vacuodynamic

Dear swansont, It seems that you think that you know about the similar between the antenna and the solenoid better than me! Would you please tell me some? Sincerely, Nimit ------------------- http://www.vacuum-mechanics.com .

Dear swansont, In the two-solenoid experiment, there is NO mutual inductance in solenoid circuit with direct current! In VHF directional radio transmission system, there is NO mutual inductance because antenna is not a solenoid (in structure)! Sincerely, Nimit ------------------- http://www.vacuum-mechanics.com

Dear swansont, How could you understand for something like that? May be because I misunderstood that your former post is about what D.H. had talking in his post #44 in which he point out that “the experiment with two solenoids I referred to may came with mutual inductance”, and if this is not what you are asking, please explain it again? Sincerely, Nimit ------------------- http://www.vacuum-mechanics.com

Dear Peron, May be it is not quite appropriate to talk about quantum mechanics here, and I have look forward to talk about it in its own forum soon! Actually, your question could be found after reading all part of the paper “completed quantum mechanical theory”. Anyway, I will reply it in short as follow; All atomic particles such proton, neutron, atoms etc. could disturb vacuum medium and creating wave if they are moving fast enough! But in practice only electron which we can speed it up fast enough to create the “co-moving” electron wave such as in electron microscope. For small particle such as dust particle or gun bullet up to a big object such as star could not create their “co-moving” wave because their normal moving speed is not fast compare to electron speed! Now come to the question - why we could not detect the “co-moving” (electron) wave? Actually we can not directly detect the wave with two reasons. First, the “co-moving” wave is “velocity” wave, so it can not radiate; only “accelerate” wave could radiate (please remember that electromagnetic wave was created by oscillating electrons). Second, the “co-moving” (electron) wave energy is very tiny compare to electron energy, so it is very difficult to detect it. For binary stars, because of their high rotation speed, and because both star circulate each other, then oscillating wave was created and radiate away. Indeed, the radiating wave was detect as the famous prove of gravity wave predict by Einstein general theory of relativity! Sincerely, Nimit ------------------- http://www.vacuum-mechanics.com Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Dear swansont, The action of transformer was arisen “only” from alternating current. And because alternating current creates changing magnetic flux, then the induced magnetic flux is the origin of what we called mutual inductance. There is NO mutual inductance in direct current circuit (except in transient state)! Sincerely, Nimit ------------------- http://www.vacuum-mechanics.com

Dear swansont, I am a former electrical - communication engineer who have worked thirty years in the field of radio communication engineering. VHF radio directional broadcasting system is a kind of radio communication which I have worked with, and it is also “what was talking about in my paper”. To work with VHF radio directional broadcasting system, I have followed the mentioned reference books. Also these reference books which I used to write my paper! It seems that you are not familiar with radio communication system, are you? In the VHF radio directional system, two have-wave dipole antennas were used. Each antenna has it own constant impedance which act as load of the system, how could the “load” change? I have not necessary to kept all my working data for thirty years long! Sincerely, Nimit ------------------- http://www.vacuum-mechanics.com

Dear swansont, It seems as if you were not ever involved in any physics laboratory measurement class for verify what you have learned in the theory. Any actual practical measurement is of course having some small deviation from theory, but it is not the main part which will defy the theory, isn't it? It was said in the mentioned referent text books (I just learned from them)! It is not only DO the experiment, but I have worked with it for thirty year in radio communication engineering! Sincerely, Nimit ------------------- http://www.vacuum-mechanics.com

Dear swansont, Where is the “elsewhere”? It was said that “the input energy was kept constant”, what else do you mean? Sincerely, Nimit ------------------- http://www.vacuum-mechanics.com Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Dear Klaynos, Could you please show me the mathematical formula which give the result you mentioned? How it is be so? Sincerely, Nimit ------------------- http://www.vacuum-mechanics.com

Dear Klaynos, Below is the involved part (p.6-7) of the paper VMTE in my website which you can easily download its pdf file there. …………………………………………… The third experiment is a more practical one; it is involved electromagnetic field energy of VHF radio system. It is a normal way for sending VHF radio signal to a desired direction. The system consists of a two-element directional antenna as shown as in figure below. Two half-wave dipole antennas are placing side by side with spacing of one fourth of the radio wavelength apart To operate the antenna system, two sinusoidal electromagnetic signal currents with opposite phase are fed into each of the antennas simultaneously. Then the total power density pattern of the radiated radio waves (calculated from the formula shown) was created as shown in diagram in the figure 3. Note, actually the total power density pattern is 3-Dimesion but only 2-Dimension is shown. It is an apple shape pattern in which the concave part (right hand side) point to the desired direction Next let us do the experiment, if both antennas are moved close together while the feeding currents keep fixed. The power density pattern will be decreased, the more closing of the antennas the more decreasing of power density pattern in the figure (n=1/4 is biggest, n=1/8 is smaller and n=1/12 is smallest). According to the theory and the formula, when both antennas are at the same position, the size of the power pattern will reduce to zero. Now the question is where is the radiation energy of the radio wave gone? Someone may say that it is obviously a simple destructive interference phenomenon of waves. Yes, it is, but that will violate the law of conservation of energy. (We have kept the same input energy but the output energy is decreased.) The only possible explanation to the question is that; there is the cancellation of the opposite phase in the internal stress of vacuum medium. Figure 3 Radio radiation patterns of a two half-wave antennas & the formula. …………………………………………………………………………… By the way, detail explanation, calculation and the relevant diagram could be found in the referenced text books, i. e. [9] John D. Ryder, “Network, Lines and Fields” Second Edition, p. 553-555. And [10] Editors: Richard C Johnson, Henry Jasik, “Antenna Applications Reference Guide”, p. 2-13 to 2-15. Sincerely, Nimit ------------------- http://www.vacuum-mechanics.com

Dear Klaynos, You need not to re-model it again; it was done (and used for communication engineers) in the two telecommunication text books (Richard C Johnson, Henry Jasik, “Antenna Applications Reference Guide”, and John D. Ryder, “Network, Lines and Fields”) in which I have used it as referenced in my paper. Would you please study it first before making any further discussion? Sincerely, Nimit ------------------- http://www.vacuum-mechanics.com

Dear Klaynos, It seems that you come closer that it is due to the interference effect, but in this case, it is not a common interference effect which the final result (total energy) is conserved! Instead, it is a special case in which the “total energy” is NOT conserved. That is, it is a total destructive interference in which all of the transmitting wave energy reducing approaching to zero (while decreasing the separate distance between the antennas) while the power input to the antennas is keeping constant! By the way, it is not so easy to visualize how it is something like that. What we have to do is to study the subject in technical (mathematical) detail and finally you could verify it experimentally! Sincerely, Nimit ------------------- http://www.vacuum-mechanics.com

Dear Klaynos, IT seems that you are not so familiar with radio communication system! What I am talking about is “the decreasing of power density of the transmitting wave energy” at “the same fixed point (or area) reference to the antennas” while decreasing the spacing between the two antennas, NOT the “the decreasing of power density of the transmitting wave energy” when “increasing the receiving distance from the antennas”. Please see technical detail explanation in the referenced paper (VMTE), thanks. Sincerely, Nimit ------------------- http://www.vacuum-mechanics.com

Dear D H, Yes, I do; my advantage is that I am a former electrical - communication engineer who used to involve not only on electromagnetic theory, but also with the applied one! Do you have any other argument? By the way, actually I have two other scientific indirect prove methods for the existing of the vacuum medium (ether). The first one is an analogy working with acoustic wave energy, and the second one is working with electromagnetic energy (radio wave energy) instead of magnetic energy only. Anyway, the first one is quite naïve (primary school physics (?), so please see in another scientific paper VMTE in my website), while the second one is more interesting, but it is not so common to theoretical physicist, but quite well known to communication engineer! Here is a short summary for the second method; in VHF radio broadcasting system which wants to send the radio signal to a desired direction, a two-element directional antenna (half-wave dipole) was used. By arrangement of the two antennas in a certain position, the resultant transmitting waves from them was superimposed and could be got to the desired direction. Anyway, when further distance between the antennas was adjusted, finally we will found that the transmitting wave’s energy is decreasing approaching zero (while keeping constant of input power)! Please see detail in my website. Sincerely, Nimit ------------------- http://www.vacuum-mechanics.com

Dear D H, IT seems that you have overlook that we are talking about the experiment with “direct current power supply ” not “alternating current power supply ” . Have you ever seen a “direct current” transformer? Sincerely, Nimit ------------------- http://www.vacuum-mechanics.com

Dear D H, I have read “swansont” concept which told “Why has my post been move to Pseudoscience & Speculation?” So I will try to explain how my proposed theory is quite fulfill with the written concept (as below), so would you please reconsider it again? Topic: NO MATHS. – Lack of a legitimate framework? - In my paper “Completed Einstein special theory of relativity (CSTR)”, not only the derivation of the Lorentz transformation by using k-calculus, but also the other derivation such as the "increasing mass" and derivation of acoustic wave's relativistic doppler effect,etc. Topic: INCOMPREHENSIBLE – Without presenting the material using the framework that already exists? - In my mentioned theory, well-defined terminology referenced to academic text books was used and it was referred in the reference of the paper. Topic: YOU ARE CONTRADICTING ACCEPTED SCIENCE – If you are proposing a new theory, it has to do better than the one it’s supplanting. - The only contradiction between my theory (CSTR) and the conventional relativity (STR) is whether ether (vacuum medium) is existed? And as I have explained early that in the conventional way which tried to prove it, but the result is not a clear cut one. - my new theory (CSTR) was developed in the scientific way as STR do, but with a more philosophical idea than the conventional way which is rather an abstraction and based on only the assumptions! Topic: NO EVIDENCE – No predicted or explained by accepted science. - As mentioned in the previous topic about proving the existence of ether (vacuum medium), I have proposed an obvious prove using the simple scientific experiment with solenoids as mentioned in my post #10 , in which I am quite confident that no one can argue! Topic: NO PHYSICAL BASIC – A reasoned rational to justify the hypothesis must exist. - In the new theory (CSTR), we can provide physical meaning of the Lorentz transformation, not only the mathematical formulas as in the conventional STR! Topic: OBVIOUS ERROR – A quick inspection shows statements that are not true. - For me who is the author, I can not found any thing which is wrong! Would you please show me some? IT IS NOT SCIENCE – Philosophy and metaphysics are separate topics, and for these purposes, consider speculation. - You are right, but only in the case that the propose idea have no any mathematical formulation. And in the opposite way, a scientific theory without philosophic idea, which explains how it works, seems not a good one. The reason is that how could science progress without understanding! By the way, it is interesting to note that the ancient Maya which could predict some celestial events correctly but without understanding how it works. (And please remember that prediction is the final aim of science.) Then the price that they had to be paid was the sacrifice of their people! Sincerely, Nimit ------------------- http://www.vacuum-mechanics.com

Dear D H, What is the mentioned “curve space-time” or more specificly, how space-time could be curved? Is it a physical space or just an abstract mathematical idea? Have you ever been look in my paper before? And at what point which you consider it as a speculation or pseudoscience? Sincerely, Nimit ------------------- http://www.vacuum-mechanics.com

Dear swansont, Sorry, may be my former post (# 34) is not quite clear, so I would like to restate it as follow; Any mass which is staying rest to “vacuum medium” reference frame would has its “constant” intrinsic mass, while any mass which is “in any inertial reference frame” which is moving relative to the “vacuum medium” will increase its mass according to the gamma factor. Let us reconsider further for the former mentioned example of a moving car on our earth’s surface. First, let us forget for awhile about the rotation of the earth, and also assumed that the air is staying still relative to the earth. So the moving car relative to the “resting frame” of the air (and earth) will increase its mass! (While the car which stay still on the earth will have its intrinsic mass.) Now consider in the real case of the rotating earth together with the air which is dragging along (as if it is staying still relative to the earth). And according to the concept of dragging along of the vacuum medium with the earth, we should expect the increased mass (due to vacuum medium) of the moving car too! Any way, because the tiny speed of the car (compare with light) and also the very very thin density of vacuum medium (compare to air), so it is hopeless to observe it! No, light velocity is the same “reference to vacuum medium frame”, because light velocity in isotopic and homogeneous vacuum medium is constant, c! Sincerely, Nimit ------------------- http://www.vacuum-mechanics.com .

Dear swansont, Any mass which is staying rest to “vacuum medium” reference frame would has its intrinsic mass, while any mass which is moving relative to the medium will increase its mass according to the gamma factor. By the way, it is interesting to note that in the conventional theory, Einstein has used two assumptions i.e. “physics is the same for any inertial frame” and “light velocity is the same any inertial observer”. But, with careful consideration, we would wonder why the second assumption has to be stated, is light different from other physics? In contrast, for the improved theory, only one assumption was needed i.e. “physics is the same reference to vacuum medium frame”! And it is no need to state another assumption (i.e. “light velocity is the same reference to vacuum medium frame”) because light velocity in isotopic and homogeneous vacuum medium is constant, c. Sincerely, Nimit ------------------- http://www.vacuum-mechanics.com .

Dear friends, Up to new, I think someone may want to know about the paper “Completed Einstein special theory of relativity (CSTR)”, but to read its whole story seem to be a big job (actually it quite easy in this case, please try). So may be it is worth briefly talk for giving an idea; how it could improve the conventional theory! CSTR is rather a simple scientific (but not so mathematical rigor) paper in which the “Lorentz transformation” was derived based on “vacuum medium” (something resemble but not the same as ether) reference frame. [Of course we have verified the existing (with some mechanical property) of the medium.] Here, let us show how the new concept could be used to solve philosophical problems in the conventional theory. For an example, in the case of the increasing mass of a moving object, in which we can not explain why and how it is be so. Instead, armed with the existing of “vacuum medium”, it is easy to explain that the increasing mass was due to the “inertial reaction” of the medium’s resistance! To visualize the mentioned effect, it is easy while acting as a good analogy for thinking of driving a car. At low speed say < 60 km/h we would found that air resistance seems to be speed “independent” and is quite small, so it was usually neglected. When the car’s speed is increasing up to, say > 90 km/h, then air resistance effect increasing; the faster the car’s speed, the bigger air resistance, i.e. the car’s mass is speed “dependent”! Sincerely, Nimit ------------------- http://www.vacuum-mechanics.com .

Dear mooeypoo, Sorry, I am not so good in English, would you please give some examples. It seems that this is not a good analogy, please give a real example! As I have mentioned in the first post that I have proposed my idea in a scientific paper “Completed Einstein special theory of relativity (CSTR)” by using what I called it as “vacuum medium” which is something like (but not the same as) the old ether. In CSTR, what I have done is to improve the conventional STR by deriving the same Lorentz transformation which based on vacuum medium reference frame. And what follow is that we are able to solve the philosophic problem in STR, i.e. the increasing mass, length contraction and time dilation! (Please see detail in my website.) Sincerely, Nimit ------------------- http://www.vacuum-mechanics.com .

Dear swansont, What is then which you expected it to be? How about the solution with length contraction, is it so a sound one? Sincerely, Nimit ------------------- http://www.vacuum-mechanics.com .

Dear swansont, We could explain the reason of the appearance of stars aberration, that is, it is because of the large distance between stars and the earth while the dragged along of vacuum medium is a small portion as noted by Michelson himself [“A History of the Theories of Aether and Electricity” Vol.1, p.391 by Sir Edmund Whittaker F. R. S.]. Also the earth rotational velocity is small compare to light, so the dragged effect is so small and could be neglected. Sincerely, Nimit ------------------- http://www.vacuum-mechanics.com .

Dear swansont, In summary, according to conventional interpretation of the Michelson-Morley experiment which point out that the null result of the experiment means there is no relative motion between the earth and the ether, while ether-based relativity interpret it as the effect of the ether dragged. Any way, the weak point of the conventional interpretation is that it was based on the concept of length contraction of the equipment’s arm which was not obvious be proved so far! So, in order to settle the conflict, an additional simple experiment test on other moving frame (besides the moving earth) such as in the space shuttle or space station, was proposed! Sincerely, Nimit ------------------- http://www.vacuum-mechanics.com .

Dear swansont, Thanks for your comment, and sorry if my words is inappropriate used! It seems that you want to mention about Michelson-Morley experiment test for the relative motion between the earth and ether, isn’t it? Actually, while mainstream physicists have claimed that the experiment support their idea, bur for dissident physicists it is opposite. For my opinion, it is not a clear cut prove, and I have proposed a simple final judgment by an additional experiment test on other moving frame (besides the moving earth) such as in the space shuttle or space station! (Please see detail explanation in my scientific paper “Completed Einstein special theory of relativity” now presenting in my website.) Sincerely, Nimit ------------------- http://www.vacuum-mechanics.com .

Dear rockman, Thank for your comment, I used to wonder why mainstream (positivism) physicists try to insist that light is a magic thing which could be propagate by itself, but now I seems to understand why it is so! Let us talk a little more about this issue. Richard P. Feynman (a well known Nobel Prize physicist) had tried to explain (in his famous lecture on physics) how light wave could propagate by its mutual creation between electric and magnetic field! Anyway, for someone who familiar and work with Maxwell equations would found that technically the propagation of any kind of electromagnetic wave deny the “mutual creation between electric and magnetic field”, but why? Reference to electromagnetic radiation field equations which was derived from Maxwell equations (and we could also found it in Feynman lecture mentioned) we can see that both electric and magnetic radiation fields are simultaneously rise and fall at the same time! So if the light wave could be propagate by mutual creation between electric and magnetic field, then principle of causality will be violated, so the mentioned method of propagation should not correct! By the way, Feynman is my favorite and respect person for his genius, and what I like him most is that he is an open-minded one! Sincerely, Nimit ------------------- http://www.vacuum-mechanics.com .

Dear Klaynos, Thanks for your comment, anyway, even I am not quite fully understand your point, but I will try to answer it, and if I misunderstood then please forgive me! How about Einstein’s criticized on QM that it is not complete theory? For me, when he return to the aether, it implied that he accept the incomplete of relativity! We have to accept that relativity is a great theory and it is no problem for using it alone. Anyway, if we try to link it to QM, such as it was trying to do in quantum gravity then serious problem has arisen. To solve the problem, people have to look back to both QM and relativity and asking what wrong with them, are both of them complete? Sincerely, Nimit ------------------- http://www.vacuum-mechanics.com