On Aug 9, 2:26*pm, "Terry L Hewett Sr"
wrote:

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

Hey, I love that Centipedal Field ring! I'm getting ready to build
one of these myself but for a different purpose! As I recall your
idea was to use this field as a kind of "gear" or something for a
motor? Cool photo!

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.

Well, maybe not useless. Just useless for practical understanding.
It's still mathematics and it still stands on it's own as mathematics.
It's not that math is not an interesting and enlightening thing to
study, it's just that one needs to be aware that it is man-invented
systems and deep connections to "reality" have not been demonstrated
for it. But on the other hand people have recognized enough of an
analogy between maths and physical phenomena, that it does at times
become important in the mensuration of phenomena including useful
predictions of what physical systems might do before they are actually
built. The problems arise when people get too comfy with this and
start to look at the various philosophical systems of math as somehow
closer to ultimate reality than physical observations of reality.
Experiment is considered to be the "error" and math is taken to give
the "correct" answers. Needless to say that is upside down.

On Aug 9, 2:01*pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:

You need a new model. Many need because that made by Faraday, Ampere, Gauss,
Weber, Maxwell, Hertz, Jefimienko are not perfect.

I agree. Although it seems that Maxwell and Jefimenko have done the
most THINKING about things. Nevertheless there are problems. With
Maxwell it's the displacement thing, and I'm convinced that Jefimenko
somehow has his model backwards ( or you might say "reversed")
although I believe it is essentially correct in many ways. So yes,
while I've been presenting here what these gentlemen have said, my
personal view is that they are not yet perfect.

It is time to come back to Aepinus (gravity and electrostatic are the same)
and Ampere (magnetism is an ilusion).

This is a long-standing idea among many especially the "anti-gravity"
crowd. I do not agree with it. But I do agree that to understand the
nature of both gravity and electrostatic does require the addition of
a fourth or more dimension. Of course Jefimenko agrees with Ampere
that magnetism is an illusion, (non-causal) but this is where I
believe he is reversed. I believe magnetism to be the fundamental
phenomenon and not the current-current action at a distance of
induction that he promotes. .

I see one model for all actions. Why you need the two different electric
actions?

Because I see two different phenomena arising out of the properties of
the aether. So in a sense I'm talking about a SINGLE model which is an
aether model, but electrostatic forces and inductive forces are NOT
produced by the same aetheric phenomena IMHO. Two actions, two names.
That they both have been named 'electric fields" in the past has been
unfortunate because it created the temptation to mix them up
mathematically and substitute them around where they shouldn't have
been. That of course led to error. Even Jefimenko seems to fall into
this trap at times.

"Benj" wrote
...

It is time to come back to Aepinus (gravity and electrostatic are the
same)
and Ampere (magnetism is an ilusion).

This is a long-standing idea among many especially the "anti-gravity"
crowd. I do not agree with it.

Many people want to write his own theory. It is like discusssion. But it is
nothing wrong to continue the old ones.
Now we know much more about ether waves. We are able to generate full
spectrum, from radio to X-rays. Here should be find all information about
eter.

But I do agree that to understand the
nature of both gravity and electrostatic does require the addition of
a fourth or more dimension. Of course Jefimenko agrees with Ampere
that magnetism is an illusion, (non-causal) but this is where I
believe he is reversed. I believe magnetism to be the fundamental
phenomenon and not the current-current action at a distance of
induction that he promotes.

It is a next new theory. Ampere made the artifical magnet (selenoid) and we
know that no magnetic monopoles.

I see one model for all actions. Why you need the two different electric
actions?

Because I see two different phenomena arising out of the properties of
the aether. So in a sense I'm talking about a SINGLE model which is an
aether model, but electrostatic forces and inductive forces are NOT
produced by the same aetheric phenomena IMHO.

Must be the same. One is static and the other time dependent.

Two actions, two names.
That they both have been named 'electric fields" in the past has been
unfortunate because it created the temptation to mix them up
mathematically and substitute them around where they shouldn't have
been. That of course led to error. Even Jefimenko seems to fall into
this trap at times.

Unification is the only way. Not each attempt must be succesfull.
S*

On Fri, 8 Aug 2008 21:47:56 -0700 (PDT), 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!

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.




So when can we expect to see you win the Nobel prize ?
boB

On Aug 10, 4:10*pm, boB boB@ wrote:
On Fri, 8 Aug 2008 21:47:56 -0700 (PDT), Benj
wrote:

Moron.

So when can we expect to see you win the Nobel prize ?
boB

Well, I'll tell ya, boB, it ought to be pretty soon!

I mean if a mere politician like Algore can win an Oscar, an Emmy AND
the Nobel prize for nothing but scientific prevarications, faked data,
and political lies, I'd say that these "honors" represent recognition
so slight that even *I* can be handed one if I just start promoting
the "correct" political position...

"Benj" wrote in message
...
On Aug 9, 2:26 pm, "Terry L Hewett Sr"
wrote:

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

-Hey, I love that Centipedal Field ring! I'm getting ready to build
-one of these myself but for a different purpose!


I'm curious as to what the purpose is. To date i have only found one
mechanism remotely close to it and the ones building and prototyping it are
doing such for the anti gravity effect. www.ganid.com However their
mechanism is plauged with friction and has too few fields to interract with.
However they will reach the same limitations as any common mechanism given
the level of friction and the following. The drive system of their mechanism
is pulsed. Their mechanism is incapable of inducing energy in it's current
design.

-As I recall your
-idea was to use this field as a kind of "gear" or something for a
-motor? Cool photo!

The field arrangement of my mechanism Superconducting Rotory Toroidal
Transformer,
SRTT for short is actually the toroid armature. The toroid armature is the
only moving part of the SRTT. The centipedal drive really is a simple
interaction between coil and arranged permanent magnetic fields. the toroid
armatures field arrangement is a ideal arrangement for driving multiple flux
fields through induction coils cyclic.


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.

-Well, maybe not useless. Just useless for practical understanding.
-It's still mathematics and it still stands on it's own as mathematics.
-It's not that math is not an interesting and enlightening thing to
-study, it's just that one needs to be aware that it is man-invented
-systems and deep connections to "reality" have not been demonstrated
-for it. But on the other hand people have recognized enough of an
-analogy between maths and physical phenomena, that it does at times
-become important in the mensuration of phenomena including useful
-predictions of what physical systems might do before they are actually
-built. The problems arise when people get too comfy with this and
-start to look at the various philosophical systems of math as somehow
-closer to ultimate reality than physical observations of reality.
-Experiment is considered to be the "error" and math is taken to give
-the "correct" answers. Needless to say that is upside down.

All the formulation in the world could never stumble across this. the main
problems are that physicists think singular or basic pairs and believe
everything is finite. The toroid armatures fields of the SRTT are in essence
duplicating the electron in a orbital path in a multiple arrangement with a
predetermined and controled path that does not allow entropy.
In short it is a closed system of transformations. The SRTT is the first and
only closed system to grace mankind with it's presence. however it may never
be realized unless it has some serious concideration by the scientific
community. I understand my methods of introduction are crude in the sense
that I cannot provide the formulation to back my claims.
however this doesnt take from the mechanics involved in this mechanism.

Mankind does not tell nature what to do. nature defines what mankind can do.
In reality all our vast knowledge is but a fraction of what is to be known
of nature.

On Fri, 8 Aug 2008 21:22:24 -0700 (PDT), 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".

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
Let's be clear on this: if you are spouting from Gaussian E&M (which
it appears pretty clear that you are) then you are too dull to
apprehend that nothing of value exists in that gaussian "discipline"
except a well-defined catechism of tautologies. It is an exercise in
mathematics, not physics.

Since you are evidently too naive to recognize that there is a
difference between SI and gaussian, else you would have made the
declaration, I ask you to write the two constitutive equations linking
B and H and E and D which will enable us to classify your
denomination.

If you write D = E, then I invite you to include my latest finding:
D = E = F*.
*Patent pending

BTW, displacement current is not "fabled". It's essential.


John Polasek

On Aug 12, 1:27*pm, John C. Polasek wrote:

Let's be clear on this: if *you are spouting from Gaussian E&M (which
it appears pretty clear that you are) then you are too dull to
apprehend that nothing of value exists in that gaussian "discipline"
except a well-defined catechism of tautologies. It is an exercise in
mathematics, not physics.

I think I agree with this. In fact, I probably agree with it for both
Gaussian and SI units.

BTW, displacement current is not "fabled". It's essential.

John, it's BOTH "fabled" and "essential".

Think about it.

On Aug 9, 7:25*am, Benj wrote:
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

Not the question I asked.

What was the last electrodynamics textbook you STUDIED? Having it does
not count - I have a textbook on quantum field theory, doesn't mean I
have studied it or understood it.

[snip remainder of whining]

On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 17:17:06 -0700 (PDT), Benj
wrote:

On Aug 12, 1:27*pm, John C. Polasek wrote:

Let's be clear on this: if *you are spouting from Gaussian E&M (which
it appears pretty clear that you are) then you are too dull to
apprehend that nothing of value exists in that gaussian "discipline"
except a well-defined catechism of tautologies. It is an exercise in
mathematics, not physics.

I think I agree with this. In fact, I probably agree with it for both
Gaussian and SI units.

BTW, displacement current is not "fabled". It's essential.

John, it's BOTH "fabled" and "essential".

Think about it.
Well, you're a good sport. I remember taking graduate E&M and the
matter of SI vs gaussian was never discussed. I think we used Smythe,
a gaussian treatment, and I was only sure of one thing: 1 statvolt
seemed to be equal to 300 volts. Now I know it's not even that. What's
left when you throw away the coulomb?
In any case the professor often just copied his own notes onto the
board, which he had copied from his professor's blackboard, etc.
Heritage confers authenticity (?).
John Polasek