Are Maxwell's equations physically false?

[MGmirkin]

Your argument is that the speculation I offered is not scientifically significant because it's Einstein's.

From http://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/logicalfallacies.html

10. Attacking the Person (argumentum ad hominem)
Definition: The person presenting an argument is attacked instead of the argument itself. This takes many forms. For example, the person's character, nationality or religion may be attacked. Alternatively, it may be pointed out that a person stands to gain from a favourable outcome. Or, finally, a person may be attacked by association, or by the company he keeps.

There are three major forms of Attacking the Person:
(1) ad hominem (abusive): instead of attacking an assertion, the argument attacks the person who made the assertion.

(2) ad hominem (circumstantial): instead of attacking an assertion the author points to the relationship between the person making the assertion and the person's circumstances.

(3) ad hominem (tu quoque): this form of attack on the person notes that a person does not practise what he preaches.

Your argument is the abusive variety.

Actually, having seen many ad hominem (tu quoque, circumstantial and abusive), I'd have to disagree.

At no point did he disparage Einstein. He simply noted that nobody, including Einstein, has been able to reconcile Relativity Theory (RT) with Quantum Mechanics (QM).

If he had called Einstein an "idiot patent clerk," and claimed that "patent clerks have no business telling physicists how to do their jobs," that would certainly have qualified as both "ad hominem abusive" and "ad hominem circumstantial" (with a smattering of "appeal to authority" or its inverse), for calling him an idiot and referring to his status / occupation (and implying that due to his occupation he has *no* authority).

[Disclaimer: I'm not implying that Einstein was an idiot or that his occupation while considering GR / SR plays any role in determining the worth of GR / SR. Simply offering examples of what would qualify as the specific alleged logical fallacies].

Anyway, perhaps it's neither here nor there...

Also my reading was not that the opinion was excluded "because it was Einstein," but because RT / QM have not been reconciled, and thus opinions from RT are irrelevant to QM and probably vice versa.

I don't know whether that statement is accurate or not, just that it was my understanding of the argument, which appears to have differed significantly from your interpretation of what was said. IE, he didn't say "Einstein's opinion isn't relevant because Einstein is wrong" or "because I don't like Einstein." Rather, he said that since relativity theory has not been reconciled with quantum mechanics, one cannot necessarily take an idea from one and apply it to the other, since the ideas (as currently formulated) appear to be incompatible or at odds with each other.

Just my 2c.

Regards,
~Michael Gmirkin

[Stepaside]

A great place to find an answer to this question is with Carver Mead's book "Collective Electrodynamics"
Mead offers a much more precise method of appoaching electrodynamics without using Maxwell's equations.
Mead's approach is backed up by decades of exhaustive experimentaion, and is currently finding applications in the semiconductor field. Mead views his aproach as a first step toward reformulating quantum concepts in a clear and comprehisible manner.

[Stepaside]

Sorry, I forgot to supply a link.

http://books.google.com/books?id=GkDR4e ... cs#PPA1,M1


"It is my firm belief that the last seven decades of the twentieth century will be characterized in history as the dark ages of theoretical physics". - Carver A Mead

[altonhare]

The problem with Maxwell's equations is that there is no physical interpretation. They are a mathematical description of observed phenomena. They always get the numbers right, but they do not tell you what is happening physically.

[junglelord]

I think your refering to the Heaviside dumbdown 4 Equations in 2-D.
If your refering to his original work of 20 Quaternions in 4-D, I fail to see what your missing on the physical side.
Either that or you have never read his original work, in his own words. He is very clear.

I have also explained what Maxwell and Faraday said implicitly.
The EM Fields are of Mechanical form.
They are Gyroscopes.
Is that not physical enough for you?

That is the only way to explain the continunity of the EM relationships to a physical system.
Joseph Newman has explained this in no small detail.
I suggest you buy a gyroscope.
You clearly do not have a clue about spin, and therefore know naught of the universe.
You freely admit you do not have a clue to explain these things.
You cannot explain why charges attract and repel, or magnetic poles.
I fail to see how you can not learn these things....they are simple.
I have tried to teach you.
Your very stubborn.


Everything spins. They spin in two directions.
Opposite spins attract. Same spins repel.
Same spins can attract and is the ultimate power, a Birkeland Current and the Cosmic Z Pinch.
They do this because Plasma makes Double Layers.

Magnetic Poles are not equal.
They are always unequal.
Do not believe that for every action their is an equal and opposite reaction.
Magnets do not obey that rule.
Since all of the EU includes B Fields, then the universe is not as they sell it.
They sell us a universe that is equal and opposite....yeah right.

Iron Filings show you NOTHING of the true nature of a dynamic magnetic field. They merely become little magnets themself in the Dynamic Magnetic Field. Magnetic Poles are not equal. These two misconceptions are hiding huge truths.

The 3-D and 4-D Magnetic Dual Vortex is something you cannot afford not to learn.

Since I started to do visualization of interacting and opposing vortices in my mind, conceptualisation went up 50%. And that is thanks to my researches on magnetic motors.

A magnet is: imbalanced forces in a balanced system.

On the North magnetic pole of a magnet, the North vortex is at 100% and the South vortex at about 80%.

On the South magnetic pole of a magnet, the South vortex is at about 120% and the North vortex at 100%.

This create a warp sphere of influence on the sides of the magnets and in the overall form of the vortex structures.

The reentry points of the magnetic vortices are possibly not in the center of the physical magnet. They may be displaced by as much as a ratio of 60/40.

If you learn this information and how to derive EM by the original 20 Quaternions of Maxwells EM Thesis, you will totally be able to take the next step to derive all Spin Domains and fully comprehend the EU in 4-D.

This will allow you to be a master of Spin. The work of both Maxwell and Faraday are very clear.
The EM field is a Mechanical Field. It is a EM Gyroscope. All the rules of EM relationships are due to the mechanical relationships of Gyroscopes to induced pressure.

And who says a COMPLETE revolution is 360 degrees? Suppose a complete revolution was actually 720 degrees, which would be more in line with the asymptotic dimensional dynamics of quantum physics. Can you detect the corresponding principles involved in spin and velocity as they relate to matter and anti-matter? Imagine a sine wave itself, behaving within a traveling sine wave creating rift polarities from which dimensional energies find similarities within our environment, and express themselves accordingly.

This requires a pump. This requires a Gforce. APM has measured this Gforce via the Quantum Constants.
This is the cause of all Spin at all Levels. Spin is a harmonic of PHI at all levels.

[altonhare]

The physicality of the wave is fundamentally dependent upon the aether hypothesis, which was thoroughly debunked by Michelson. I simply have one very simple question. What is aether?

Just a drawing will do. Nothing fancy.

[junglelord]

It was never debunked.
Aether is a quantum 2 spin rotating magnetic field.
APM has aether graphics.
It looks like this. A 4-D Number 8
Casting Out the Nines.

[altonhare]

Aether is a quantum 2 spin rotating magnetic field.

-JL

What's this field look like? What does "quantum 2" mean? What does "magnetic" mean?

So an aether is a discrete barbell-shaped object with cylindrical snake-like objects wrapped around it? It also apparently has a plus sign on one end of the barbell and a - sign on the other, mother nature sure is weird. Some portions of these snake-like loops are also colored, apparently, for our convenience so we can name them positron, proton, etc. Thank you nature for making that convenient. What do these arrows that mention forward and reverse time indicate? What exactly is time? Do the two ends of the barbell move toward each other? If they do, do they merge or do they bounce off each other? Are the loops all a single object or are they separated? Are they physically attached to the barbell/balls? If not how do they remain in such close proximity to the balls/barbell? Are the balls indeed connected or is an "aether" a collection of two discrete objects plus some connected/disconnected loops? Why are some of the loops named certain things? Do parts of the loop act differently than other parts? If so why?

I appreciate the picture and it helps some but it raises a great many more questions that would have to be answered before one could know "what is aether".

[Solar]

Pardon my interjection:

Some member's responses, JL's in particular, include references that are derived from "The Aether Physics Model". It's disconcerting to see nomenclature being used without citing related sources when asked specific questions regarding same.

[junglelord]

Sorry. I try to always give links.
My mistake.
However I think that everyone is aware (those who are regulars)
What that picture is and what I was talking about.
I can take no credit.
I discovered nothing. Sometimes I get credit for bringing ideas here like they are mine.
I have only learned and passed it own.
The author always deserves recognition and I always try to do that.
APM & Dave Thompson.
http://www.16pi2.com/

[altonhare]

Ah, this is refreshing, in the link you posted they are honest about their theory:

We have succeeded in developing the electron binding energy equation for the 1s orbitals. This is a significant breakthrough and demonstrates the Aether Physics Model not only describes quantum structure, but also describes quantum mechanics not covered in the Standard Model. The new electron binding energy equation is also presented in the Third Edition of Secrets of the Aether.

The keyword is "describes". The model is a mathematical construct that calculates observed quantities. It is not a theory of physics (qualitative), it is a theory of mathematics (quantitative). Finally, this can be put to rest.

[Plasmatic]

Its funny in a private conversation with a certian proponent of the APM to my great dismay he actually defended the APM by calling it a "Mathematical description".

[altonhare]

Its funny in a private conversation with a certian proponent of the APM to my great dismay he actually defended the APM by calling it a "Mathematical description".

Oops. But seriously, people are raised and educated on math and not physics. People learn the minimum amount of physics they can to get by in high school but learn a great deal of math. Just read some of the posts by JL, GC, and Klypp on how to calculate volume. They don't know how. They think that, if I have a jar of marbles and I measure the extent of the jar (volume Vj), that this is also the volume of the marbles. Then they remove the marbles and measure the volume of them (Vm) and notice that Vm<Vj. Because they don't understand they erroneously conclude that the marbles are actually "made of" a volume of space Vs= Vj-Vm! Many people make this mistake because nobody is taught any physics anymore (The study of objects).

Why are people "raised on math" so to speak? Because math does not require perfect understanding. Math is abstract, it involves describing reality qauntitatively rather than explaining reality qualitatively/physically. As long as you can simulate reality well enough for a specific purpose you can build useful devices that are devoted to but limited to that purpose. When your study is limited as such it is called engineering or inventing. On the other hand when you seek a physical explanation this is called physics. It all falls under the domain of "science" as long as those involved are following a unanimously agreed-upon "scientific method" in addition to avoiding self-contradiction and/or rejection of identity. (Doesn't matter how many people "agree" on a method, it's not science if it rejects identity or embraces self contradiction).

Kids are fed boatloads of math and minuscule physics because governments do not care about "understanding existence" they care about building computers, bombs, guidance systems, detectors, etc. etc. For the purposes of building these devices an immediate perfect (nor even a very good) physical understanding is simply not necessary. The government needs the next technological advance NOW. A physical TOE may deliver the final advances in technology eventually but simply simulating reality will deliver the goods right now.

So JL has one thing right, we are brainwashed by the gov't. Unfortunately he has it a bit off because we are brainwashed on math and he appears worse-off on this than the next guy.

[Solar]

Excuse my second interjection.

I'd like to ask that members cease attacking each other please. Critiquing a theory is one thing; debasing fellow members is quite another. I can't make it through many of these threads because I simply don't have the time, and don't want to make the time, to endure lengthly threads littered with insults. I've been on this forum for some 2-3yrs and this is the first time such a thing has raised its head in such a consistent manner.

In consideration of members and non-members alike who may come to the forum looking for alternative explanations/interpretations to traditional cosmology, astrophysics, and physics; is it possible to state our case and move on?

[junglelord]

Its their way.
Sad really.
At the same time measurements are being ridiculed by them.


Thanks Solar.


Measurements define Structure. Structure and Function cannot be seperated.
Maxwell understood the EM field to be of a mechanical nature.
Therefore a structure is required.
Measurements define the Structure.
APM, Synergetics, 20 Quaternions EM.
All define 4-D Structure of Charge.
Atoms valence shell electrons distributed charges form Platonic Solids.
Hydrogen and its electron forms a Tetrahedron.
Water forms a Teterahedron.
The virus is a icosahedron.
Sacred Geometry is indeed the Key.
Fuller's work goes to the heart of 'number'
in a way that is unprecedented since the
time of plato and ancient number wisdom.
PHI, Pi, e are the harmonic foundations of charge, the universe and all life.
They are interwoven into the Platonic Solids.

Sacred geometry: Invisible blueprint of life

November 13, 2006 10:06 am - By Teddye Snell, Press Staff Writer

From the Egyptians to the Greeks, from the Kabbalistic Jews to the Christians, sacred geometry has been taught throughout time to initiates as a closely guarded secret.

According to Dr. Robert Gilbert, a former U.S. Marine Corps intructor in nuclear-biological-chemical warfare survival who holds a doctorate in international studies, the world is being shaped - sometimes for the worse - by a modern science that manipulates life’s natural patterns, while lacking the contextual understanding to do so responsibly.

Gilbert delivered a two-day seminar, “Sacred Geometry: The Invisible Blueprint of Life,” Friday and Saturday at Sancta Sophia Seminary on Sparrowhawk Mountain.

Gilbert offered attendees insight into once-secret initiation teachings about the hidden relationships between the physical and spiritual worlds. Sacred geometry is the basis for the sacred science of Egypt, and the Pythagorean science of vibrational energies. According to Gilbert, it’s the master key to expanding spiritual awareness, as well as healing the physical body and correcting energetic problems.

Sacred geometry can be related to the “Platonic solids,” or the five shapes that can divide a circle or sphere perfectly. The five forms are the tetrahedron, the octahedron, the hexahedron (cube), the icosahedron and the dodecahedron.

Plato wrote about them in the dialogue “Timaeus,” and he associated each with of the four classical elements. Earth was associated with the cube; air with the octahedron; water with the icosahedron; and fire with the tetrahedron. There was intuitive justification for these associations: The heat of fire feels sharp and stabbing (like little tetrahedra). Air is made of the octahedron; its minuscule components are so smooth that one can barely feel it. Water, the icosahedron, flows out of one’s hand when picked up, as if it is made of tiny little balls. But a highly un-spherical solid, the hexahedron (cube) represents earth. These clumsy little solids cause dirt to crumble and breaks when picked up, in stark contrast to the smooth flow of water.

Plato obscurely says the fifth Platonic solid, the dodecahedron, “...the god used for arranging the constellations on the whole heaven.” Aristotle added a fifth element, “ether,” and postulated that the heavens were made of this element, but he had no interest in matching it with Plato's fifth solid.

It was this fifth solid Gilbert expounded upon.

“The dodecahedron was not widely taught,” said Gilbert. “It is the pure, spiritual lifeforce, and people were told to keep it hidden, as if it were misused, it could create terrible destruction.”

Gilbert indicated many scientists – including those with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration – now believe the earth is shaped like a dodecahedron. Given this information, one of the nodes on the dodecahedron falls in the same area as the famous “Bermuda Triangle.”

“Using a dodecahedron on a world grid analysis, you’ll see the nodal points, pressure points in space and time,” said Gilbert. “Other nodal points on the earth have been known as ‘devil’s graveyards’ because space and time don’t work right.”

Modern scholars disregarded the idea of the Platonic solids until the 1980s, when Professor Emeritus Robert Moon at the University of Chicago demonstrated the entire periodic table of elements - everything known in the physical world - is based on these five forms.

“Moon worked on the Manhatten Project,” said Gilbert. “He discovered that the form for uranium is a double-dodecahedron. The periodic table is a revelation of the spirit - thoughts from the mind of God.”

Gilbert showed a slide of the first nuclear weapon: Its shape was a dodecahedron.

“The element palladium, No. 46 on the periodic table, is part of the platinum family and is connected to alchemy,” said Gilbert. “When palladium is used in combination with other metals and electronic stimulation, it creates what some refer to as cold fusion. However, the problem with cold fusion is that it is not constant. Energetic conditions shift from time to time and place to place, and can even be affected by the person conducting the experiment, much to scientists’ dismay.”
People might find it surprising that Gilbert never really cared for math.

“I never liked math,” said Gilbert. “But geometry is different. As children, we play with shapes and natural forms, but prematurely we force children to look at them in a mathematical process. Math is useful for analysis, but it doesn’t free the soul.”

Gilbert’s reason for providing this information is three-fold.

“In understanding the patterns behind everything in the manifest world, we can start to change things in our personal lives,” he said. “In teaching sacred geometry, people begin to understand the unity between science and spirit. It confirms we can be understood without religious dogma, as it’s a type of spirituality that unites people. Finally, it provides a unity between traditions based on what we all encounter; geometry is universal in nature, no matter what the religion.

Since leaving the service in 1985, Gilbert has conducted independent research into the geometric basis of modern science and new technologies. He is also a Rosicrucian with more than 20 years’ experience in sacred geometry and its hidden uses by the world’s spiritual traditions.

In 1997, he began for the first time to teach publicly the results of his two decades of intensive research, and continues teaching both publicly and privately in Asheville, N.C.

While at Sparrowhawk Village, Gilbert and his wife, Elizabeth, stayed with Dr. Robert Willson, former dean of Sancta Sophia Seminary and inventor of the technology for the plasma-screen television.
Willson was highly interested in Gilbert’s work.

“I resisted [the theory of sacred geometry] for a long time, because I couldn’t break free from my own scientific background,” said Willson. “After reading several wonderful books on the subject, I just surrendered, and now I get it!”

http://www.tahlequahdailypress.com/feat ... ndarystory