force" simulation and learn the truth.http://www.research.ibm.com/grape/grape_ewald.htm

Shame on you Sue. You seemed at first to be smarter than the rest
here. Lessee, Simulations with delta functions, imaginary force
numbers and discrete Fourier transforms in a WINE chip. Boy, that
sure sounds like a description of "reality" to me!

Moron.

So please. Can give me the exact coordinates of the molecular
particles in the magnet and wire I'm using to produce induction? Maybe
then I can use your "math" to get an answer and I'll believe that
your referenced piece is of any significance to this discussion. You
are no better than Al, with bumper sticker slogans to replace real
debate. I take it you are working hard for Obama in the coming
campaign. Garbage in = Garbage out.

My guess is that you have no idea what a WINE chip is or how to build
one. And that means you haven't a clue as to the problems with making
discrete Fourier transforms fit reality. (We won't even talk about
delta functions and reality)

And here I though you might be the one here who could get by without a
slap from the cluefish. Obviously I was mistaken.

Idiot.

You do understand that USENET is a world-wide public forum, right?
What is your purpose in making yourself look like moron for all to
see? I really don't understand this urge in apparently reasonably
intelligent persons to make one's self appear as an drooling idiot in
public.

On Aug 8, 8:27*pm, Benj wrote:
On Aug 8, 2:29*pm, " wrote:

I've had quite enough "Benj Bullcrap". *Now its your call.

Harry C.

Then why don't you simply shut your arrogant pie hole and quit reading
this thread?

Do I detect just a tiny bit of doubt that just maybe there is
something wrong with the emperor's new clothes? *Shame on you! *True
believers never have ANY doubts! *Please go repeat Maxwell's equations
100 times as penance!

Moron. *Oh wait! I'm sorry, *Bigoted arrogant moron.

I put forth the same question I did the other day - what was the last
electrodynamics textbook you studied?

On Aug 9, 12:47 am, Benj wrote:
On Aug 8, 8:43 pm, "Sue..." wrote:

Run a "brute force" simulation and learn the truth.

http://www.research.ibm.com/grape/grape_ewald.htm

Shame on you Sue. You seemed at first to be smarter than the rest
here. Lessee, Simulations with delta functions, imaginary force
numbers and discrete Fourier transforms in a WINE chip. Boy, that
sure sounds like a description of "reality" to me!

What things SOUND like to YOU is of no concern to
the advancement of science. The same web site
has numerous examples where the simulation
achieves a high correlation with real problems
in molecular dynamics and astrophysics.



Moron.

plonk pending


So please. Can give me the exact coordinates of the molecular
particles in the magnet and wire I'm using to produce induction?

Yes. Those are intermediate variables in the Ewald method.

Maybe
then I can use your "math" to get an answer and I'll believe that
your referenced piece is of any significance to this discussion. You
are no better than Al, with bumper sticker slogans to replace real
debate. I take it you are working hard for Obama in the coming
campaign. Garbage in = Garbage out.


International courtesy prohibits my involvement in such
affairs but he seems a lot smarter than the last person
the Americans hired for the job. But then so is the
village idiot.

My guess is that you have no idea what a WINE chip is or how to build
one. And that means you haven't a clue as to the problems with making
discrete Fourier transforms fit reality. (We won't even talk about
delta functions and reality)

And here I though you might be the one here who could get by without a
slap from the cluefish. Obviously I was mistaken.

Idiot.

plonk

Sue...

On Aug 9, 1:29*am, Eric Gisse wrote:

Moron. *Oh wait! I'm sorry, *Bigoted arrogant moron.

I put forth the same question I did the other day - what was the last
electrodynamics textbook you studied?

Eric, you know you can buy a course in reading comprehension that will
greatly improve your skills in that department. I've been listing
electrodynamic references, you "debunkers" have been listing nothing
but baseless charges and accusations that border on libel.

What are we doing here? Having a contest in who has the most
impressive library? OK. Lets make it real then. What was the last
electrodynamics textbook you PURCHASED (your own money is a
requirement here) and when?

Here's a hint Eric: We are not having a contest here about who has the
most abstruse books, nor who has taken the most advanced courses, or
who has the highest degrees or employment titles. We are having a
debate about IDEAS. If you and the other morons would like to join the
debate then you'll actually have to get down and dirty and start
discussing the things that are RELEVANT to those ideas. I'm sorry,
but "proof by assertion" only shows the person to be egotistical and
arrogant. "Proof by reputation" is only evidence that you stopped
doing any real work years ago, and an ad hominem attack, only
demonstrates that clearly you have nothing of value to add to the
subject in question.

I put the same question to you I put to Sue. Do you really enjoy
making yourself look like a fool in a public forum?

On Aug 9, 6:05*am, "Sue..." wrote:
On Aug 9, 12:47 am, Benj wrote:

Shame on you Sue. You seemed at first to be smarter than the rest
here. *Lessee, *Simulations with delta functions, imaginary force
numbers and discrete Fourier transforms in a WINE chip. *Boy, that
sure sounds like a description of "reality" to me!

What things *SOUND like to YOU is of no concern to
the advancement of science. *The same web site
has numerous examples where the simulation
achieves a high correlation with real problems
in molecular dynamics and astrophysics.

The question dearie is not if mathematics *approximates* reality but
rather if mathematics IS reality. Please tell me again where one
finds those Dirac Delta functions in nature? Point Proven.

So please. Can give me the exact coordinates of the molecular
particles in the magnet and wire I'm using to produce induction?

Yes. *Those are intermediate variables in the Ewald method.

Yes Sue, those ARE the "intermediate values" in the Ewald method. That
is obvious. Which is exactly why I asked you to PROVIDE them not just
tell me the obvious. I suppose you thought I'd be snowed by your
little reference and have to go back to my Burger King mop once I
realized how much your brilliant brain could comprehend? You KNOW you
can't provide the coordinates I asked for, which means that your so-
called "ultimate proof" is nothing of the sort. It's a very limited
mathematical numerical approximation at best. The fact that it's the
"fastest computer in the world" means nothing in this discussion.

International courtesy prohibits my involvement in such
affairs but he seems a lot smarter than the last person
the Americans hired for the job. *But then so is the
village idiot.

Well I can't much disagree with your assessment of Dubya, but I am
please to see I made a correct assessment of "left-leaning".

My guess is that you have no idea what a WINE chip is or how to build
one. And that means you haven't a clue as to the problems with making
discrete Fourier transforms fit reality. *(We won't even talk about
delta functions and reality)

plonk

I take it from your response that my estimate of your technical level
of expertise was spot-on.

"Benj" wrote
...
On Aug 8, 1:20 pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
"Benj"
...

5. Finally we must observe that the E field induced by changing
currents in Faraday Induction is NOT the same E field found in
electrostatic Coulomb attraction. It has different properties and
force directions.

Could you give some details?

To blindly exchange these two E fields in equations
is clearly nonsense. A few researchers have made this point for a long
time.

Do you remember the names?

Of course I do. Start with P.W. Bridgeman "the logic of modern
physics" 1928, then move on to "New horizons in Electric Magnetic and
Gravitational Field Theory" by W. J. Hooper, and finally get the
icing on the mathematical cake from Oleg Jefimenko "Causality,
Electromagnetic Induction and Gravitation".

Would be better if you give details to "It has different properties and
force directions."

But are you sure you'd really like to understand what I'm talking
about?

You need a new model. Many need because that made by Faraday, Ampere, Gauss,
Weber, Maxwell, Hertz, Jefimienko are not perfect.
It is time to come back to Aepinus (gravity and electrostatic are the same)
and Ampere (magnetism is an ilusion).
I see one model for all actions. Why you need the two different electric
actions?
S*

"Benj" wrote in message
...
Having raised certain questions about a "model" for Electromagnetic
Induction in a Usenet thread, I received numerous "answers" pointing
to Maxwell's equations as the "model" and various establishment
"dogma" as the "explanation" of induction. The arguments that ensued
induced me to review the status and theory of Faraday Induction in the
light of some new investigations and a new look at Maxwell's equations
notably those musings by Oleg Jefimenko.
-------------------
First the following are the "accepted" rules and definitions in this
regard. Faraday Induction means the creation of induced currents
about a given current element. The magnitude and sign of the induced
currents depend upon the first derivative of the source current. The
direction of the induced currents is parallel to the source current.
It is also observed that a moving magnet or a wire moving in a
magnetic field also induces a current. The equation that describes
this is known as the Lorentz force equation. Therefore Faraday
Induction is believed to be related to TWO descriptions (See Feynman
quote in Wikipedia Induction article).

A second form of induction known as "Maxwellian Induction" where a
changing electric field creates a magnetic field is also believed to
exist. This is related to the fabled "displacement current".

These two forms of induction are believed to be the result of the
ability of a changing magnetic field to create an electric field and
of a changing electric field to create a Magnetic field. Furthermore
it is widely accepted that the E field of induction is basically the
same E field as in electrostatic attraction or Coulomb's law.
Therefore equations can be derived by freely substituting these E
fields at will.

This leads to the calculation of induction through the use of "Flux
linkages". The number of "flux lines" that pass through a given
surface and the rate of change of them therefore determines the
induced emf. In modern form we'd calculate the surface integral of
the changing magnetic field over the loop in which the induction is
induced.

Hence it is widely believed that this "model" explains Induction
effects.
------------------
Unfortunately nearly all of the above ideas are utterly wrong.
Virtually ALL of the established explanations of Induction actually
make no sense whatever. Sorting it all out takes some work. Here are
the facts.

1. By reason of causality a changing electric field cannot create a
Magnetic field and a changing magnetic field cannot create an electric
field. In truth BOTH are created by a source current and once created
no longer interact with each other.

2. In spite of the nifty appearance of iron filings in a magnetic
field, "flux lines" is a bogus concept with no quantitative value.
Furthermore, 1 above proves that the use of the integral of a magnetic
field (Faraday's law) over a surface to find induced emf, while a
method that usually produces correct answers has no basis in the
physics of induction. The magnetic field cannot and does not "cause"
the E field of induction.

3. Maxwell induction and the displacement current have never been
demonstrated to exist and therefore have no experimental basis in
reality. Therefore we are reduced to having just Faraday Induction as
the ONLY form of induction.

4. Faraday induction exists only in non-moving systems and the Lorentz
force equation describes the case where things are in relative motion.
However it can be shown that the Lorentz forces are really just a case
of a transformation of reference frames from stationary to moving in
Faraday induction. It is the moving currents (charges) in moving
systems that create the induction fields. (See Jefimenko) Therefore,
non-moving Faraday induction is sufficient to describe ALL induction!
The Lorentz forces like "flux linkages" are merely mathematics that
give correct answers but have no REAL basis in the physics of the
situation.

5. Finally we must observe that the E field induced by changing
currents in Faraday Induction is NOT the same E field found in
electrostatic Coulomb attraction. It has different properties and
force directions. To blindly exchange these two E fields in equations
is clearly nonsense. A few researchers have made this point for a long
time.

6. We might also mention that the Vector Magnetic Potential, A, is
also non-causal to the induced emf of induction. This means that the
changing current to induced current effects of induction are operating
not through the intermediary of B or A and hence represent a current
to current mechanism that is NOT "explained".

The bottom line of all this is that the 'standard' Maxwellian
explanations and "model" of electromagnetic induction is completely in
error and any new "model" that might provide a "point of view" for the
current to current action of Faraday induction has not been
forthcoming. This therefore appears to be the current
"understanding" (or more exactly lack of it) of Electromagnetic
Induction and the physics that might lie behind it.

Let me thank all who responded to my recent thread. Even those who
responded with the wrong answers contributed because even arguing the
wrong things still causes one to rethink the whole issue to try to
prove what is "right" and what is "wrong". Hence the argument creates
the progress, while the various points made within it are merely
stepping stones to shaking out a better viewpoint! Thanks all.



Indeed the current model is slightly askew. I can offer the new model.
http://terrylhewettsr.rackhost.net/i...incomplete.jpg
http://terrylhewettsr.rackhost.net/i...ithspacers.jpg
http://terrylhewettsr.rackhost.net/i...lfieldring.jpg
http://terrylhewettsr.rackhost.net/i...rrangement.jpg
http://terrylhewettsr.rackhost.net/prototypes.html

Mathematics is mearly the detailed way of communicating an event or series
of events. In the capacity to predict a spacific outcome without a physical
representation it is virtually useless.