ForcefulLorentz

I apologize if I have indicated otherwise. Please indicate where you think I am pretending to have background knowledge on the decision of the peer-review board. Can you be more specific? I'm not saying the peers made a mistake, just that we haven't been given enough information from them to judge the validity of Distinti's work. I am not. In fact, I have invited anyone willing to do so to explore Distinti's own papers which he has written itself. It is only by request of the moderators that I have presented the information here. Could you please be more specific here? I'm not saying that scientists have conspired to reject Distinti's work—it certainly isn't well known enough for that to occur. If you're referring to my comments on quackery, this was just an explanation for the doubt expressed by everyone here in Distinti's work. It takes much more effort and organization for an actual conspiracy to occur. I think the idea of a conspiracy is unsupported and quite honestly poppycock.

By confer I mean that we need to know exactly what the authorities say. The problem is, we do not know exactly what the authorities say regarding the scientific merit of the idea. We only know exactly what the authorities have said regarding how the paper relates to their journal. The authorities have not said "It didn't pass muster", neither did they say "This is nonsense", neither did they say "This work is unscientific". They instead said "This is not the kind of work we publish". As a result, we can only argue by authority that said work is not the kind of work that said journals publish. We have absolutely no knowledge of the background behind the rejection. Your editor is logically saying "nonsense, therefore, 'this isn't the sort of thing we publish'", and your attempting to say "'this isn't the sort of thing we publish', therefore, nonsense". You're reversing the logical direction of the argument. This is logically fallacious. The problem here is that our discussion regards whether or not this theory is true. Not whether or not it might be true. Arguments from probability are irrelevant.

Why me? I don't really have a way to contact him either. I don't see how this relates to evaluating if the theory is solid or not—whatever mathematical constructs we apply do not really determine whether or not it describes nature, which is our primary concern. As I said, everything that CE predicts, NE predicts. If it is a property of CE it is probably a property of NE. The assumption is baked in from CE. Since, [math]K_{E}=\frac{1}{4\pi\varepsilon}[/math] [math]K_{M}=\frac{\mu }{4\pi}[/math] It follows that the speed of light is [latex] \sqrt{\frac{K_{E}}{K_{M}}} [/latex] Just substitute what we've defined the constants to be. [latex] \sqrt{\frac{1}{4\pi\varepsilon}}\sqrt{\frac{4\pi}{\mu}}=\sqrt{\frac{4\pi}{4\pi\varepsilon\mu}}[/latex], so just reduce [latex]\sqrt{\frac{1}{\varepsilon\mu}}=c[/latex] Yes, he does. This is indeed quacky. Quackiness doesn't determine legitimacy. The two are very separate qualities. There is an essential difference in the theories you have brought up is that they do not suppose that Maxwell's equations are wrong (that is, that they do not describe physical reality). They instead propose changes to make certain mathematical features consistent with other parts of theoretical physics. Distinti proposes that Maxwell's Equations are incorrect in a number of ways. He as a result developed New Electromagnetism as a more complete theory with less errors. A theory that better describes the physical world. You simply need to apply the theory and see if it gives you number consistent with observation. As for the errors in CE, I will identify three errors in Maxwell's Equations after I have replied to your post completely. If you're judging a theory because the source of the theory is "quackish", then you're committing genetic fallacy. Why not instead examine the merits of his arguments themselves rather than the way they're conveyed? I fail to see how reading and posting on a forum is much different than reading a pdf document on a website as far as wasting your time, but I'll humor you. Please. You're ignoring the entire discussion because you don't like the way that Distinti's arguments are conveyed. Let us be more scientific and examine his claims impersonally. Allow me to present how part of Distinti's theory was developed. New Induction was developed out of the following realizations regarding Maxwell's equations: 1. Faraday's Law fails to predict emf's in certain cases (gives null results). It is ambiguous and is need of improvement 2. Maxwell's version of Faraday's Law as it is normally expressed is in direct violation of Kirchhoff's Law 3. Maxwell's modification to Ampere's Circuital Law is invalid. It commits cum hoc fallacy, and predicts that we would see twice the H-field than we see in loops of wire. For number one, I can show a case where Faraday's Law cannot predict an emf that New Electromagnetism can. If you wish I will derive solutions for both Faraday's Law and NE. For number three, I'll be happy to show that [latex]\bigtriangledown \times \mathbf{H}=2 \mathbf{J}[/latex] upon request. For number two, this is plain to see. Faraday's Law: [latex]\bigtriangledown \times \mathbf{E}=-{\frac{\partial \mathbf{B}}{\partial t}}[/latex] Kirchhoff's Law in point form: [latex]\bigtriangledown \times \mathbf{E}=0[/latex] The biggest issue is this: Even if there are only phenomenological issues with Maxwell's Equations, how are we to be sure that our future derivations using them haven't been affected by said issues? How are we to be sure that Quantum Elecrodynamics is valid? How are we to assume that the theories which come from electromagnetism are true for all instances as we assume?

Before I begin, I would like to thank both of you for attempting to evaluate this with me, as these things can often become understandably tiresome. There are two problems with your argument. Firstly, in order for us to make a proper argument by authority (not logically fallacious) we need to confer with said authority. The authorities are those who conduct peer-review. The only information we have regarding the decision of the journal are the returned submissions, which relate the general message "This isn't the sort of work we publish". This decision is not a scientific decision, but an editorial one. It is editorial because it regards how the submission relates to the journal as a whole as opposed to science itself. That is, the reasons which the journals have given for rejection are not scientific. Since we're discussing the scientific validity of this theory, an editorial decision is not relevant in this discussion. To make the argument that the theory is valueless based on our information would be an appeal to authority since we are not sure whether the real authorities, the peer-review group, actually hold any scientific position regarding Distinti's work. Secondly, you're essentially making an appeal to probability anyway. Furthermore, I'd like to remind you that the legitimacy of the paper which Distinti submitted has absolutely zero bearing on the truth of classical theory. Let's not mix up our assertions, here. Another point you seem to be mixing up is the use of a theory and its truth. A theory can be useful but still be incorrect. Take, for instance, the flat-earth theory. We know it is wrong, but it still enjoys great success in the structural design of most buildings. This obviously does not mean flat-earth theory is true. Finally, you also seem to be misunderstanding what exactly Distinti purports. He does not say the whole (nor even a large part) of classical theory is wrong and must be completely abolished, as you imply. He instead identifies a few areas where classical electromagnetism either predicts nothing or has anomalies. These paradoxes and anomalies are resolved in New Electromagnetism. This means that for many purposes NE is the same as CE; the prime difference in these cases is that NE is easier to apply and takes less time to compute. Look at distinti.com/docs/apoce.pdf So we are left with the conclusion that based simply on looking at how journals have rejected his work we have no surety of either case. Considering this is the case, it behooves us to consider the case skeptically, as one conducting proper science ought. Skepticism means being just as critical of our own theories as it does any other. As far as experiments are concerned, I have already given the rhombus experiment, which was used to empirically derive New Induction. This is not used to prove any part of CE wrong. Then there is the quad-loop experiment. This is primarily concerned with how area and wire diameter relate to inductance. According to classical theory the inductance is only a function of area and intrinsic inductance. The quad-loop experiment shows that even with single-loop inductors of substantially zero area the inductance is more than predicted by CE (which according to it we should only get intrinsic inductance). Finally, there is the paradox 2 generator which has a DC output that cannot be explained by CE, but it explained by NE. Each experiment was given at the bottom of the original post. To start, I refer you to my argument directed John Cuthber regarding appeal to authority. To reiterate, since it is not clear what the authority is scientifically saying about the work the argument is fallacious. "This should tell you something" is simply disregarding my point. You're essentially saying "Yes, you're right, but other than you being right, you're wrong". I mentioned the papers because you asked, but from what we are given I don't believe there is anything we can say one way or the other. Distinti has not published NE in covariant form, although I believe it is possible to derive it. As for gauge invariance and Lorentz invarianve, NE predicts everything that CE predicts, but a little bit more. It follows that if something is described by CE, then it is also described by NE. The "something else" which NE describes is primarily magnetic fields which are longitudinal to the force applied on a charge. The speed of light, c, is of course the speed of electromagnetic radiation (this is mentioned off-handedly almost even as a given in many documents). The speed of light is given as [math]\sqrt{\frac{K_{E}}{K_{M}}}[/math] (these terms have been defined above. You'll see that they are equivalent to CE constants and give the same speed of light). As for how quack it sounds, this is to be expected. Any position made against conventional theory will sound quack by definition because it is working against established science. It will make claims that go against conventional claims and challenge ideas which we generally regard as true, and this might affect us emotionally but this has no regard to the truth of the theory. I apologize if that came across as rude. I understand that the documents are written informally, especially compared to scientific papers. But I hope that how quack something sounds isn't a conventional measurement of pseudoscience, because if it is then we're using pseudoscience to decide pseudoscience. The problems regarding self-induction are not the only ones which NE addresses, but regarding phenomenological issues NE certainly does fix them. I should apologize because I didn't give any specific direction as to where you should start with the documents. Some are more formal than others and some sound more quacky than others. Start with ne_intro. It overviews much of what I have mentioned so far. Next, look at ne. It goes into the theory with greater depth. Hopefully this will resolve any misunderstandings you have regarding it. If you'd like to see how well the New Induction holds up in real applications (the only important measuring stick, I'm sure), then look at nia1. Finally, for a look at New Magnetism check out nm; he provides experiments which can test the validity of CE with regard to New Magnetism at the end.

He attempted to publish papers in reputable journals, but all the journals he tried to publish in rejected his papers because "This is not the kind of work we publish". https://youtu.be/PhQizC_z02I?t=14m4s This has absolutely zero bearing on whether his actual work is legitimate. Attempting to argue that it is illegitimate based on these rejections would be an appeal to authority at best; especially as the reasons for rejection do not regard legitimacy. Perhaps, but the machine develops power as if the magnets are 180 degrees out of alignment. If they were only partially out of alignment then we wouldn't see nearly as much power developed in the machine as we do. Furthermore, if this is true the power developed in the machine would depend on the relative rotation of the magnetic field with regard to the plane. Since the paper does not mention this then he didn't pay attention to said relative rotation. If he didn't pay attention to it, then it becomes extremely improbable that the relative rotation remained the same for all tests where he removed or flipped the magnets. At this point we could say that he was being dishonest and purposely placing the magnets to develop the same power; but we could do that to explain everything as bogus, even legit science, so this explanation is not sufficient. It also might be a coincidence. But if by extremely rare chance the magnets developed the same power, that only really tells us that we must repeat his experiment to confirm or deny it. As per the rules, allow me to present some claims made by Distinti. I would edit the main post, but I cannot. Here are the models of New Electromagnetism: Image taken from http://distinti.com/docs/ne.pdf Where [math]Q_{S}[/math] is the "source charge" or the charge applying the force on another charge. [math]Q_{T}[/math] is the "target charge" the charge of which we're attempting to find the applied force, [math]\mathbf{r}[/math] is the vector distance from the source to the target. A subscript of [math]S[/math] denotes a property of the source and a subscript of [math]T[/math] denotes a property of a target. [math]\mathbf{v}[/math] is velocity and [math]\mathbf{a}[/math] is acceleration. Finally, [math]\mathbf{F}[/math] is the force the source charge applies on the target charge These models are a superset of many models in CE, with the exception of Coulomb's Law which is part of both. Distinti tried to develop force-charge models using CE. Coulomb's Model is just another name for Coulomb's Law. New Magnetism was developed out of [math]\mathbf{F}=q\boldsymbol{v} \times \boldsymbol{B}[/math], aka the Lorentz Force, and Biot-Savart. Distinti found he could not turn Faraday's Law into a force-charge model. This realization led to the discovery that CE does not have any model which properly describes self-induction. The models which CE gives for self-induction are incorrect applications of CE. Using Faraday's Law and Biot-Savart, we are left with an infinite result. Using the Neumann Equation we're left with an undefined result. New Electromagnetism can be used and it doesn't result in infinities and it is easier to apply. One instance where NE more fully described EM regards how charges and loops of wire interact. Using Faraday's Law, you can compute the emf a charge induces into a loop of wire, but you cannot compute the force that a loop of wire with an emf places in a charge. New Induction, however, can compute both and it does so accurately. It agrees with experiment. New Induction was developed from the rhombus experiment. The rhombus experiment is very simple. Make a wire loop in the shape of a rhombus with hinges on the corners to change the area, then measure the inductance of the wire loop for a number of different areas. This allows one to keep the perimeter the same and simply measure the inductance as a function of area. New Induction was developed by a computer brute-forcing many different possible models until it found a model which predicts the data accurately. This all may be found in Distinti's video emV018. He details how he paramaterized the experiment at 7:05 (it's hard to explain in simple text).

An electrical engineer by the name of Robert J Distinti has developed a model of electromagnetism which purportedly is easier to use, more complete, and has less ambiguities than Classical Electromagnetism (CE). He has called it, creatively, New Electromagnetism (NE). The motivation behind the development was Distinti's supposed discovery that CE has no proper model for self-inductance. I am submitting his work here for evaluation. I have chosen this forum since this forum allows for material which is not part of mainstream science, a rarity in science forums it seems. I hope to have a reasonable discussion regarding Distinti's claims, such that we may determine if the theory is or is not correct. As a disclaimer, I, of course, am not Distinti. I have no connections to him personally or professionally. Distinti has presented his work mainly in two formats: papers on his own website, and videos on youtube. I hope to examine both of these wholesomely. His youtube channel covers more topics than just New Electromagnetism. If we evaluate his videos we will only be concerned with his videos regarding New Electromagnetism, as well as his superseding theory Ethereal Mechanics. Here are the links to both his papers and his youtube channel. Papers Youtube Channel Here is a link to his masters thesis: http://distinti.com/docs/neThesis.pdf For clarity we will refer to papers by their file names within the directory distinti.com/docs. E.g. The paper whose title is "Capacitor Anomoly" within the document itself is referred to as "cap_anom". There are an enormous amount of assertions over all of Distinti's materials. There are far too many to consider at once, so I will generalize his claims into two categories: allegations, and refutations. An allegation is any claim where Distinti presents a hypothesis of some sort. The models of NE would be considered allegations (ne). A refutation is any claim where Distinti attempts to prove a part of mainstream science to be incorrect. The position that CE does not properly model self-inductance would be a refutation (ind_jackson, apoce). It should be noted that refutations and allegations are logically independent. This means that disproving one does not necessarily mean the disproof of any other. Finally, this generalization of his claims is obviously only made for the sake of clarity and ease. Specific claims need to be examined on a case-by-case basis; some claims might be both an allegation and a refutation. To begin, I first invite those interested to peruse his papers and videos to become familiar with his claims. I'll allow others to come here to discuss a claim the find interesting, but if we prefer that I begin the discussion then I'll present a claim, myself. As per the rules of this forum, I submit these reproducible experiments as proof: Paradox Generator 2: A device which develops a power in a way not described by CE, but is described by NE -All Details: http://distinti.com/docs/pdx/paradox2.pdf Quad-Loop Experiment: Shows that there are aspects of self-inductance which CE cannot account for. -Theory 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0UvP5GZ1iA -Theory 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31kixSSm-d0 -Setup: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qokV6SnZcR0 -Measurement: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9ZR_EWcIuk -Data Review: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EISYtEBFsxg Rhombus Experiment: The experiment used to gather data to determine NE -Theory: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqJw_Bo00ME -Setup: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dBZaiAE0GU -Measurement: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcvXww2wygg -Data Review: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fF1eyBxdt6c