"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

Originally posted by -PLB-
Because the observed behavior looks like what we would expect.

1. Maybe you have not done as much tinkering in a home lab setting as Scholze has done. That could account for a difference in what appears unusual to him.
   
2. Maybe your style is that you don't even notice what something is doing; you just measure and that's it.
   

Regardless, this is an open-source R&D video. What I see him doing is a work-in-progress.

Originally posted by -PLB-
So if I posted a video of me pushing the wheel of my bike and saying, based on personal experience, the wheel rotates for an extended time, it would have you wondering? If not, what is the difference?

The only analogy would be if you invented a special bike - there would be no discussion if the bike were a regular bike. That's why I think your example is not apt. There have been claims made about the Rodin coil, and these people are taking his information and trying to test it.

Originally posted by -PLB-
I have seen your talk about a different notation.

I'm not sure what you mean. I don't believe I've used the word "notation."

Bearden’s research indicates that in 1892 J.P. Morgan elicited Lorentz to deliberately cripple the original Heaviside version of Maxwell’s equations to be used for the new technology of electrical engineering. Lorentz took previous work by Lorenz (no "t") and used it to symmetrize the Heaviside equations. This was throwing out all asymmetric Maxwellian systems for the new Heaviside-Lorentz equations. These mutilated equations contained only systems that self-enforce COP 1.0 is an asymmetric system.

I posted Bearden’s article about this on page 71.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by -PLB-
I have seen your talk about a different notation.

I'm not sure what you mean. I don't believe I've used the word "notation."

I know exactly what he means. This was already discussed back on pages 83 -86 where Bobathon told you the Heaviside changes didn't change the content of Maxwell's equations in practical terms:

Originally posted by Bobathon
reply to post by Mary Rose

 

The whole mathematical formulation has been very useful. Heaviside's contribution was important for unifying and clarifying the mathematical structure. He didn't change the content.

Remember that?

I interpreted PLB's comment the same way I interpreted bobathon's comment.

In an over-simplified analogy, you can add 1/2 plus 1/2, or you can add 0.5 plus 0.5. They look different, but they end up giving you the same answer.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


More regarding Heaviside, from page 87:

. . . Some non sequiturs in the present definition of field and potential, and in the
electromagnetic energy flow theory, are corrected. The vast nondiverged Heaviside dark
(unaccounted) energy flow component surrounding every circuit and accompanying
every field interaction is restored, and the historical background of how it was and is
arbitrarily discarded is given. Applications to circuits are given, particularly to using the
new giant negentropy principle for permissible open dissipative Maxwellian systems
which permissibly extract electrical energy from the vacuum and use it to power their
loads. . . .

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by -PLB-
Because the observed behavior looks like what we would expect.

1. Maybe you have not done as much tinkering in a home lab setting as Scholze has done. That could account for a difference in what appears unusual to him.
   
2. Maybe your style is that you don't even notice what something is doing; you just measure and that's it.
   

Difference between appearance and fact is in the measurement. Unless you quantify what you see, it's pretty pointless to speculate.

Regardless, this is an open-source R&D video. What I see him doing is a work-in-progress.

What I keep seeing in the videos you post are folks that are pretty clueless when it comes to experiment. Just one, old, used oscilloscope bought off eBay for a few bucks can shed tons of light on a huge variety of phenomena, from acoustics to electronics to even nuclear physics. But instead... People playing with Rodin coil invariably show some kind of arrested development, where they stare at a magnet, or a light, or other such object, and go "wow". One honest folk made an attempt at a measurement but even he screwed up. So I don't actually expect much "progress" at this rate. He'll just post another Youtube video with an even bigger toroidal coil, and will say "wow, neosphere sure goes fast!". Duh!

Originally posted by Mary Rose

1. Maybe you have not done as much tinkering in a home lab setting as Scholze has done. That could account for a difference in what appears unusual to him.
   
2. Maybe your style is that you don't even notice what something is doing; you just measure and that's it.
   

I did my share of tinkering in a lab (though not a home lab). My style is that when I notice something that to me looks unusual I measure it to verify if it really is unusual.

The only analogy would be if you invented a special bike - there would be no discussion if the bike were a regular bike. That's why I think your example is not apt. There have been claims made about the Rodin coil, and these people are taking his information and trying to test it.

Now wait a second here. Wasn't the whole point of this video to demonstrate that this coil is some special type of coil? But now you are suggesting that the observations are not special by itself, but are special because a special type of coil is used, which is the actual thing that is attempted to be demonstrated.

Don't you recognize the circular reasoning here? The observation is unusual and shows that the coil is special. And the reason that the observation is special is because the coil is special. Why not just skip the whole experiment and just say the coil is special, and you are done.

Originally posted by -PLB-I'm not sure what you mean. I don't believe I've used the word "notation."

Bearden’s research indicates that in 1892 J.P. Morgan elicited Lorentz to deliberately cripple the original Heaviside version of Maxwell’s equations to be used for the new technology of electrical engineering. Lorentz took previous work by Lorenz (no "t") and used it to symmetrize the Heaviside equations. This was throwing out all asymmetric Maxwellian systems for the new Heaviside-Lorentz equations. These mutilated equations contained only systems that self-enforce COP 1.0 is an asymmetric system.

I posted Bearden’s article about this on page 71.

Mathematics are very exact. If you can show me a situation where the original equations come to a different answer than the current ones, I would be interested to see it.

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by Mary Rose
The only analogy would be if you invented a special bike - there would be no discussion if the bike were a regular bike. That's why I think your example is not apt. There have been claims made about the Rodin coil, and these people are taking his information and trying to test it.

Now wait a second here. Wasn't the whole point of this video to demonstrate that this coil is some special type of coil? But now you are suggesting that the observations are not special by itself, but are special because a special type of coil is used, which is the actual thing that is attempted to be demonstrated.

Yup PLB, you nailed it... Circular reasoning par excellence... Just sad, really.

As to the claims about Rodin coil... These range from nebulous to bizarre. Is there a black hole in the center? Rodin says there is. For Mary, that's enough proof that a black hole actually resides in the center of that donut. Because it's "special", you know? In one other lecture, Rodin now says it's a "white hole" and that there is "an explosion". Do we see any explosion? No we don't but again the coil is "special" so for Mary this must be true.

No, seriously.

"Solar Systems Spiral Out in a Saucer"
"Nine is Virtual Super Particle"
"Celestial Emanation"
"Tachyon"
"Dark Matter"

The Emanations are the ÏThe Dandelion Puff PrincipleÓ. The emanations originate from the glottal stop impulse of Alif, the first letter of the Arabic alphabet.

The guy is sick.

Originally posted by -PLB-
Now wait a second here. Wasn't the whole point of this video to demonstrate that this coil is some special type of coil? But now you are suggesting that the observations are not special by itself, but are special because a special type of coil is used, which is the actual thing that is attempted to be demonstrated.

You're quoting me in reference to your analogy to a bike.

Let's get back on target: the Scholze video.

Here is the point of the video as stated by Scholze when I queried him about his video:

Originally posted by Mary Rose
From Jack Scholze:

. . . The resonances observed show an extended spindown of the spinning neoball magnet beyond what you expect from simply resistance. . . . The good question is, does any other energy come into the system while this is occurring, like the Zeropoint energy, or the radiant energy, etc. . . .

Your point is well taken that measurement is required. There will be more videos to come, I am sure.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Mathematics are very exact. If you can show me a situation where the original equations come to a different answer than the current ones, I would be interested to see it.

I posted a link to a .pdf file of Maxwell's original paper "A Dynamical Theory of Electromagnetic Field," [Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 155, 459-512 (1865), which consisted of 20 equations with 20 unknowns on page 85. From page 84, about an article quoting Bearden:

Originally posted by Mary Rose
The equations were in quaternion format. Maxwell was pressured to get rid of the quaternions because few people understood them. So he rewrote and simplified 80% of his 1873 treatise. This action was followed by Heaviside changing the quaternion format to a simple vector format. Also, Lorentz made the change of symmetrical regauging. This regauging forced the theory to obey the law of conservation of energy.

Bearden is quoted:

A higher group symmetry algebra such as quaternions will contain and allow many more operations than a lower algebra such as tensors, which itself contains more than an even lower algebra such as vectors.

The article concludes with this paragraph:

The great flaw in mainstream physics today is that no one seems willing to look at the effects of accelerating fields. Adding a fourth term to the electromagnetic equations in fact yields such a condition, and lo and behold, conservation laws are redefined in a wholly connected and virtually unlimited universe. It's just the kind of thing Maxwell's Demon (and/or Tom Bearden[8]) could appreciate.

From page 59:

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Included within the following video, Bearden talks about a clever phrase that has been used in relation to electrodynamics: "Has no physical significance..."

Watching the above video is a must.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by -PLB-
Mathematics are very exact. If you can show me a situation where the original equations come to a different answer than the current ones, I would be interested to see it.

I posted a link to a .pdf file of Maxwell's original paper "A Dynamical Theory of Electromagnetic Field," [Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 155, 459-512 (1865), which consisted of 20 equations with 20 unknowns on page 85. From page 84, about an article quoting Bearden:

The equations were in quaternion format. Maxwell was pressured to get rid of the quaternions because few people understood them. So he rewrote and simplified 80% of his 1873 treatise. This action was followed by Heaviside changing the quaternion format to a simple vector format. Also, Lorentz made the change of symmetrical regauging. This regauging forced the theory to obey the law of conservation of energy.

A theory doesn't force nature to do anything. It's the other way around, we have to revise our theories to make them better model nature.

So let's examine Bearden's patented device, the MEG, to see what it has actually accomplished without Lorentz's regaging etc, since it was designed using Bearden's application of the math the way he says it's supposed to be done:

Analysis of the MEG (motionless Electromagnetic Generator) That paper is a must read.

• The input voltage is constant and is about 28 V.
• The input current is AC (not perfectly sinusoidal, but close enough).
• The amplitude of the AC current, I0, is about 125×10^-3 A (take the difference in the peak-to-peak values and divide by two). The bottom panel of figure 5 shows the output voltage, in blue, and output current, in yellow, coming out of only one output coil of the MEG. Reading the data legend of this panel we can deduce that:
• The output voltage is sinusoidal and has an amplitude of roughly 500 V (take the difference in the peak-to-peak values and divide by two).
• The output current is sinusoidal and has an amplitude of 44 × 10^-3 A.

An output of 500V with an input of only 28V? Who could have predicted that could happen unless it's energy from the vacuum? Oh wait there's more...

With these experimental facts we are now ready to see that, with the theory of section 2, the MEG performs exactly in accordance with the known laws of physics and is most certainly not a free energy device!

Yeah, well Bearden supporters who wish to maintain their biased viewpoint can disregard that last statement. Just pay attention to the fact that the output voltage is higher than the input voltage, if you want to maintain the illusion or delusion he's onto something with Maxwell's original equations.

"The device has been independently replicated by Naudin and is therefore reproducible
and repeatable, meeting the requirements of scientific rigor."

(From: P. K. Anastasovski, T. E. Bearden et al., Explanation of the Motionless Electromagnetic Generator with O(3) Electrodynamics, Foundations of Physics Letters, 87, Vol. 14,(2001)

This, as you can now see, is a wholly false statement. The device has failed on all accounts
to meet the requirements of scientific rigor when inspection of Naudin’s own data reveals it
to be nothing more than a standard electrical transformer.
The only perpetual motion machine in all of this that I can see, is the perpetual cycling
of the same centuries old garbage physics ideas from one scam artist to the next. Whether
Naudin has wilfully befuddled his data to give the MEG the appearance of producing more
power out than what is put into it, I cannot say for certain. What I can say for certain
is that his overall scientific technique and ability is at a level of ineptitude that one only
expects to find from someone who is wholly ignorant of what it is they are doing, or from
someone who is wilfully deceiving their audience.

There's the bottom line of what you get by using Maxwell's original equations. Apply enough ineptitude or deception to your analysis and claim that the 500V output is greater than the 28V input and claim the difference is due to vacuum energy. Then see how gullible people are. Apparently, some are pretty gullible.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Your point is well taken that measurement is required. There will be more videos to come, I am sure.

Thats good. Until then, the video you posted is as meaningful as a video of me pushing the wheel of my bike, claiming is turns extensively.

Watching the above video is a must.

You have to understand that what we call a law in physics is a description of reality. The laws we have discovered do not dictate how reality works.

Bearden is talking about the "Heaviside’s long-ignored giant curled EM energy flow component". I never heard of it before. When searching on Google, all I can find is Bearden claiming it exists. I could also not find the original paper by Heaviside.

Where is the experimental data that shows this "giant curled EM energy flow component" really exists? How did Bearden came to the conclusion it exists other than "Heaviside said so"? Too bad I can not verify what Heaviside actually published. If anyone knows where I can find this publication I would be happy to hear it.

Originally posted by -PLB-
You have to understand that physical laws describe reality.

Describe reality to the best of our knowledge; I agree.

Originally posted by -PLB-
They do not dictate how reality works.

Originally posted by -PLB-

Bearden is talking about the "Heaviside’s long-ignored giant curled EM energy flow component". I never heard of it before. When searching on Google, all I can find is Bearden claiming it exists. I could also not find the original paper by Heaviside.

Where is the experimental data that shows this "giant curled EM energy flow component" really exists? How did Bearden came to the conclusion it exists other than "Heaviside said so"? Too bad I can not verify what Heaviside actually published. If anyone knows where I can find this publication I would be happy to hear it.

Thanks for giving me my next assignment! I always like good questions.

I will dig to see whether I can locate Bearden's source material.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You haven't mentioned Lorentz with a "t."

My impression is that the sequence of events in a nutshell is that Maxwell's original equations were in quaternion format, Heaviside changed them into vector format, and then Lorentz imposed symmetrical regauging.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Did you take a look at the .pdf file?

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I will dig to see whether I can locate Bearden's source material.

Bearden references the Proceedings of the Royal Society of London for Heaviside's discovery and publication, but I haven't figured out yet how to locate a 19th century document.

Meanwhile, I want to post more information about Heaviside. From "Cancer and the Unresolved Health Issues in the Biological Effects of EM Fields and Radiation":

. . . Heaviside believed - as did almost every scientist at the time - in the older medieval tradition that forces were the causes of all physical effects. He had great difficulty with the potentials, stating that they were "mystical and should be murdered from the theory." We know today in modern quantum field theory that forces are effects, not primary causes of anything. In fact, it is the exchange of virtual particles with a mass that generates all forces upon it. As is well­known to foundations physicists today, "force" does not exist without the mass present to be acted upon, and without the action of a potential gradient upon the mass. We know that there are no force fields in the vacuum, and hence potential gradients in the vacuum are not forces, even though they are commonly assumed to be. CEM has not been corrected for these glaring defects: it prescribes force fields in the vacuum, and it prescribes that potential gradients are forces, even in the absence of any mass for the gradients to act upon.

Heaviside also abhorred the quaternion theory. The coupling of a scalar component with three directional components was, in his view, "mixing apples and oranges." He knew that engineers would never master Maxwell's use of quaternion mathematics because of its difficulty. Consequently, Heaviside simply chopped off the scalar component of the quaternion and discarded it, then formulated this new "truncated to a vector" version as a much simpler mathematics, albeit of decreased topology. What he unknowingly threw away was the ability of the quaternion theory to capture an internal deterministic, vectorial EM structure of the scalar potential. [It turns out that he also discarded the unification of EM and gravitation by throwing out the scalar component, but that is outside the scope of my presentation.] Years later as a lonely recluse in a small upstairs apartment, Heaviside turned back to quaternions to work on a theory of gravitation, according to papers found hidden beneath the floor of his study many years after his death.

Learned journals of the day would not accept Heaviside's papers for publication, because of the assumed "brutality" of his mathematical methods. So Heaviside began publishing very practical papers in a technical magazine, for the time roughly equivalent to Scientific American today. These practical papers gave transmission line theory, transformer theory, etc. - things very useful to the early would-be "engineers" who were struggling with installing telegraph lines, undersea telegraph cables, etc. The vector mathematics utilized by Heaviside was much easier to understand and apply, and his work was eminently practical. Consequently it was eagerly seized upon and applied. The result was that Heaviside's EM model became the ipso facto CEM standard. Note that, at the time, only about 30 or so scientists in the world were truly "learned" in EM - either from the vector standpoint or from the quaternion standpoint. Further, not much practical work was being done by the few quaternion practitioners.

A short "debate" over whether EM should use Maxwell's quaternion model or the Heaviside/Gibbs vector model occurred prior to the turn of the century, mostly in the journal Nature. It never involved over a handful of scientists, and it wasn't much of a debate. The vectorists simply threw out the quaternion EM theory and adopted the vector theory of Heaviside and Gibbs. Note that this represented a substantial curtailment of Maxwell's actual theory. In other words, you can actually do a lot more in and with EM fields and circuits than what now appears in "modern" EM theory, and "modern" EM analysis won't even show it. Barrett's Oscillator-Shuttle-Circuit analysis of Tesla's actual patented circuits shows this clearly and resoundingly. Also, living systems utilize the discarded subset of EM for their most vital control functions, and the present theory and methodology will not detect or "see " this. Thus this curtailment alone has resulted in the profound crippling of the conventional EM bioeffects model and efforts to apply it. . . .

reply to post by Mary Rose


In the meanwhile I have opened up a textbook on the subject (The Feynman lectures on physics). He explains why the regauging was done and why it is allowed. Here are some quotes (although it is next to impossible to understand it when you are not familiar with the subject).

You will remember that the scalar potential (phi) was not completely specified by its definition. If we have found (phi) for some problem, we can always find another potential (phi)' that is equally good by adding a constant:

(phi)' = (phi) + C

The new potential (phi)' gives the same electric fields, since the gradient (grad)C is zero; (phi)' and (phi) represent the same physics.

Similarly, we can have different vector potentials A which give the same magnetic fields. Again, because B is obtained from A by differentiation, adding a constant to A doesn't change anything physical. But there is even more latitude for A. We can add to A any field which is the gradient of some scalar field, without changing the physics..

This is followed by the proof that this is indeed the case, which consists of 2 equations. Notice the part in bold "without changing the physics".

It then follows:

It is usually convenient to take some of the "lattitude" out of A by arbitratily placing some other condition on it (in much the same way that we found it convenient--often--to choose to make the potential (phi) zero at large distances). We can, for instance, restrict A by choosing arbitratily what the diferegence of A must be. We can always do that without affecting B. This is because although A' abd A have the same curl, and give the same B, they do not need to have the same divergence. In fact, div A' = div A + (laplacian)(psi), and by a suitable choise of (psi) we can make div A' anything we wish.

So it is explained and proved that the divergence of A can be chosen arbitrarily (again notice the bold part). There is also a section about the physical meaning of A. I can also quote some parts of that if you like, but I will now skip to the Lorentz Gauge. First a couple of substitutions are made in the original equations, leading to a complex equation. Feynman then writes:

Fortunately, we can now make use of our freedom to choose arbitrarily the divergence of A. What we are going to do is to use our choice to fix things so that the equations for A and for (phi) are separated but have the same form. We can do this by taking

(followed by the Lorentz gauge, these forums do not really allow to write down equations, but you can look it up)

So what Bearden has to do is prove that either Feynman is wrong, and div A can not be chosen arbitrarily, or he has to prove that the Lorentz gauge does not meet this condition.

From my searches on the subject, I nowhere see Bearden do either. But I must say the amount of information is a bit overwhelming so if you know where he does this, again, I would be happy to see it.

reply to post by -PLB-


I am searching cheniere.org (Bearden's site) for "feynman lorentz regauging."

I'm going to post passages that seem related, even if indirectly, to the issue you raise re. Feynman on the Lorentz regauging. (By the way, I hope that there is no confusion in play here regarding two different people: Lorenz and Lorentz.)

From "Dr. Randell Mills and Blacklight Power":

. . . Now let us turn to the "cherished" old CEM so loved by the skeptics. CEM is well-known to be riddled with foundations errors, limiting assumptions, and non sequiturs -- see Wheeler, Feynman, Bunge, Margenau, Barrett, Cornille, Evans, Vigier, Lehnert, etc. Since CEM omits the active vacuum exchange, then it is faced squarely with its totally unresolved problem of the "source charge". Implicitly CEM considers that the source charge CREATES all that energy it pours out across the universe in its fields and potentials, in fact altering the entire vacuum potential of the universe. Well, that violates the most sacrosanct law of all: energy can neither be created nor destroyed. . . .

If you go to "Technical Papers by T.E. Bearden (et al.)" and scroll down to "Errors and Omissions in the CEM/ EE Model - June 27, 2005," the link is to a 35 page Word document. From the Foreward:

5. The source charge problem—key to self-powering, fuel-free electrical power systems—has been scrubbed from all the texts. There are no texts that discuss the implications of Lorentz’s symmetrical regauging of the equations, or that discuss the ramifications of the self-enforced Lorentz symmetry of our standardized circuits. The continuing false use of force fields in space—a total contradiction even pointed out by Feynman in his three volumes of sophomore physics—is particularly inexplicable, as it is never explicitly stating that the potential energy of any EM system can be freely changed at will, either symmetrically or asymmetrically, and this is guaranteed by the gauge freedom axiom of quantum field theory.

Keywords? "The continuing false use of force fields in space—a total contradiction even pointed out by Feynman in his three volumes of sophomore physics . . . "

reply to post by Mary Rose


The whole point is, that when the equation is not simplified using the Lorentz gauge, they still produce the exact same solution to a given problem. The only difference without the simplification is that the equations becomes a lot harder to solve.

If Bearden can show a situation where this is not the case, I will be interested to see this. One thing is clear, and that is that

There are no texts that discuss the implications of Lorentz’s symmetrical regauging of the equations, or that discuss the ramifications of the self-enforced Lorentz symmetry of our standardized circuits.

is not true. It is discussed in "The Feynman lectures on physics". There is also a section where it is explained that the arbitrariness of A is also true for quantum mechanics.

Edit: here is part of it:

In quantum mechanics what matters is the interference between nearby paths; it always turns out that the effects depend only on how much a field A changes from point to point, and therefor only on the derivatives of A and not on the value itself.

We know this from actual observation (actual experiments). If Bearden claims it is not true, he should come with experiments that prove it.

Originally posted by -PLB-
The whole point is, that when the equation is not simplified using the Lorentz gauge, they still produce the exact same solution to a given problem.

First, how do Maxwell's original 20 equations, which were quaternion, fit in?

Second, how does Heaviside changing the format from quaternion to vector fit in?

Did you take a look at the Maxwell .pdf?

Do you know how to search for Oliver Heaviside's 19th century document published by the Proceedings of the Royal Society of London?

There's nothing magical about quaternions. Vectors are a far better tool. You will not get some magical new results. If you actually learned math you could check this for yourself. But you will not educate yourself. I know that.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
First, how do Maxwell's original 20 equations, which were quaternion, fit in?

Second, how does Heaviside changing the format from quaternion to vector fit in?

Again, it is just a different notation. For example, you can describe a vector by v = [1 1], but you can describe that very same vector by v = [sqrt(2) /_45]. Now when you need to do calculations with vectors, in some cases the first notation may have an advantage, and in other cases the second notation may have the advantage. Using either notation, the outcome is the same, and the answer can be transformed from one notation to the other.

Did you take a look at the Maxwell .pdf?

Yes.

Do you know how to search for Oliver Heaviside's 19th century document published by the Proceedings of the Royal Society of London?

I would try a library. I could not find it online.

Originally posted by 547000
Vectors are a far better tool.

For what?

To keep things simple?

Originally posted by 547000
But you will not educate yourself.

I believe this is the teapot calling the kettle black.

Originally posted by 547000
There's nothing magical about quaternions. Vectors are a far better tool. You will not get some magical new results. If you actually learned math you could check this for yourself. But you will not educate yourself. I know that.

Indeed. Quaternions have been covered once or twice already in this thread. Mary, of course, would rather rely on intuition rather than on info and/or experience.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by 547000
Vectors are a far better tool.

For what?

To keep things simple?

Originally posted by 547000
But you will not educate yourself.

I believe this is the teapot calling the kettle black.

And I believe that 547k has some real education under his belt and you don't. You didn't graduate to a "kettle" yet.