copernicus1234

Could you do me a favor. If your a moderator please don't reply to any of my posts since your soo much smarter then me. Thank you.

. . . "According to the (field theory of matter) a material particle such as an electron is merely a small domain of the electical field within which the field strength assumes enormously high values, indicating that a comparatively huge field energy is concentrated in a very small space. Such an energy knot, which by no means is clearly delineated against the remaining field, propagates through empty space like a water wave across the surface of a lake; there is no such thing as one and the same substance of which the electon consists at all times. --Hermann Weyl" (Weaver. p. 849). In Weaver's book, the above quote, by Hermann Weyl, appears in a section (J.5) that is titled "A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field" by James Clerk Maxwell. Weyl is implying that particles (electrons) can form the continuity of Maxwell's electromagnetic field; consequently, Weyl is also suggesting that light particles can form the continuity of Maxwell's electromagnetic induction field, using a water wave analogy. Water in a small cup does forms a continuity, within the cup but when the water in the cup is poured out and falls 20,000 meters, the water in the cup that originally forms a continuity produces water droplets and the original structural continuity, of the water in the cup, is eliminated. Light emitted by a candle flame is represented with a continuous electromagnetic field structure near a candle flame but as the candle light propagates a far distance (1000 meters), the continuity that is implied near the candle flame is eliminated since light is composed of dispersing light particles, similar to the formation of water droplets which proves the water wave continuity analogy cannot be applied to despersing light particles. In addition, modern physicists represent an electron as a point source that is radiating an electromagnetic field structure in empty space, as time increase but the creation an electromagnetic field in free space, as time increase, implies that an electron is a physical source that is generating its own self-energy. The electron point source mechanism is volating the law of conservation of energy; consequently, an electron represented as a point source cannot be used to represent the formation of an electromagnetic wave or particle structure of light. "In classical theory, the field strengths E and H become arbitraily large in the neighborhood of the point-charge e, so that the integral over the energy density 1/8pi(E2 + B2) diverges. To overcome this difficulty, one therefore assumes a finte radius ro for the electron in classical electron theory." by Heisenberg (Miller, p. 121). A finite radius, of an electron, does not justify the additional energy divergence produced by an electron point source mechanism that is radiating an electomagnetic field structure (energy)in free space, as time increases.

Experimentally, there is no sideways motion, of the marble, formed by the gold block.

"Professor Pippard has shown that many features of the behaviour of electrons and other sub-microscopic particles make no sense within the framework of what we now call classical physics. By this term we mean the physics of the last century, standing firmly on the twin foundations of Newton's laws, which describe the motion of massive bodies, and Maxwell's laws, which describe the behavior of the electronmagnetic radiation. In terms of classical physics the observed behaviour of electrons and nuclei appears to be extremely paradoxical. Yet all Professor Pippard has said is based on very firmly established observational evidence. So the modern physicist faces this dilemma. He is confident that his experiments are corrent. He also knows beyond any shadow of doubt that the picture he gets from classical physics is logically consistent. What's wrong then? The only anwser he has found is that the entities he observes, the things we have called electrons and nuclei and electro-magnetic waves, are in fact not what he thought they were. The so-called partices are not merely different from Newtonian point particles, they are objects of an entirely different category. They do not statisfy Newton's and Maxwell's laws, and new laws had to be found to describe them. The theory which was first propounded in 1925, Quantum Mechanics, is still generally accepted today." by Nicholas Kemmer, F.R.S. (Bohm, p. 37). Quantum mechanics is based on a position probability that cannot form a negative value required in representing wave interference. Also, Davisson–Germer experiment (1927) is based on the destruction (annhilation) of electrons, to form the non-electron fringes of the electron scattering pattern, which violates energy conservation.

This is patently incorrect.

Nice analyse of the problem. This is the kind of analyse that I am looking for. You should become a moderator. This is a good example for people who want to answer my posts. These very short denial without an explaination is extremely boring. I read everything that you wrote. Great job.

Then why cann't a marble rotate around a large solid gold sphere, in free space? Cavendish experiment is childish. In addition, why are we not attracked to a cliff, by a the force of gravity, when standing next to a cliff of enormous mass. Also, the motion of the celestial universe is caused by the earth's yearly motion, Mach 60!...........When the voyager 1 was traveling to Venus (hot), did anyone take any picture of the celestrial universe. Also those pretty picture of the galaxys with the pretty colors and gases are fake.

"By contrast, the electromagnetic state of a region of space is described by continuous functions and, hence, cannot be determined exactly by any finite number of variables. Thus, according to Maxwell's theory, the energy of purely electromagnetic phenomena (such as light) should be represented by a continuous function of space. By contrast, the energy of a material body should be represented by a discrete sum over the atoms and electrons; hence, the energy of a material body cannot be divided into arbitrarily many, arbitrarily small components. However, according to Maxwell's theory (or, indeed, any wave theory), the energy of a light wave emitted from a point source is distributed continuously over an ever larger volume." (Einstein*, intro). "In particular, black body radiation, photoluminescence, generation of cathode rays from ultraviolet light and other phenomena associated with the generation and transformation of light seem better modeled by assuming that the energy of light is distributed discontinuously in space. According to this picture, the energy of a light wave emitted from a point source is not spread continuously over ever larger volumes, but consists of a finite number of energy quanta that are spatially localized at points of space, move without dividing and are absorbed or generated only as a whole." (Einstein*, intro). "These electrons also interact with the free molecules and electrons by conservative potentials when they approach very closely. We denote these electrons, which are bound at points of space, as "resonators", since they absorb and emit electromagnetic waves of a particular period." (Einstein*, 1). " First observed in synchrotrons, synchrotron light is now produced by storage rings and other specialized particle accelerators, typically accelerating electrons." (Wikipage). The synchrotrons is a enlongated Hertz's spark gap. Also, the probablity wave, of QM, is also justifying Maxwell's theory since QM is an electromagnetic theory (sometimes sometimes not)...?

Did you know that the earth yearly motion is approximately Mach 60 that mean standing on the surface of the earth you are propagating 60 times faster then the fastest jet. Einstein describes the effects of gravity using Newton's theory that is based on the earth-sun attraction but the attraction of earthly masses is not observed. Example, in an experiment, a small glass marble that is suspended from a string and separated (d = .0001mm), from a moveable 1000kg cubic block of solid gold. Marble is unaffected, by the gold block. The glass marble is placed a distance of .0001mm, from the surface of the gold block, and near the center of the outer surface of the gold block. As the gold block is slowly moved away from the suspended marble, the marble is unaffected by the gravitational force of the gold block. If masses attract, the marble's position would be affect by the change in position of the gold block's mass yet the gold block experiment produces a negative result. The graviational force theory orginates from Newton's observations of the earth's motion around the sun but Newton is ignoring the spinning of the earth, the internal effects of the earth's mantle, the enormous velocity of the earth's yearly motion (Mach 60) and the sun, that is emitting an enormous amount of energy. The gold block experiment, contradicts Newton law of gravity since the gold block and marble masses do not show the attraction of Newton's gravitational force. Newton theory is based on the sun-earth attraction but the sun-earth attraction is unrelated to masses attracting (marble-gold block) which prove Newton's gravitational theory is physically invalid. Also, without Gottfried Leibniz's derivative (dx/dt) Newton would not have been able to form Newton's equations of mechanics or the integral. Newton would be absolutely nothing without Leibniz.

5. Maxwell's Equations Part A Maxwell electric curl equation is derived using Faraday's induction experiment (Hecht, p. 121). The magnetic flux (dB/dt) that is incident, normal to the plane, of the wire loop, produces the wire loop emf, emf = - ʃʃ (dB/dt)· dA...........................................20 The wire loop emf is formed by an internal electric field E represented with, emf = ʃ E · dl........................................................21 Equating equations 20 and 21, ʃ E · dl = - ʃʃ (dB/dt)· dA.......................................22 Using Stokes' theorem, ʃ E · dl = - ʃʃ (∇ x E)· dA.....................................23 Equating equations 22 and 23, - ʃʃ(dB/dt)· dA = ʃʃ (∇ x E)· dA............................24 Maxwell electric curl equation is derived using equation 24 ∇ x E = - dB/dt.................................................25 Only the magnetic field B, of the magnetic flux (dB/dt), that is incident perpendicular to the plane, formed by a wire loop (equ 20), forms the wire loop emf. Also, the electric field E, that forms the wire loop emf (equ 21), represents an electric field that only exists within the conduction wire. The electromagnetic fields, of this derivation, do not exist together, in free space yet Maxwell's electric curl equation (equ 25) is used to derive the electromagnetic wave equations of light that electromagnetic fields forms together, in free space, which proves the derivation of Maxwell's electric curl equation (equ 25) is a deception. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Copernicus, Just out of idle curiosity, could you let me know where in the em spectrum from radio waves (all the way down to ELF radiation) through microwaves, into the millimetre waves, through the infra red and into the realm of visible light you imagine there is some "cut off" between the sort of things that Ampere and Hertz did and the behaviour of light? -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Light and higher energy are particle and not induction effects. Also, just out of curiosity do you believe heat and sound are electromagnetic phenomena to? Is everything EM? In addition, can a position probability form a negataive value? Can you negatively not be somewhere? If your bain waves and heart failed and you were somewhere else would it not be a zero probability?

Maxwell's theory is based on Ampere and Faraday induction experiments that are not optical. Poynting (1884) supports Maxwell by deriving an energy equation of light (Poynting, p. 358) but Poynting's current wire (Poynting, p. 350) is not emitting light. Hertz's (1887) attempts to structurally unify induction with light using the conduction spark experiment but Hertz's spark gap is emits electrons, when the spark is produced yet induction is not an ionization effect which contradicts Motz and Weaver statement that Hertz experiment is definitive proof. Definitive proof would be an experiment where the radio induction effect and light are emitted without the emission of electrons yet no such experiment exists since the production of light is always accompanied by the emission of electrons or other particle interactions (protons, molecules, etc...). Planck (1901) attempts to structurally unify electromagnetic waves with light, using the blackbody radiation effect, that emits the radio induction effect and light, but the blackbody radiation effect is also emitting electrons. In addition, the velocity and wave effects, of the radio induction effect, cannot be used to justify Maxwell's theory since induction is not optical. "To receive or detect these oscillations, Hertz used a small loop of wire with the ends not touching. By changing the distance between the spheres, Hertz tuned the generator (or transmitter) until its frequency exactly equaled the natural frequency of the receiving loop. When he did this, he found that a spark jumped across the ends of his receiving loop whenever his transmitting oscillator was operating. With these simple devices, which were the precursors of our modern radio transmitters and radio recieveres, Hertz demonstated that the electromagnetic waves he generated were qualitatively the same as light. One of his most serious concerns was to show that his electromagnetic waves travel through a vacuum at the same speed as light, and when he did this, he was completely convinced that Maxwell's electromagnetic waves and light are identical. When he reproduced such phenomena as reflection, refraction, diffraction, and interference, his work was taken as the definitive experimental proof of Maxwell's theory." (Motz and Weaver, chapter 15). ++++++++++++++++++++ " First observed in synchrotrons, synchrotron light is now produced by storage rings and other specialized particle accelerators, typically accelerating electrons." (Wikipage). "If there was no interaction of anything with anything, then it is probably unlikely that light could be produced." ----------------------------------------------------------------- In Hertz's spark gap experiment, electrons propagating across the gap, produce the spark gap light yet induction is not an ionization effect. Yes, that could be true since electrons could be bumping into each other to produce light. The Greek used many theory of light yet modern physics uses only the wave theory but the Greek theories were similar since they involved the physical interaction of the eye or object with the eye. They inablity to change resulted in the Roman to complete destroy the Greeks. Can some tell me what section these posts are listed as since I'm having to seach to get here.

I think it was fair to say maxwell was working with electrical and magnetic field equations and when he took them through, to work out a speed of propagation or travel of these waves he came up with the figure of approx 300,000, kilometers ( 186,000 miles) per second as the speed for these electro magnetic waves , radio NOT LIGHT. By the principle of equivalence , he noticed that light ( not knowing its true make up ) travelled at exactly the same speed. Already measured. So he said ah.ha ! Thus QED. Light must also be electro magnetic. ============================================================================= Like I have to repetively tell you that the velocity and wave effects of the radio induction effect does not justify Maxwell's theory since induction is not optical. Use some commen sense. Please no more about the electromagnetic induction, thank you. Also, the emission of light is alway acompanied with the release of electrons (ionization) yet induction is not an ionization effect. In addition, Maxwell theory also describes polarization using the vibration of an aether (elastic medium), composed of matter yet light propagates in vacuum that is void of matter. "More artificial theories have been tried out, assuming that the real truth lies somewhere between these two limiting cases: that the ether is only partially carried by the moving bodies. But they all failed! Every attempt to explain the electromagnetic phenomena in moving CS with the help of the motion of the ether, motion through the ether, or both these motions, proved unsuccessful. Thus arose one of the most dramatic situations in the history of science. All assumptions concerning ether led nowhere! The experimental verdict was always negative. Looking back over the development of physics we see that the ether, soon after its birth, became the "enfant terrible" of the family of physical substances. First, the construction of a simple mechanical picture of the ether proved to be impossible and was discarded. This caused, to a great extent, the breakdown of the mechanical point of view. Second, we had to give up hope that through the presence of the ether-sea one CS would be distinguished and lead to the recognition of absolute, and not only relative, motion. This would have been the only way, besides carrying the waves, in which ether could mark and justify its existence. All our attempts to make ether real failed. It revealed neither its mechanical construction nor absolute motion. Nothing remained of all the properties of the ether except that for which it was invented, i.e., its ability to transmit electromagnetic waves. Our attempts to discover the properties of the ether led to difficulties and contradictions. After such bad experiences, this is the moment to forget the ether completely and to try never to mention its name." (Weaver, p. 145-6).

"Maxwell's electrodynamics proceeds in the same unusual way already analysed in studying his electrostatics. Under the influence of hypotheses which remain vague and undefined in his mind, Maxwell sketches a theory which he never completes, he does not even bother to remove contradictions from it; then he starts changing this theory, he imposes on it essential modifications which he does not notify to his reader; the latter tries in vain to fix the fugitive and intangible thought of the author; just when he thinks he has got it, even the parts of the doctrine dealing with the best studied phenomena are seen to vanish. And yet this strange and disconcerting method led Maxwell to the electromagnetic theory of light!" (Duhem, 1902).

ON ELECTROMAGNETIC INDUCTION" (Maxwell, part II). "If, therefore, the phenomena described by Faraday in the Ninth Series of his Experimental Researches were the only known facts about electric currents, the laws of Ampere relating to the attraction of conductors carrying currents as well as those of Faraday about the mutual induction of currents, might be deduced by mechanical reasoning." (Maxwell, part II). "ELECTROMAGNETIC THEORY OF LIGHT" (Maxwell, part VI). "(91) At the commencement of this paper we made use of the optical hypothesis of an elastic medium throught which the vibrations of light are propagated" (Maxwell, part VI). "Hence magnetic disturbances propagated through the electromagnetic field agree with light in this, that the disturbance at any point is transverse to the direction of propagation, and such waves may have all the properties of polarized light." (Maxwell, part VI). Maxwell, James. Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field. Royal Society Transactions. Vol. CLV. 1864. http://rstl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/155/459