"Gravity" and electromagnetism.

[Roger Munday]

https://www.quora.com/Is-there-anything-like-attraction-or-repulsion-in-gravitational-field-as-we-have-in-magnetic-and-electrostatic-field

“Our sciences exist in a state of almost total ignorance about gravity.

But, contrast our knowledge of gravity with that of electromagnetism. We can generate electromagnetic radiation at the frequency and intensity we choose.

We have theorized the existence of a gravity particle, known as a “graviton,” but no one has ever experimentally proved that gravitons actually exist.

This is one of the great voids in our knowledge and one of the great frontiers of physics.”

[Roger Munday]

https://thesciencespace.quora.com/How-close-have-scientists-got-to-absolute-zero

"Absolute zero is impossible to reach in practice.

The current record holder is a team of researchers from MIT and Harvard who cooled a cloud of sodium atoms to 500 nanokelvin in 2023 .

That's 0.0000005 kelvin, or -273.1499995 degrees Celsius, or -459.6699991 degrees Fahrenheit, colder than outer space."

[Roger Munday]

Newton on plenum

Isaac Newton founded classical mechanics on the view that space is distinct from body and that time passes uniformly without regard to whether anything happens in the world. For this reason he spoke of absolute space and absolute time, so as to distinguish these entities from the various ways by which we measure them (which he called relative spaces and relative times).

https://plato.stanford.edu/

From antiquity into the eighteenth century, views which denied that space and time are real entities maintained that the world is necessarily a material “plenum”, i.e. is “a space filled with matter”

They held that the idea of empty space is a conceptual impossibility. Space is nothing but an abstraction we use to compare different arrangements of the bodies constituting the plenum.

But today theoretical physicists apparently all accept that a totally unexaminable vacuous “empty space” “exists”, and accordingly they accept that the transmission of observed physical interactions between material entities of any dimension is impossible.

Roger Munday

[Roger Munday]

Continuous Magnetic Atoms

https://romunpress.co.nz/romunnose/?s=Continuous+Magnetic+Atoms

So there are just two options for the transmission of forces universally:-

1) Vacuous atoms in vacuum, i.e. impossibility.

2) Vacuum is a universally impossible state. Instead there is a universal continuity of magnetic atoms which expand (and contract) with input (emission) of energy and fractionally decrease (increase) in mass density and accordingly increase (decrease) in fluidity.

In conclusion the mythical, one way, force of ‘gravity’ does not exist, there is just one ultimate force acting universally between individual atoms that are composed entirely of matter, which force is also acting between two massive iron spheres suspended in proximity on 40 metre long cables, and is observed to act throughout a spherical volume of over 4 metres of atmosphere around a 5cm long neodymium magnet, and which is acting between the Earth and the Moon and between vast Galaxies.

All atoms in the universe are magnetic and extend their internally generated N-S fields externally to adjacent atoms and these (relatively weak) individual fields generate the magnetic field that is observed to be generated by the Earth at its surface through an atmosphere composed of 25 x 10¹⁸ atoms per cubic centimetre.

Magnetism is the ultimate universal force.

Roger Munday

[Franklin Hu]

What happens to a helium balloon? It is accelerated upward against the pull of gravity. This is explained as “buoyancy”, but what is buoyancy? The force of the direction of gravity depends exclusively upon the relative density that an object is immersed in. So gravity cannot be said to be only attractive. If you lived in a pool of mercury, you would wonder way gravity is always repulsing you away from the surface of the Earth.

Rather than being some sort of simplistic idea that the buoyancy is being caused by the heavier matter pushing up beneath a lighter material, it has been shown that the difference in the dipole charges actually cause the individual particles to accelerate in the opposite direction away from the gravitational source. This is a true anti-gravity electrostatic effect.

-Franklin

[Roger Munday]

This paper by Giuliano Franchetti states that interstellar space is composed of 10⁵, i.e. 100,000 particles per cubic centimetre.

https://cds.cern.ch/record/1542476/files/Vacuum-IEdited1-pdfx.pdf?version=1

Roger Munday

[r.j.an...@btinternet.com]

also gives

Table 1: Examples of particle densities (from Ref. [3])
Particles m^−3
Atmosphere 2.5 × 10^25
Vacuum cleaner 2 × 10^25
Freeze-dryer 10^22
Light bulb 10^20
Thermos flask 10^19
TV tube 10^14
Low Earth orbit (300 km) 10^14
H2 in LHC ∼ 10^14
SRS/Diamond 10^13
Surface of Moon 10^11
Interstellar space 10^5

 

------ Original Message ------
From: munda...@gmail.com
To: ta...@hotmail.com; stepha...@sta.uwi.edu; frank...@yahoo.com; kc...@yahoo.com; r.j.an...@btinternet.com; siri...@yahoo.com; cre...@elgenwave.com; sorli.bijec...@gmail.com; cpr...@gmail.com; greenaethe...@gmail.com; cro...@gmail.com; hartwi...@jku.at; jimm...@yahoo.com; john.eri...@gmail.com; kis...@bellsouth.net; mark.cr...@gmail.com; mike.gamb...@gmail.com; musa...@gmail.com; nper...@snet.net; pete...@aol.com; p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk; reub...@gmail.com; reg.c...@flinders.edu.au; npa-rel...@googlegroups.com; frit...@bellsouth.net; sung...@aol.com; stre...@gmail.com; se...@lastrega.com; tomin...@yahoo.com; vira...@yahoo.co.uk; electr...@gmail.com; fro...@ieee.org; mon...@aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 31st 2024, 21:33
Subject: [npa-relativity] Re: "Gravity" and electromagnetism.
 

This paper by Giuliano Franchetti states that interstellar space is composed of 10⁵, i.e. 100,000 particles per cubic centimetre.

 

https://cds.cern.ch/record/1542476/files/Vacuum-IEdited1-pdfx.pdf?version=1

 

Roger Munday
 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "npa-relativity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to unsub...@googlegroups.com">npa-relativity+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/npa-relativity/CACi_vwfmGyBcG%2BJhMz9Fpt27OJAq0VKCk%3D0moJSg0-aGS4yVpg%40mail.gmail.com.
 

[Roger Munday]

Particle density – “the mass and volume occupied by solid particles only”

[Carl Reiff]

I wonder how many particles were in that giant NASA chamber when the feathers and the bowling ball fell side by side at the same rate.  Watching the video sure makes it seem like pretty much nothing else was in there.

-----------------------

[Roger Munday]

Posted July 31

https://www.quora.com/Is-there-anything-like-attraction-or-repulsion-in-gravitational-field-as-we-have-in-magnetic-and-electrostatic-field

Our sciences exist in a state of almost total ignorance about gravity.

But, contrast our knowledge of gravity with that of electromagnetism. We can generate electromagnetic radiation at the frequency and intensity we choose.

We have theorized the existence of a gravity particle, known as a “graviton,” but no one has ever experimentally proved that gravitons actually exist.

This is one of the great voids in our knowledge and one of the great frontiers of physics.

There is one and only one concept/belief that constrains the thinking of theoretical physicists in general, and this is the assumption that an absolute inter-atomic vacuum "exists".

In other words you all start with this assumption, and with the "kinetic atomic theory of gases", which theory absolutely prevents the transmission of forces between material bodies of any dimension.

The only alternative to this nonsense is a physical continuum of magnetic atoms.

But you will all carry on believing in a "gravity" and this total, and evidentially, vacuous nonsense.

Roger Munday

[Roger Munday]

And of course you will carry on believing that atoms of any element, when exposed to heat energy, and vice versa, remain at the same physical volumes, while it is just their "kinetic motions" which increase/decrease in velocity.

Perhaps you should consider instead that the observed expansions and contractions are due to inputs and emissions of electromagnetic radiant energy into and from the component atoms.

Roger Munday

[r.j.an...@btinternet.com]

yes because the relevant philosophy is atomism - everything made out of point-particles; with "points" not changing in size

 

>>In the 5th century BC, Leucippus and his pupil Democritus proposed that all matter was composed of small indivisible particles which they called "atoms".***<<

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomism

**-- now known as point-particles; because atoms of chemical elements are not the same thing as what they proposed as "atoms"

 

 

------ Original Message ------
From: munda...@gmail.com

To: ta...@hotmail.com; r.j.an...@btinternet.com Cc: stepha...@sta.uwi.edu; frank...@yahoo.com; kc...@yahoo.com; siri...@yahoo.com; cre...@elgenwave.com; sorli.bijec...@gmail.com; cpr...@gmail.com; greenaethe...@gmail.com; cro...@gmail.com; hartwi...@jku.at; jimm...@yahoo.com; john.eri...@gmail.com; kis...@bellsouth.net; mark.cr...@gmail.com; mike.gamb...@gmail.com; musa...@gmail.com; nper...@snet.net; pete...@aol.com; p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk; reub...@gmail.com; reg.c...@flinders.edu.au; npa-rel...@googlegroups.com; frit...@bellsouth.net; sung...@aol.com; stre...@gmail.com; se...@lastrega.com; tomin...@yahoo.com; vira...@yahoo.co.uk; electr...@gmail.com; fro...@ieee.org; mon...@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, August 1st 2024, 04:27
Subject: Re: [npa-relativity] Re: "Gravity" and electromagnetism.
 

And of course you will carry on believing that atoms of any element, when exposed to heat energy, and vice versa, remain at the same physical volumes, while it is just their "kinetic motions" which increase/decrease in velocity.

Perhaps you should consider instead that the observed expansions and contractions are due to inputs and emissions of electromagnetic radiant energy into and from the component atoms.

Roger Munday
 

 

 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/npa-relativity/CACi_vwe4eX95TcqHyL9X5ut%3DxQ5oA%3Didpuz%2B5WaTkbqjB56g8w%40mail.gmail.com.
 

[r.j.an...@btinternet.com]

>>We have theorized the existence of a gravity particle, known as a “graviton,” but no one has ever experimentally proved that gravitons actually exist. <<

 

Scientist Say They Have First Experimental Evidence of Gravitons That Could Connect Quantum Mechanics and Relativity https://thequantuminsider.com/2024/04/05/scientist-say-they-have-first-experimental-evidence-of-gravitons-that-could-connect-quantum-mechanics-and-relativity/

 

------ Original Message ------
From: munda...@gmail.com

To: ta...@hotmail.com; r.j.an...@btinternet.com Cc: stepha...@sta.uwi.edu; frank...@yahoo.com; kc...@yahoo.com; siri...@yahoo.com; cre...@elgenwave.com; sorli.bijec...@gmail.com; cpr...@gmail.com; greenaethe...@gmail.com; cro...@gmail.com; hartwi...@jku.at; jimm...@yahoo.com; john.eri...@gmail.com; kis...@bellsouth.net; mark.cr...@gmail.com; mike.gamb...@gmail.com; musa...@gmail.com; nper...@snet.net; pete...@aol.com; p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk; reub...@gmail.com; reg.c...@flinders.edu.au; npa-rel...@googlegroups.com; frit...@bellsouth.net; sung...@aol.com; stre...@gmail.com; se...@lastrega.com; tomin...@yahoo.com; vira...@yahoo.co.uk; electr...@gmail.com; fro...@ieee.org; mon...@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, August 1st 2024, 03:56
Subject: Re: [npa-relativity] Re: "Gravity" and electromagnetism.
 

Posted July 31
 

https://www.quora.com/Is-there-anything-like-attraction-or-repulsion-in-gravitational-field-as-we-have-in-magnetic-and-electrostatic-field

Our sciences exist in a state of almost total ignorance about gravity. 

But, contrast our knowledge of gravity with that of electromagnetism. We can generate electromagnetic radiation at the frequency and intensity we choose. 

We have theorized the existence of a gravity particle, known as a “graviton,” but no one has ever experimentally proved that gravitons actually exist. 

This is one of the great voids in our knowledge and one of the great frontiers of physics. 
 

 

There is one and only one concept/belief that constrains the thinking of theoretical physicists in general, and this is the assumption that an absolute inter-atomic vacuum "exists".

In other words you all start with this assumption, and with the "kinetic atomic theory of gases", which theory absolutely prevents the transmission of forces between material bodies of any dimension.

The only alternative to this nonsense is a physical continuum of magnetic atoms.

But you will all carry on believing in a "gravity" and this total, and evidentially, vacuous nonsense.
 

Roger Munday
 

 

 

 

On Thu, 1 Aug 2024 at 11:07, Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com> wrote:
 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/npa-relativity/CACi_vwdA-uUDnSTPGUAigoXkJYqsmtJ_wbWsVtNt7WHC3nMG5g%40mail.gmail.com.
 

[Roger Munday]

Roger A.,

You say:-

"everything is made out of point-particles; with "points" not changing in size"

And so, all you have to do is to carry out an experiment to demonstrate that your eternal "point particles" exist.

And as some scientists SAY they have "experimental evidence of gravitons", perhaps you should tell those scientists who say:- "no one has ever experimentally proved that gravitons actually exist."

Roger Munday

[r.j.an...@btinternet.com]

the relevant math being used says they exist

i.e. part of the math

and math the language of physics

so exists QED

 

------ Original Message ------
From: munda...@gmail.com

To: r.j.an...@btinternet.com Cc: ta...@hotmail.com; stepha...@sta.uwi.edu; frank...@yahoo.com; kc...@yahoo.com; siri...@yahoo.com; cre...@elgenwave.com; sorli.bijec...@gmail.com; cpr...@gmail.com; greenaethe...@gmail.com; cro...@gmail.com; hartwi...@jku.at; jimm...@yahoo.com; john.eri...@gmail.com; kis...@bellsouth.net; mark.cr...@gmail.com; mike.gamb...@gmail.com; musa...@gmail.com; nper...@snet.net; pete...@aol.com; p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk; reub...@gmail.com; reg.c...@flinders.edu.au; npa-rel...@googlegroups.com; frit...@bellsouth.net; sung...@aol.com; stre...@gmail.com; se...@lastrega.com; tomin...@yahoo.com; vira...@yahoo.co.uk; electr...@gmail.com; fro...@ieee.org; mon...@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, August 1st 2024, 20:55
Subject: Re: Re: [npa-relativity] Re: "Gravity" and electromagnetism.
 

Roger A.,

You say:-
 

"everything is made out of point-particles; with "points" not changing in size"

And so, all you have to do is to carry out an experiment to demonstrate that your eternal "point particles" exist.

And as some scientists SAY they have "experimental evidence of gravitons", perhaps you should tell those scientists who say:- "no one has ever experimentally proved that gravitons actually exist."

Roger Munday
 

 

 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/npa-relativity/CACi_vwceOma%2BXtnNjP8R1yMx8_1OqqUL5uvdUYj2txCqOBRrwQ%40mail.gmail.com.
 

[Roger Munday]

Roger A.,

You say – “math (is) the language of physics”

Mathematics assumes an equality between two distinct and separate entities.

The problem with this general assumption (of mathematicians) is that no human being can prove an absolute equality between any two separated material entities of any physical dimension.

Roger Munday

[r.j.an...@btinternet.com]

axioms don't need proving; only theorems

 

------ Original Message ------
From: munda...@gmail.com
To: r.j.an...@btinternet.com Cc: ta...@hotmail.com; stepha...@sta.uwi.edu; frank...@yahoo.com; kc...@yahoo.com; siri...@yahoo.com; cre...@elgenwave.com; sorli.bijec...@gmail.com; cpr...@gmail.com; greenaethe...@gmail.com; cro...@gmail.com; hartwi...@jku.at; jimm...@yahoo.com; john.eri...@gmail.com; kis...@bellsouth.net; mark.cr...@gmail.com; mike.gamb...@gmail.com; musa...@gmail.com; nper...@snet.net; pete...@aol.com; p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk; reub...@gmail.com; reg.c...@flinders.edu.au; npa-rel...@googlegroups.com; frit...@bellsouth.net; sung...@aol.com; stre...@gmail.com; se...@lastrega.com; tomin...@yahoo.com; vira...@yahoo.co.uk; electr...@gmail.com; fro...@ieee.org; mon...@aol.com
Sent: Friday, August 2nd 2024, 09:36
Subject: Re: Re: Re: [npa-relativity] Re: "Gravity" and electromagnetism.
 

Roger A.,

You say – “math (is) the language of physics”

Mathematics assumes an equality between two distinct and separate entities.

The problem with this general assumption (of mathematicians) is that no human being can prove an absolute equality between any two separated material entities of any physical dimension.

 

Roger Munday

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/npa-relativity/CACi_vwdfE0oTQFFY%2B5Pg0UJvpWDe_dV-LnxhJodDXnW%3DznXukg%40mail.gmail.com.
 

[Roger Munday]

Axiom

"an established or widely accepted general law in physics”

I.e. unproven.

[r.j.an...@btinternet.com]

something that works

 

------ Original Message ------
From: munda...@gmail.com
To: r.j.an...@btinternet.com Cc: ta...@hotmail.com; stepha...@sta.uwi.edu; frank...@yahoo.com; kc...@yahoo.com; siri...@yahoo.com; cre...@elgenwave.com; sorli.bijec...@gmail.com; cpr...@gmail.com; greenaethe...@gmail.com; cro...@gmail.com; hartwi...@jku.at; jimm...@yahoo.com; john.eri...@gmail.com; kis...@bellsouth.net; mark.cr...@gmail.com; mike.gamb...@gmail.com; musa...@gmail.com; nper...@snet.net; pete...@aol.com; p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk; reub...@gmail.com; reg.c...@flinders.edu.au; npa-rel...@googlegroups.com; frit...@bellsouth.net; sung...@aol.com; stre...@gmail.com; se...@lastrega.com; tomin...@yahoo.com; vira...@yahoo.co.uk; electr...@gmail.com; fro...@ieee.org; mon...@aol.com

Sent: Friday, August 2nd 2024, 20:50
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: [npa-relativity] Re: "Gravity" and electromagnetism.
 

Axiom 

"an established or widely accepted general law in physics” 

I.e. unproven.

 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/npa-relativity/CACi_vweJg-acpGfQ03Lwr6ms2LNjEq4X8vy%3DOUSgunhkbb6Y3g%40mail.gmail.com.
 

[Roger Munday]

An example of an unproven and totally unprovable axiom :– 

The generally accepted (by theoretical physicists) concept of the “existence” of a universally extending interatomic vacuum.

Which does NOT work.

Roger Munday

[r.j.an...@btinternet.com]

mainstream view is that does work

 

------ Original Message ------
From: munda...@gmail.com
To: r.j.an...@btinternet.com Cc: ta...@hotmail.com; stepha...@sta.uwi.edu; frank...@yahoo.com; kc...@yahoo.com; siri...@yahoo.com; cre...@elgenwave.com; sorli.bijec...@gmail.com; cpr...@gmail.com; greenaethe...@gmail.com; cro...@gmail.com; hartwi...@jku.at; jimm...@yahoo.com; john.eri...@gmail.com; kis...@bellsouth.net; mark.cr...@gmail.com; mike.gamb...@gmail.com; musa...@gmail.com; nper...@snet.net; pete...@aol.com; p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk; reub...@gmail.com; reg.c...@flinders.edu.au; npa-rel...@googlegroups.com; frit...@bellsouth.net; sung...@aol.com; stre...@gmail.com; se...@lastrega.com; tomin...@yahoo.com; vira...@yahoo.co.uk; electr...@gmail.com; fro...@ieee.org; mon...@aol.com

Sent: Friday, August 2nd 2024, 22:44
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [npa-relativity] Re: "Gravity" and electromagnetism.
 

An example of an unproven and totally unprovable axiom :– 

The generally accepted (by theoretical physicists) concept of the “existence” of a universally extending interatomic vacuum.

Which does NOT work.
 

Roger Munday
 

 

On Sat, 3 Aug 2024 at 08:37, <r.j.an...@btinternet.com> wrote:
 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/npa-relativity/CACi_vwdR3yj7qAJyVwhgDsevbYAnxG1kEs-Sgyv73y2Lr1bvJQ%40mail.gmail.com.
 

[Roger Munday]

HOW????

[r.j.an...@btinternet.com]

 you say  its - "unproven and totally unprovable axiom" - which means just have to accept it.

 

and you cannot prove it doesn't work.

 

The options are

 

(i) it works

(ii) it does not work

 

Initial stage is: You accept cannot prove either (i) or (ii).

 

But the next stage in the logic is -

 

can't prove (ii) then therefore it works. 

 

 

------ Original Message ------
From: munda...@gmail.com
To: r.j.an...@btinternet.com Cc: ta...@hotmail.com; stepha...@sta.uwi.edu; frank...@yahoo.com; kc...@yahoo.com; siri...@yahoo.com; cre...@elgenwave.com; sorli.bijec...@gmail.com; cpr...@gmail.com; greenaethe...@gmail.com; cro...@gmail.com; hartwi...@jku.at; jimm...@yahoo.com; john.eri...@gmail.com; kis...@bellsouth.net; mark.cr...@gmail.com; mike.gamb...@gmail.com; musa...@gmail.com; nper...@snet.net; pete...@aol.com; p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk; reub...@gmail.com; reg.c...@flinders.edu.au; npa-rel...@googlegroups.com; frit...@bellsouth.net; sung...@aol.com; stre...@gmail.com; se...@lastrega.com; tomin...@yahoo.com; vira...@yahoo.co.uk; electr...@gmail.com; fro...@ieee.org; mon...@aol.com

Sent: Friday, August 2nd 2024, 22:58
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [npa-relativity] Re: "Gravity" and electromagnetism.
 

HOW????
 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/npa-relativity/CACi_vwdSiyd3AUgkZ4-3PtHHS-A7JLhCAJhSqVt%3DUv%3DyuRqGUw%40mail.gmail.com.
 

[Roger Munday]

Roger A:-

You repeat my statement:- "an unproven and totally unprovable axiom" – and you say “which means just have to accept it.”

And then you say:- “you cannot prove it doesn't work.” ???

The particular axiom in question is the hypothetical “existence” of a local and universally extending interatomic vacuum.

And, if this hypothetical “vacuum” had the theoretically assumed and required qualities of total non-interaction with atoms, it could not possibly transmit a force between existential material atoms separated by such a “vacuous ” medium/space.

So, in such circumstances, you “cannot prove that it works”

“An axiom, postulate, or assumption is a statement that is taken to be true, to serve as a premise or starting point for further reasoning and arguments.”

Roger Munday

[r.j.an...@btinternet.com]

>>“An axiom, postulate, or assumption is a statement that is taken to be true, to serve as a premise or starting point for further reasoning and arguments.”<<

 

hence after accepting it; it works for further reasoning..

 

------ Original Message ------
From: munda...@gmail.com
To: r.j.an...@btinternet.com Cc: ta...@hotmail.com; stepha...@sta.uwi.edu; frank...@yahoo.com; kc...@yahoo.com; siri...@yahoo.com; cre...@elgenwave.com; sorli.bijec...@gmail.com; cpr...@gmail.com; greenaethe...@gmail.com; cro...@gmail.com; hartwi...@jku.at; jimm...@yahoo.com; john.eri...@gmail.com; kis...@bellsouth.net; mark.cr...@gmail.com; mike.gamb...@gmail.com; musa...@gmail.com; nper...@snet.net; pete...@aol.com; p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk; reub...@gmail.com; reg.c...@flinders.edu.au; npa-rel...@googlegroups.com; frit...@bellsouth.net; sung...@aol.com; stre...@gmail.com; se...@lastrega.com; tomin...@yahoo.com; vira...@yahoo.co.uk; electr...@gmail.com; fro...@ieee.org; mon...@aol.com

Sent: Sunday, August 4th 2024, 04:05
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [npa-relativity] Re: "Gravity" and electromagnetism.
 

Roger A:-

You repeat my statement:- "an unproven and totally unprovable axiom" – and you say “which means just have to accept it.” 

And then you say:- “you cannot prove it doesn't work.” ???

 

The particular axiom in question is the hypothetical “existence” of a local and universally extending interatomic vacuum.

And, if this hypothetical “vacuum” had the theoretically assumed and required qualities of total non-interaction with atoms, it could not possibly transmit a force between existential material atoms separated by such a “vacuous ” medium/space.

So, in such circumstances, you “cannot prove that it works”

“An axiom, postulate, or assumption is a statement that is taken to be true, to serve as a premise or starting point for further reasoning and arguments.”

Roger Munday

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/npa-relativity/CACi_vwfBT%2BZNt5zXPkLZS63ns-12kjjfwem6byRrL7JOEeVMzg%40mail.gmail.com.
 

[Amrit Sorli]

Gravity force is the pushing force of ether 

https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/epdf/10.1142/S2424942423500056

--

Sincerely Yours, Amrit Srečko Šorli 

https://www.webofscience.com/wos/author/record/ABH-6270-2020

Bijective Physics Institute

https://bijective-physics.org/

[Roger Munday]

This is just one of numerous similar statements posted by universities, etc.

https://www.aare.edu.au/data/publications/2002/har02049.pdf

"The History of the Particle Theory

Two particle theories feature in chemistry textbooks - Dalton's atomic theory and the molecular kinetic theory; however, they rarely appear together and the account of each is more descriptive than explanatory. Dalton's atomic theory and the molecular kinetic theory are usually presented using some of the postulates in this list (Garnett, 1996; Bucat, 1984).

1. Matter consists of submicroscopic, indestructible particles called atoms.

2. All atoms of an element are identical and have the same mass but atoms of different elements have different masses.

3. Particles join together in simple consistent ratios when two different substances react to form a third substance.

4. Mass is conserved in these reactions.

5. Gas particles are evenly scattered in an enclosed space and there are empty space between particles.

6. Gas particles are in constant random motion and collisions are perfectly elastic.

7. Particles move slower in liquids and vibrate about fixed positions in solids.

8. The spacing between solid-solid, liquid-liquid and gas-gas particles is close to 1:1:10 (Andersson, 1990; de Vos and Verdonk, 1996)

The first postulate is intuitive (matter comprises tiny indivisible particles called atoms) but the remainder are counterintuitive and abstract (e.g., empty spaces separate particles; particles are in constant random motion). Secondary students find this theory difficult to mentally model. Postulate 8 is not discussed in many textbooks and, when it is, the spacing is mostly incorrect (Wilbraham et al., 1997)"

Conclusion.

All atoms of any specific element are identical in any physical circumstance i.e. are of exactly the same masses and volumes in any state.

I.e. in the gaseous, liquid and solid states, where there are “empty spaces” between atoms in any state, i.e. such atoms are separated by an absolute vacuum.

This conjecture assumes that, as gases become less dense with altitude from the Earth’s surface, this absolute vacuum increases exponentially with altitude.

Which hypothetical and totally non-interactive “vacuum” cannot be isolated in experiment.

So, this total nonsense is the ultimate basis of all your extensive and complex theories, none of which can explain how your hypothetical “gravity” is transmitted universally.

Roger Munday

[r.j.an...@btinternet.com]

says

 

 >>One of the reasons for alternative conceptions like
the continuous nature of matter is a lack of understanding by students of the way in which
scientists like Newton, Boyle, Lavoiser, Proust, Dalton, Gay-Lussac, Berzelius and Avogadro
crafted their atomic and kinetic theories<<

 

------ Original Message ------
From: munda...@gmail.com
To: ta...@hotmail.com; stepha...@sta.uwi.edu; kc...@yahoo.com; r.j.an...@btinternet.com; siri...@yahoo.com; cre...@elgenwave.com; cpr...@gmail.com; greenaethe...@gmail.com; cro...@gmail.com; hartwi...@jku.at; jimm...@yahoo.com; john.eri...@gmail.com; kis...@bellsouth.net; mark.cr...@gmail.com; mike.gamb...@gmail.com; musa...@gmail.com; nper...@snet.net; pete...@aol.com; p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk; reub...@gmail.com; reg.c...@flinders.edu.au; npa-rel...@googlegroups.com; frit...@bellsouth.net; sung...@aol.com; stre...@gmail.com; se...@lastrega.com; tomin...@yahoo.com; vira...@yahoo.co.uk; electr...@gmail.com; fro...@ieee.org; mon...@aol.com; sorli.bijec...@gmail.com; frank...@yahoo.com
Sent: Sunday, August 4th 2024, 21:15
Subject: [npa-relativity] Re: "Gravity" and electromagnetism.
 

This is just one of numerous similar statements posted by universities, etc.

https://www.aare.edu.au/data/publications/2002/har02049.pdf

"The History of the Particle Theory

Two particle theories feature in chemistry textbooks - Dalton's atomic theory and the molecular kinetic theory; however, they rarely appear together and the account of each is more descriptive than explanatory. Dalton's atomic theory and the molecular kinetic theory are usually presented using some of the postulates in this list (Garnett, 1996; Bucat, 1984).

1. Matter consists of submicroscopic, indestructible particles called atoms.

2. All atoms of an element are identical and have the same mass but atoms of different elements have different masses.

3. Particles join together in simple consistent ratios when two different substances react to form a third substance.

4. Mass is conserved in these reactions.

5. Gas particles are evenly scattered in an enclosed space and there are empty space between particles.

6. Gas particles are in constant random motion and collisions are perfectly elastic.

7. Particles move slower in liquids and vibrate about fixed positions in solids.

8. The spacing between solid-solid, liquid-liquid and gas-gas particles is close to 1:1:10 (Andersson, 1990; de Vos and Verdonk, 1996)

The first postulate is intuitive (matter comprises tiny indivisible particles called atoms) but the remainder are counterintuitive and abstract (e.g., empty spaces separate particles; particles are in constant random motion). Secondary students find this theory difficult to mentally model. Postulate 8 is not discussed in many textbooks and, when it is, the spacing is mostly incorrect (Wilbraham et al., 1997)"

 

Conclusion.

All atoms of any specific element are identical in any physical circumstance i.e. are of exactly the same masses and volumes in any state. 

I.e. in the gaseous, liquid and solid states, where there are “empty spaces” between atoms in any state, i.e. such atoms are separated by an absolute vacuum.

This conjecture assumes that, as gases become less dense with altitude from the Earth’s surface, this absolute vacuum increases exponentially with altitude.

Which hypothetical and totally non-interactive “vacuum” cannot be isolated in experiment.

So, this total nonsense is the ultimate basis of all your extensive and complex theories, none of which can explain how your hypothetical “gravity” is transmitted universally.

Roger Munday

On Mon, 5 Aug 2024 at 00:30, Amrit Sorli <sorli.bijec...@gmail.com> wrote:
 

 

-- 

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "npa-relativity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to unsub...@googlegroups.com">npa-relativity+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/npa-relativity/CACi_vwf8g5tMLkFuC2Dgbfjf-rvgST0faBL_efAmayNmEm7Pjg%40mail.gmail.com.
 

[Roger Munday]

https://metalcutting.com/knowledge-center/heat-expansion-of-metals-and-the-summertime-blues/

Quote:- "The expansion (or contraction) of any material is due to the kinetic energy of its atoms. When a material is heated, the increase in energy causes the atoms and molecules to move more and to take up more space. This is true of even a solid such as a metal."

In other words it is stated that the increase in "kinetic energy" applied to this metal matter "causes the atoms - to take up more space" and accordingly that this increase in energy applied results in an exponential increase in the volumes of interatomic vacua with altitude from the Earth's surface.

These hypothetical, exponential increases (decreases) in the collective "volumes" of vacua is, according to "kinetic theory", that which generates the observed increases (decreases) in volumes.

And YOU all believe this totally vacuous rubbish of a vast, universal non-existence, in other words that the Universe is volumetrically almost entirely vacuous.

Do try thinking.

Roger Munday

[r.j.an...@btinternet.com]

Please see video: The Man Who Found 30,000 Differences in the Bible (with Dr. Bart Ehrman
 

 

Bible was mistranslated into English.

 

I think same thing happened with Einstein - he was mistranslated into English.

 

The establishment keeps going on about Einstein's relativity being confirmed by experiments.

 

But the way "they" act is like Einstein's writings are holy text.

 

So, treating Einstein's writings as holy scripture - we find it has the same problem that Bible has - namely of translation.

 

video -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-G5V-kWSsc8

 

 

[Amrit Sorli]

Dear Friends 

all relativistic phenomena can be described by the MODEL OF DYNAMIC ETHER, 

see articles here: 

https://bijective-physics.org/

Yours Amrit 

[Roger Munday]

Typical "explanations" for the “Kinetic Theory of Gases”

Different gases have different atomic sizes, but they occupy the same volume. How and why?

“In gases the particles are far apart. So, the amount of space actually taken up by the molecules is tiny compared to the volume of the gas. The smaller the molecule, the more ‘ideal’ the gas becomes. Two gases of different molecule size will have the same volume if at the same temperature and pressure.

No explanation of what an extra-atomic “space” is composed of.

https://www.newscientist.com/definition/gravity/

And gravity remains on many levels fundamentally mysterious. Why is it so weak compared with the other forces? Why does it only pull, not push?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetism

In physics, electromagnetism is an interaction that occurs between particles with electric charge via electromagnetic fields. The electromagnetic force is one of the four fundamental forces of nature. It is the dominant force in the interactions of atoms and molecules. Wikipedia

https://www.newscientist.com/definition/electromagnetism/

When asking what electromagnetism, one of four known fundamental forces of nature, does, it is perhaps easier first to say what it doesn’t do. It doesn’t keep our feet on the ground, Earth swinging around the sun, or the stars and galaxies in the universe moving on large scales: this is the domain of gravity.

Roger Munday

[Roger Munday]

Magnetism

There are just two options for the transmission of forces universally:-

1) Vacuous atoms in vacuum, i.e. impossibility.

2) Vacuum is a universally impossible state. Instead there is a universal continuity of magnetic atoms which expand (and contract) with input (emission) of energy and fractionally decrease (increase) in mass density and accordingly increase (decrease) in fluidity.

In conclusion the mythical, one way, force of ‘gravity’ does not exist, there is just one ultimate force acting universally between individual atoms that are composed entirely of matter, which force is also acting between two massive iron spheres suspended in proximity on 40 metre long cables, and which is observed to act throughout a spherical volume of over 4 metres of atmosphere around a 5cm long neodymium magnet, and which is acting between the Earth and the Moon and between vast Galaxies.

All atoms in the universe are magnetic and extend their internally generated N-S fields externally to adjacent atoms and these (relatively weak) individual fields generate the magnetic field that is observed to be generated by the Earth and is acting continuously within an atmosphere composed of 25 x 10¹⁸ atoms per cubic centimetre.

I.e. 25,000,000,000,000,000,000 atoms per cubic centimetre – a humanly incomprehensible number.

Magnetism is the ultimate universal force.

Roger Munday

[Roger Munday]

https://romunpress.co.nz/romunnose/continuous-magnetic-atoms/

Roger Munday

[Roger Munday]

https://chemed.chem.purdue.edu/genchem/topicreview/bp/ch4/kinetic4.html

Gases are composed of a large number of particles that behave like hard, spherical objects in a state of constant, random motion.

These particles move in a straight line until they collide with another particle or the walls of the container.

These particles are much smaller than the distance between particles. Most of the volume of a gas is therefore empty.

There is no force of attraction between gas particles or between the particles and the walls of the container.

Collisions between gas particles or collisions with the walls of the container are perfectly elastic. None of the energy of a gas particle is lost when it collides with another particle or with the walls of the container.

The average kinetic energy of a collection of gas particles depends on the temperature of the gas and nothing else.

https://www.newscientist.com/

And gravity remains on many levels fundamentally mysterious. Why is it so weak compared with the other forces? Why does it only pull, not push?

Carry on - "up the Khyber"

Roger Munday

[Roger Munday]

So, you all believe in the "existence" of vacua.

Which if this did exist as you all assume in the total absence of evidence, would mean that the entire universe could not function as it is observed to do.

You are collectively insane.

Roger Munday

[Roger Munday]

Or, as Newton politely said centuries ago, you "do not have a  competent faculty of thinking".

[Roger Munday]

Magnetism

Magnetism is observed to act continuously within the Earth’s atmosphere, for example to facilitate the observed transmission of its inherent N-S fields between the north and south poles. As indicated by the alignments of magnetic compasses.

This field is essentially static within the atmosphere, however this static atmospheric field can be disturbed, for example by the positioning of an iron magnet, which generates a local, limited and continuous field within the atmosphere around its perimeter.

And, when this magnet is removed from such a position, the Earth’s static field is immediately restored within the atmosphere.

This static field acts continuously within the Earth’s atmosphere between its north and south poles, and there is no point in the Earth’s atmosphere where this magnetic field does not act.

The atmosphere is observed to transmit what are termed as “electromagnetic fields”, in other words the relatively static magnetic alignments of the Earth’s atmospheric atoms are disturbed by the transmissions of extraneous magnetic fields generated by extraterrestrial bodies, such as rays of light from the Sun.

The radiant spectrum of light is the process of the progressive oscillations and alignments of atmospheric atoms away from their natural N-S alignments to the Earth’s all encompassing magnetic fields.

In other words this radiant energy collectively and progressively realigns gaseous atoms from their natural atmospheric N-S alignments to other N-S alignments. e.g. those generated by the continuously acting light rays transmitted from the Sun.

Magnetism is the only, the ultimate, universal force that “keeps your feet on the ground”, it is the one, and the only one, universally acting force.

Roger Munday

[Akinbo Ojo]

Hi Stephan, Carl, Harry, Roger A., et.al.,

There is no contention as to the orthogonality between the time-varying magnetic wave, its electromagnetic force and the direction of the wave. This is also illustrated in Maxwell’s Fig.66/67 (section 791 here, https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/A_Treatise_on_Electricity_and_Magnetism/Part_IV/Chapter_XX).

 

If you agree with this illustration, as I do, and mainstream also agrees (since the illustration is commonly used in textbooks), given the direction of B, and the wave velocity, how is the direction of E (F/q) determined by mainstream?

 

That is, when B is pointing upwards, and the wave velocity is towards the right, how do you or mainstream determine whether the E field should be perpendicular to B and OUT of the screen OR perpendicular to B and INTO the screen?

Regards,

Akinbo

---

From: Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 7, 2024 9:46 PM
To: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>; cc: Stephan Gift <stepha...@sta.uwi.edu>; HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>; r.j.an...@btinternet.com <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Christopher Provatidis <cpr...@gmail.com>; DeWayne Birkhofer <greenaethe...@gmail.com>; Goeffrey Neuzil <cro...@gmail.com>; Hartwig Thim <hartwi...@jku.at>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>; John-Erik Persson <john.eri...@gmail.com>; KISRAY <kis...@bellsouth.net>; Mark CreekWater <mark.cr...@gmail.com>; Mike Gamble Retired <mike.gamb...@gmail.com>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <nper...@snet.net>; Pete Moore <pete...@aol.com>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; REUBENUHR <reub...@gmail.com>; Reg Cahill <reg.c...@flinders.edu.au>; Relativity googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>; Robert Fritzius <frit...@bellsouth.net>; Robert <sung...@aol.com>; STRES. ES <stre...@gmail.com>; Sepp Hasslberger <se...@lastrega.com>; Tom Miles <tomin...@yahoo.com>; cc: Viraj Fernando <vira...@yahoo.co.uk>; electr...@gmail.com <electr...@gmail.com>; fro...@ieee.org <fro...@ieee.org>; mon...@aol.com <mon...@aol.com>; Amrit Sorli <sorli.bijec...@gmail.com>; frank...@yahoo.com <frank...@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [npa-relativity] Re: "Gravity" and electromagnetism.

 

[Akinbo Ojo]

Hi Stephan, Carl, Harry, Roger A., Slobodan (bcc), et.al.,

I am following up on my earlier email.

The attached illustration seeks to fill in what I think Maxwell left out in Fig.66 of his Treatise.

After comparing both illustrations, Fig.66 and attached, do you have any comments to make on this?

If you do, kindly let me benefit from them. It is possible I will write a short note, tentatively titled

???"The implication of what Maxwell left out of Fig.66 in his Treatise"

???"What Maxwell left out of Fig.66 in his Treatise"

Regards,

Akinbo

*The link to the Treatise was earlier posted.

---

From: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 11, 2024 10:51 AM
To: Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Stephan Gift <steph...@hotmail.com>; cc: Stephan Gift <stepha...@sta.uwi.edu>; HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>; r.j.an...@btinternet.com <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Christopher Provatidis <cpr...@gmail.com>; DeWayne Birkhofer <greenaethe...@gmail.com>; Goeffrey Neuzil <cro...@gmail.com>; Hartwig Thim <hartwi...@jku.at>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>; John-Erik Persson <john.eri...@gmail.com>; KISRAY <kis...@bellsouth.net>; Mark CreekWater <mark.cr...@gmail.com>; Mike Gamble Retired <mike.gamb...@gmail.com>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <nper...@snet.net>; Pete Moore <pete...@aol.com>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; REUBENUHR <reub...@gmail.com>; Reg Cahill <reg.c...@flinders.edu.au>; Relativity googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>; Robert Fritzius <frit...@bellsouth.net>; Robert <sung...@aol.com>; STRES. ES <stre...@gmail.com>; Sepp Hasslberger <se...@lastrega.com>; Tom Miles <tomin...@yahoo.com>; cc: Viraj Fernando <vira...@yahoo.co.uk>; electr...@gmail.com <electr...@gmail.com>; fro...@ieee.org <fro...@ieee.org>; mon...@aol.com <mon...@aol.com>; Amrit Sorli <sorli.bijec...@gmail.com>; frank...@yahoo.com <frank...@yahoo.com>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [npa-relativity] Direction of electromagnetic force in propagating light wave

 

[Stephan Gift]

Hello Akinbo,

Thank you for your email. I am not sure if I am sufficiently familiar with this to answer your question sensibly. Nevertheless I will read through and send any comments I may have.

Regards

Stephan

CONFIDENTIALITY: This email (including any attachments) may contain confidential, proprietary and/or privileged information. Any duplication, copying, distribution, dissemination, transmission, disclosure or use in any manner of this email (including any attachments) without the authorisation of the sender is strictly prohibited. If you receive this email (including any attachments) in error, please notify the sender and delete this email (including any attachments) from your system. Thank you.

[Akinbo Ojo]

Hi Stephan,

Thanks for reply. I hope to write a short note on this. I will send to you and hope it will be clearer to understand.

Regards,

Akinbo

---

From: Stephan Gift <Stepha...@sta.uwi.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2024 5:04 PM
To: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Stephan Gift <steph...@hotmail.com>; HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>; r.j.an...@btinternet.com <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Christopher Provatidis <cpr...@gmail.com>; DeWayne Birkhofer <greenaethe...@gmail.com>; Goeffrey Neuzil <cro...@gmail.com>; Hartwig Thim <hartwi...@jku.at>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>; John-Erik Persson <john.eri...@gmail.com>; KISRAY <kis...@bellsouth.net>; Mark CreekWater <mark.cr...@gmail.com>; Mike Gamble Retired <mike.gamb...@gmail.com>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <nper...@snet.net>; Pete Moore <pete...@aol.com>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; REUBENUHR <reub...@gmail.com>; Reg Cahill <reg.c...@flinders.edu.au>; Relativity googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>; Robert Fritzius <frit...@bellsouth.net>; Robert <sung...@aol.com>; STRES. ES <stre...@gmail.com>; Sepp Hasslberger <se...@lastrega.com>; Tom Miles <tomin...@yahoo.com>; cc: Viraj Fernando <vira...@yahoo.co.uk>; electr...@gmail.com <electr...@gmail.com>; fro...@ieee.org <fro...@ieee.org>; mon...@aol.com <mon...@aol.com>; Amrit Sorli <sorli.bijec...@gmail.com>; frank...@yahoo.com <frank...@yahoo.com>; Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>
Subject: RE: [npa-relativity] Direction of electromagnetic force in propagating light wave

 

[Roger Munday]

There are literally hundreds of attempts by theoretical physicists over centuries to explain how electromagnetism, light, and "one way gravity", etc. are transmitted in a vacuum, all this since Newton asserted that this state cannot "exist".

And obviously none of which succeed, but you all carry on with these eternal arguments assuming that observed atoms are in "kinetic motion in vacuo".

And inventing totally unexaminable "subatomic particles" that would carry out your wishes.

And assuming that the Earth's atmospheric 25,000,000,000,000,000 atoms/cc are separated by your "empty spaces" and are populated by such "particles" in subatomic vacua.

Grow up.

Roger Munday

[Franklin Hu]

If you all are such believers in the orthogonal wave, then please draw me a picture of such a wave coming out of a standard rod antenna. Then try do do that with a ring shaped antenna (such as were use for UHF). 

Can't do it huh? Can't even imagine it. Why?

This is because the shape of the wave is what you would get if you put the antenna shape into a wave tank and vibrated it. the wave takes on the shape of the antenna and doesn't take on any such theoretical wave that looks like a rope going through a picket fence. That is just a very silly simplification . It cannot be justified and has NEVER been experimentally verified.

So why do  you ALL believe so strongly in something that has absolutely ZERO experimental verification. You also cannot make any sensible picture of how such a wave would work in a circular loop antenna. No clue at all.

Don't think that is true? Then show me just 1 experiment that actually demonstrates the electric field is at 90 degrees to the magnetic field. Shouldn't be too difficult, just get an electrometer that can display the phase axis of the electric field and a magnetic detector that can demonstrate the N/S pole field orientation. You should trivially be able to measure  both of these in free space and show that they are in phase and at 90 degrees to each other. Search all you want, no such experiment has even been attempted.

Why is that? Yet you all believe? Why is that?

-Franklin

[Akinbo Ojo]

Franklin,

You are an unbeliever that light is transverse wave. That is okay.

But what is your belief concerning the direction of the force that acts on a charge (i.e. "electromotive force"), when there is relative motion between that charge and a magnetic field?

Do you accept that the force acting on charge is in a direction perpendicular to the direction of the magnetic field?

See here for guidance, http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/magnetic/magfor.html

Akinbo

---

From: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Friday, August 16, 2024 6:56 AM
To: Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Stephan Gift <steph...@hotmail.com>; cc: Stephan Gift <stepha...@sta.uwi.edu>; HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>; r.j.an...@btinternet.com <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Christopher Provatidis <cpr...@gmail.com>; DeWayne Birkhofer <greenaethe...@gmail.com>; Goeffrey Neuzil <cro...@gmail.com>; Hartwig Thim <hartwi...@jku.at>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>; John-Erik Persson <john.eri...@gmail.com>; KISRAY <kis...@bellsouth.net>; Mark CreekWater <mark.cr...@gmail.com>; Mike Gamble Retired <mike.gamb...@gmail.com>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <nper...@snet.net>; Pete Moore <pete...@aol.com>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; REUBENUHR <reub...@gmail.com>; Reg Cahill <reg.c...@flinders.edu.au>; Relativity googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>; Robert Fritzius <frit...@bellsouth.net>; Robert <sung...@aol.com>; STRES. ES <stre...@gmail.com>; Sepp Hasslberger <se...@lastrega.com>; Tom Miles <tomin...@yahoo.com>; cc: Viraj Fernando <vira...@yahoo.co.uk>; electr...@gmail.com <electr...@gmail.com>; fro...@ieee.org <fro...@ieee.org>; mon...@aol.com <mon...@aol.com>; Amrit Sorli <sorli.bijec...@gmail.com>; Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>

[Roger Munday]

Akinbo,

Your post to me on another thread:-

"You said this, “However IF there were “only 5.9 protons per (vacuous) cubic meter” then the universe would fall apart.”

This is not true.

Flat universe means Ω = 2GM/rc² = 1 (my analysis).

Therefore, even if a particle is moving at c, this will still be below the universe’s escape velocity given by √(2GM/r).

Current estimated mass based on flatness ~10⁵²kg"

My response:-

Akinbo,

Before we can consider the unexaminable structure of the universe, we need to agree on the ultimate structure of the Earth’s examinable atmosphere.

Which atmosphere, according to theoretical physicists is essentially vacuous, as per the hypothetical (and ancient) “kinetic theory of gases” which states unequivocally that atoms are collectively in “kinetic” motions in vacua.

And today it is also stated that atoms are also “composed” essentially of vacua, and further that atoms of differing elements all remain at the same physical mass/volumes in all states.

These vacuous beliefs, of theoretical physicists in general, means that they have no physical basis for the transmission of the observed interactions between existential material bodies of any physical dimensions, such as atoms or the Earth and the Moon.

But they stick dogmatically to this belief, even when there is no possible proof, no experimental evidence, of the “existence” of vacua.

Atoms are observed to exist as distinct entities and with absorption (and emission) of energy they physically expand (and contract) and these expansions (and contractions) are observed to occur in practice.

Gold atoms are observed to expand and contract.

Regards,

Roger Munday

[Roger Munday]

https://byjus.com/chemistry/daltons-atomic-theory/

• All matter is made up of tiny, indivisible particles called atoms.
• All atoms of a specific element are identical in mass, size, and other properties. 

Roger Munday

[Roger Munday]

Vacuum

Defined strictly in scientific terms, a vacuum is any space that has all of its matter removed. It is impossible to create a perfect vacuum in a laboratory on Earth because not every single atom can be removed. Even the so-called vacuum of outer space is not a true (perfect) vacuum because even it contains tiny amounts of gas spread over vast volumes of space. However, in everyday terminology, a vacuum is described as any volume of space where pressure is less than standard sea-level pressure.

https://www.encyclopedia.com/science-and-technology/physics/physics/vacuum

[Roger Munday]

https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry_Textbook_Maps/Map%3A_Physical_Chemistry_for_the_Biosciences_(Chang)/02%3A_Properties_of_Gases/2.06%3A_Kinetic_Theory_of_Gases

The five basic tenets of the kinetic-molecular theory are as follows:

1. A gas is composed of molecules that are separated by average distances that are much greater than the sizes of the molecules themselves. The volume occupied by the molecules of the gas is negligible compared to the volume of the gas itself.

2. The molecules of an ideal gas exert no attractive forces on each other, or on the walls of the container.

3. The molecules are in constant random motion, and as material bodies, they obey Newton's laws of motion. This means that the molecules move in straight lines (see demo illustration at the left) until they collide with each other or with the walls of the container.

4. Collisions are perfectly elastic; when two molecules collide, they change their directions and kinetic energies, but the total kinetic energy is conserved. Collisions are not “sticky".

5. The average kinetic energy of the gas molecules is directly proportional to the absolute temperature. Notice that the term “average” is very important here; the velocities and kinetic energies of individual molecules will span a wide range of values, and some will even have zero velocity at a given instant. This implies that all molecular motion would cease if the temperature were reduced to absolute zero.

According to this model, most of the volume occupied by a gas is empty space,

i.e. vacuum.

Roger Munday

"These vacuous beliefs, of theoretical physicists in general, means that they have no physical basis for the transmission of the observed interactions between existential material bodies of any physical dimensions, such as atoms or the Earth and the Moon.

But they stick dogmatically to this belief, even when there is no possible proof, no experimental evidence, of the “existence” of vacua.

Atoms are observed to exist as distinct entities and with absorption (and emission) of energy they physically expand (and contract) and these expansions (and contractions) are observed to occur in practice."

[Akinbo Ojo]

Roger M.,

Your assignment is well cut out for you. Reproduce the successes of the current models you are criticizing using your own model that there is no vacuum. After succeeding with that, then make some predictions from your model that are hitherto unknown and not yet experimentally demonstrated. That is how it is done.

It cannot be done by calling people names.

On the universe falling apart... Essentially, the universe is existing within its Schwarzschild radius, r = 2GM/c². Nothing can escape from this. So, no falling apart.

Check also the wikipedia page I just sent to Carl.

Regards,

Akinbo

---

From: Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 17, 2024 12:35 AM
To: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>; cc: Stephan Gift <stepha...@sta.uwi.edu>; HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>; r.j.an...@btinternet.com <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Christopher Provatidis <cpr...@gmail.com>; DeWayne Birkhofer <greenaethe...@gmail.com>; Goeffrey Neuzil <cro...@gmail.com>; Hartwig Thim <hartwi...@jku.at>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>; John-Erik Persson <john.eri...@gmail.com>; KISRAY <kis...@bellsouth.net>; Mark CreekWater <mark.cr...@gmail.com>; Mike Gamble Retired <mike.gamb...@gmail.com>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <nper...@snet.net>; Pete Moore <pete...@aol.com>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; REUBENUHR <reub...@gmail.com>; Reg Cahill <reg.c...@flinders.edu.au>; Relativity googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>; Robert Fritzius <frit...@bellsouth.net>; Robert <sung...@aol.com>; STRES. ES <stre...@gmail.com>; Sepp Hasslberger <se...@lastrega.com>; Tom Miles <tomin...@yahoo.com>; cc: Viraj Fernando <vira...@yahoo.co.uk>; electr...@gmail.com <electr...@gmail.com>; fro...@ieee.org <fro...@ieee.org>; mon...@aol.com <mon...@aol.com>; Amrit Sorli <sorli.bijec...@gmail.com>; frank...@yahoo.com <frank...@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [npa-relativity] Re: "Gravity" and electromagnetism.

 

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to unsub...@googlegroups.com">npa-relativit...@googlegroups.com.

[Roger Munday]

Akinbo,

You say:- "Reproduce the successes of the current models"

What "successes"?

It is assumed in current models that "kinetic" atoms are discontinuous and separated by a vacuum.

Are you suggesting that a vacuum is endemic?

Regards,

Roger Munday

[Franklin Hu]

Akinbo, it is obvious you have to accept the force relative to the direction of the current flow which is very clear and unambiguous.

However,  this is not the case with the magnetic field direction which is defined by "convention" to match up with the lines we see when we sprinkle iron filings around a magnet. All these lines represent are regions of equal potential and could have easily been defined in manner perpendicular to the normal convention and it would mean the same thing. When observed in this manner, then the force would be in the same direction as the current flow. If you twist a wire around a nail to make an electromagnet, the field lines should follow the coils of the wire instead of the conventional notion that the go from the head of the nail to the tip. If you read my paper on magnetism which relies on dipole alignments to represent the magnetic field, it is actually much more logical to present the magnetic field as aligning with the current flow and not 90 degrees to that flow. So all this complex right hand rule cross product stuff is actually the result of defining the direction of the magnetic field incorrectly.

This is why you should only consider the force acting on the charge in relation to the current flow which is creating the magnetic field and I wouldn't put much into thinking the forces are perpendicular to the magnetic fields because this is just due to a possibly incorrect "convention".

Although, this really has nothing to do with the serious debate about whether radio waves propagate as alternating electric and magnetic fields. You deliberately choose to ignore my question about why you fervently think this is true, but yet you cannot present any actual experimental evidence that is true. So why do then just try to "change the subject"?    

The fact that an oscillating signal is received in an antenna rod does not mean it had to come there by being driven by a magnetic field at any direction. If this were true, then you could measure only the magnetic field outside of the receiving antenna, but no such magnetic field has ever been detected experimentally. I prefer to explain the reception of the signal as a "conduction" whereby the receiving antenna is connected to the transmitter by a hidden "conducting wire". That wire is formed by the aether medium and would be analogous to immersing the transmitting and receiving rod in a conducting fluid like mercury. Then you could trivially see that the radio wave is conducted through space in exactly the SAME way as it is conducted in the solid wire. So, this perfectly explains how the signal gets from transmitter and receiver in a much simpler manner without any need of alternating electric and magnetic fields. All we need is a "medium" that can take the place of the moving electrons in a conventional wire. In my view, this is simply a sea of neutron-like particles which wave back and forth in exactly the same manner as the electrons do in a wire. Since they are not electrons, they actually can't carry a direct current, but they can carry the oscillating wave motion. So it is a conductor to oscillating current, but an insulator to direct current. Why would you not believe this much simpler picture? What makes the conventional electromagnetic explanation better?

Once again, your main question is about the "direction" of the magnetic and electric fields in a light wave. If such a thing existed, then there should be no question about the direction since it could be trivially measured using appropriate instrumentation. Why hasn't this been done? This shouldn't be a question. However, this has never been done because it cannot be done. You cannot measure something that doesn't exist. So the true answer to your inquiry is that there is no direction to the electromagnetic force because there are no such electromagnetic fields to begin with and you need to find an alternative explanation for how radio/light waves work.

I would suggest that the nature of your question is wrong. This is like asking, "If the moon is made out of cheese, is it swiss cheese?"

Such a question would first presume something that is just wrong "moon made out of cheese", then any other details you could logically ask about it would then simply be nonsense. That is what you are doing with your inquiry about the direction of the electromagnetic forces in a light wave when they simply don't exist. The fact that no such answer exists should clue you off into thinking your assumptions are wrong.

-Franklin

[Akinbo Ojo]

Franklin,

Okay. Thank you for your detailed answer. Let us ignore convention or put it aside for now. And I am not saying that your longitudinal wave model should be discarded, so don’t go on the defensive.

Given the space or magnetic field between two poles, like N] ^ [S, if a particle (^) is fired into that space, perpendicular to the line joining the North (N) and South (S) poles,

1) Will such a particle experience an electromagnetic force on it, if it is charged?

2) If yes, will the electromagnetic force on charge +q and -q be in the same direction?

3) If the particle is neutron-like zero net charge), such as a poselectron, will there be any force acting on it as it moves through the space?

4) If there will be a force, will it be perpendicular to the direction of the line joining N-S, and the velocity in which the particle was launched into the space, i.e. inwards or outwards of the screen?

 

@Carl, if you have any words to say... welcome

Akinbo

---

From: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, August 19, 2024 6:25 PM

[Franklin Hu]

Akinbo,

You are still dodging my MAIN question. 

Why do you believe the radio/light wave is made out of magnetic and electric fields when there is no direct experimental evidence supporting this? 

Do you just like "pretty pictures"???? Do you not "care" about experimental evidence and rely entirely on "math"? Do you just worship Maxwell and everything he says is good???

The cognitive dissidence is just amazing.

1. Yes

2. No, it opposite directions

3. No

4. No force on neutral particles.

5. Why on Earth are you asking such questions????

-Franklin

[Akinbo Ojo]

Franklin,

Re: “You are still dodging my MAIN question. Why do you believe the radio/light wave is made out of magnetic and electric fields when there is no direct experimental evidence supporting this?”

I think you are mistaking me for someone else.

What I support is that the same mechanism by which the time-variation of magnetic fields induce electromotive force with the production of electric current in the laboratory, is the same mechanism by which electric current is produced in receiving antennas by light waves.

I agree with your answers. Can you be more specific as to question 4?

My own answer is that +q will experience a force perpendicular to the magnetic field and outwards of the screen, while -q, will experience a force that is inwards into the screen, as your answer 2 suggests. Any objections?

Akinbo

---

From: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2024 1:44 AM

[r.j.an...@btinternet.com]

>>cognitive dissidence<<

 

or do you mean -> Cognitive Dissonance

 

 

>>Why do you believe the radio/light wave is made out of magnetic and electric fields when there is no direct experimental evidence supporting this?<<

 

what is taught is - there is evidence

 

accepting experiments that show magnetic and electric fields then disturbances in those fields should be a wave and the wave is named electromagnetic wave 

 

------ Original Message ------
From: npa-rel...@googlegroups.com
To: munda...@gmail.com; steph...@hotmail.com; stepha...@sta.uwi.edu; kc...@yahoo.com; r.j.an...@btinternet.com; siri...@yahoo.com; cre...@elgenwave.com; cpr...@gmail.com; greenaethe...@gmail.com; cro...@gmail.com; hartwi...@jku.at; jimm...@yahoo.com; john.eri...@gmail.com; kis...@bellsouth.net; mark.cr...@gmail.com; mike.gamb...@gmail.com; musa...@gmail.com; nper...@snet.net; pete...@aol.com; p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk; reub...@gmail.com; reg.c...@flinders.edu.au; npa-rel...@googlegroups.com; frit...@bellsouth.net; sung...@aol.com; stre...@gmail.com; se...@lastrega.com; tomin...@yahoo.com; vira...@yahoo.co.uk; electr...@gmail.com; fro...@ieee.org; mon...@aol.com; sorli.bijec...@gmail.com; ta...@hotmail.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 21st 2024, 01:44
Subject: Re: [npa-relativity] Direction of electromagnetic force in propagating light wave
 

 

Akinbo,

 

You are still dodging my MAIN question. 

 

Why do you believe the radio/light wave is made out of magnetic and electric fields when there is no direct experimental evidence supporting this? 

 

Do you just like "pretty pictures"???? Do you not "care" about experimental evidence and rely entirely on "math"? Do you just worship Maxwell and everything he says is good???

 

The cognitive dissidence is just amazing.

 

1. Yes

2. No, it opposite directions

3. No

4. No force on neutral particles.

 

5. Why on Earth are you asking such questions????

 

-Franklin

 

-- 

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "npa-relativity" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to unsub...@googlegroups.com">npa-relativity+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/npa-relativity/1300175805.10249120.1724201052441%40mail.yahoo.com.
 

[HARRY RICKER]

All, Cosmology Meeting Sunday at 10 AM EDT New York Time

There are three Zoom Meetings scheduled as follows: 

First meeting 10 AM: 

https://us05web.zoom.us/j/84286827970?pwd=MLf4Jg45J6z9oT7XkaiOQKGY1ajHk4.1

Second Meeting stars about 10;45 

 https://us05web.zoom.us/j/84948785707?pwd=9xgFvSN2AM6xVg1M6XUESiLtR2fXh0.1

Third Meeting starts at 11: 30 

https://us05web.zoom.us/j/89486808607?pwd=IjkbPjrC4ojviUbLF4auiJ7ANiP0Xb.1

 

[Roger Munday]

DC and AC currents

A “direct” current, generated and connected, say between the N-S poles of a 12 volt battery, into a copper wire, which wire circuit includes a light bulb of the same voltage, is ultimately the physical realignment of the naturally static N-S magnetic alignments of all the copper atoms that compose the transmission wire, as well as those of the atoms of the light bulb’s element wire, and the relative resistance of this very finely coiled element wire in the bulb generates light (and heat).

In other words, on the introduction of a direct current in the wire, all its component atoms are aligned N-S longitudinally and when connected to the fine elements of a standard electric bulb, this current is observed to generate light (and heat).

However if an “alternating current” is produced in the wire, e.g. by the forced physical rotations of an “AC” generator, which successively reverses the currents produced in the atoms of the wire from N-S to S-N at, for example 60 cycles per second, these alternating currents also generate light (and heat) by the relative resistance of the fine wire elements of a light bulb.

“Electricity” is a human explanation for the observed transmission of magnetic fields.

Roger Munday

[Roger Munday]

 

The transmission of alternating currents in a copper wire.

Roger Munday

[Roger Munday]

The static, natural alignments of atoms in a copper wire.

Roger Munday

[Roger Munday]

https://romunpress.co.nz/romunnose/?s=Continuous+Magnetic+Atoms

[Franklin Hu]

Akinbo,

Thanks for the clarification. So you might not necessarily agree with the typical picture of cross magnetic and electric field, but you think that there is a magnetic field causing an induction on the receiving antenna. Waving a magnet around any wire will induce a current in the wire by simple induction and this is how electric generators work.

So, I will sharpen my question by asking why you believe this when there are absolutely no observable magnetic fields within the vicinity of a receiving antenna which could cause such an induction? No time varying magnetic fields whatsoever. If you put a compass between a powerful transmitter and receiver, the needle won't budge at all. Any such oscillating magnetic field must cause the compass (or similarly sensitive instrument like a hall effect sensor) to oscillate as well, but nothing like that has ever been directly observed. Never. Such magnetic oscillations are trivially observed if you wave real magnets around, but never around or between radio transmitters. If such real oscillating magnetic fields existed, we would have definitely been able to detect them using instruments which are ONLY sensitive to magnetic field changes and could directly observe the N/S pole reversals and their exact vector direction and magnitude. Has anyone in the history of Earth actually observed these oscillating magnetic fields surrounding an receiving antenna in the farfield? Nope. 

We see an oscillating current in the wire of the receiving antenna, but absolutely no corresponding oscillating magnetic field. Not just a small signal or hard to detect signal, but no signal at all. So why do you think a magnetic field is causing the current in the receiving antenna. It seems like an obvious contradiction, wouldn't you say? Experimentally, it has zero direct support. Zero.

As for your question 4, that was a follow up to question 3 where I said there would be "no force". Your question said if there was a force from question 3, then what direction would it be. Obviously, if there is no force, then there is no direction. So I would say that we "disagree" on our answer to question 3.

-Franklin

[Akinbo Ojo]

Franklin,

I get your point regarding, “So, I will sharpen my question by asking why you believe this when there are absolutely no observable magnetic fields within the vicinity of a receiving antenna which could cause such an induction?” and “No time varying magnetic fields whatsoever. If you put a compass between a powerful transmitter and receiver, the needle won't budge at all”

 

There is theory and this is different from experimental observation. When a theory predicts something, ability to verify this depends on assumptions and practicality. Now given a compass, with its needle at zero mark, if a magnetic field in one direction comes into its vicinity, the needle will detect this, by say, swinging to the right. Likewise, if a magnetic field in the opposite direction comes into its vicinity, the needle will detect this by say, swinging to the left.

Now, what do you think will happen if a time-varying magnetic field switching direction upwards of 10^10 times per second comes into the vicinity of the compass, given the inertia and other factors in the spring controlling the needle, will it move left or right or remain at the zero mark?

If you, Franklin, were the compass needle, receiving contradictory instructions, which must be obeyed or you face execution for disobedience of any of the two instructions, what will you do? Will you move left? Move right? Or standstill due to the rate the opposing instructions are being received by your brain?

I think what you are looking for can become feasible with a very long wavelength and ultrashort frequency light wave. I will check if gravitational waves fall in this category, because they claim ability to detect oscillation in the LIGO "compass", which shortens and lengthens about the zero mark as the wave arrives at light speed.

Akinbo

---

From: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2024 2:10 AM

[Roger Munday]

Akinbo,

You say:- “if a magnetic field in the opposite direction comes into its (the compasses) vicinity, the needle will detect this”

In effect what you are saying is that the compass needle will align with a stronger locally generated magnetic field.

A magnetic compass needle, which normally has no locally generated stronger static field other than the North-South field generated by the Earth, will naturally align with this observed magnetic field.

However if you progressively move, say a standard iron magnet into the vicinity of this compass, at some point the compass needle will begin to change its direction and eventually it will align directly with this magnet's N-S field.

Now with respect to the progression of an oscillating wave of light at its observed velocities in the relatively static Earth’s magnetic field, this progresses by instantaneously altering the natural north to south magnetic alignments of its atmospheric atoms at the speed of light.

Note that it was said that the timed and measured velocity of a ray of light directed into space and refracted back to the Earth, say to and from the Moon, will travel at the same velocity in both directions.

This is not true, the measured times of both the transmitted and the reflected rays will be (approximately) the same, but the velocity of an emitted ray from the Earth will increase within the progressive reduction of the matter of its atmosphere until the point in the vicinity of the Moon where it’s individual atmosphere begins to increase in density down to the surface, which progressively reduces the velocity of this ray.

The reflection of this ray on its return will of course reverse this process and therefore the times of the emitted and the reflected rays will be approximately the same.

Regards,

Roger Munday

 

[Roger Munday]

The "one-way" speed of light, from a source to a detector, cannot be measured independently of a convention as to how to synchronize the clocks at the source and the detector.

Experiments that attempt to directly probe the one-way speed of light independent of synchronization have been proposed, but none have succeeded in doing so.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-way_speed_of_light

[Stephan Gift]

Synchronized clocks (clocks which tell the same time at the same instant) are available in the GPS and these have been used to measure the one-way speed of light on the surface of the earth. They yield one-way light speed c+v west and c-v east where v is the surface speed of the Earth at the particular latitude.

CONFIDENTIALITY: This email (including any attachments) may contain confidential, proprietary and/or privileged information. Any duplication, copying, distribution, dissemination, transmission, disclosure or use in any manner of this email (including any attachments) without the authorisation of the sender is strictly prohibited. If you receive this email (including any attachments) in error, please notify the sender and delete this email (including any attachments) from your system. Thank you.

[r.j.an...@btinternet.com]

yeah but that will be using a "convention as to how to synchronize the clocks"

 

------ Original Message ------
From: Stepha...@sta.uwi.edu
To: munda...@gmail.com; ta...@hotmail.com Cc: frank...@yahoo.com; steph...@hotmail.com; kc...@yahoo.com; r.j.an...@btinternet.com; siri...@yahoo.com; cre...@elgenwave.com; cpr...@gmail.com; greenaethe...@gmail.com; cro...@gmail.com; hartwi...@jku.at; jimm...@yahoo.com; john.eri...@gmail.com; kis...@bellsouth.net; mark.cr...@gmail.com; mike.gamb...@gmail.com; musa...@gmail.com; nper...@snet.net; pete...@aol.com; p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk; reub...@gmail.com; reg.c...@flinders.edu.au; npa-rel...@googlegroups.com; frit...@bellsouth.net; sung...@aol.com; stre...@gmail.com; se...@lastrega.com; tomin...@yahoo.com; vira...@yahoo.co.uk; electr...@gmail.com; fro...@ieee.org; mon...@aol.com; sorli.bijec...@gmail.com
Sent: Monday, August 26th 2024, 15:26
Subject: RE: [npa-relativity] Direction of electromagnetic force in propagating light wave
 

Synchronized clocks (clocks which tell the same time at the same instant) are available in the GPS and these have been used to measure the one-way speed of light on the surface of the earth. They yield one-way light speed c+v west and c-v east where v is the surface speed of the Earth at the particular latitude.

 

From: Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com> 
Sent: Monday, 26 August 2024 9:58 am
To: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>
Cc: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>; Stephan Gift <steph...@hotmail.com>; Stephan Gift <Stepha...@sta.uwi.edu>; HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>; r.j.an...@btinternet.com; David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Christopher Provatidis <cpr...@gmail.com>; DeWayne Birkhofer <greenaethe...@gmail.com>; Goeffrey Neuzil <cro...@gmail.com>; Hartwig Thim <hartwi...@jku.at>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>; John-Erik Persson <john.eri...@gmail.com>; KISRAY <kis...@bellsouth.net>; Mark CreekWater <mark.cr...@gmail.com>; Mike Gamble Retired <mike.gamb...@gmail.com>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <nper...@snet.net>; Pete Moore <pete...@aol.com>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; REUBENUHR <reub...@gmail.com>; Reg Cahill <reg.c...@flinders.edu.au>; Relativity googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>; Robert Fritzius <frit...@bellsouth.net>; Robert <sung...@aol.com>; STRES. ES <stre...@gmail.com>; Sepp Hasslberger <se...@lastrega.com>; Tom Miles <tomin...@yahoo.com>; cc: Viraj Fernando <vira...@yahoo.co.uk>; electr...@gmail.com; fro...@ieee.org; mon...@aol.com; Amrit Sorli <sorli.bijec...@gmail.com>

Subject: Re: [npa-relativity] Direction of electromagnetic force in propagating light wave

 

The "one-way" speed of light, from a source to a detector, cannot be measured independently of a convention as to how to synchronize the clocks at the source and the detector.

Experiments that attempt to directly probe the one-way speed of light independent of synchronization have been proposed, but none have succeeded in doing so.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-way_speed_of_light

[Franklin Hu]

Akibo, once again, this is not about it being "difficult" to measure the magnetic field. You mention a physical compass, but we can use hall effect sensors which have no inertial components to vibrate and merely send a beam of electrons across a small gap to detect magnetic fields and these are sensitive into the kHz oscillation range, well within normal radio wave production. Also, as you mention, even with a physical compass, it should be possible using a low mass compass, a powerful transmitter and very low frequencies which could be as low as 1hz. 

However, despite an extensive and exhaustive search, I have failed to find any evidence that there is a detectable magnetic field in an "in flight" radio wave. There is no technological reason why this couldn't be done with existing technology, especially solid state hall effect sensors.

If you feel that there is a magnetic field in the radio wave, then I would say that it is your "burden of proof" to experimentally show that this actually happens. My inability to actually find any experiments doesn't exactly disprove that it doesn't happen, but you certainly would think that this should be easily demonstrated experimentally using readily available equipment.

Go ahead, search the internet all you like. You will not find any direct evidence for a directly measured oscillating magnetic field in a radio/light wave. 

Akinbo, what would you think, if we were able to find an experiment which directly tries to measure this and it came out negative? Then, I think you would have to abandon your hypothesis that it is a magnetic field induction which is causing the reception of a radio signal. I would challenge you to think of some other way that the signal could arise in the receiving antenna if it isn't by induction.

-Franklin

[r.j.an...@btinternet.com]

Also - 

 

>>Synchronized clocks (clocks which tell the same time at the same instant) are available<<

 

 

But if go back to Einstein's 1905 SR paper - that does not seem the way that Einstein is synchronizing clocks in that paper.

 

If deal with Einstein's 1905 SR paper as mainly about a specific method to synchronize clocks.

 

A question to raise is - does he allow other synchronization methods - and of course the relevant part of the paper has been badly translated. Corrected translation - and Einstein allows other methods than just the one he proposes. 

 

i.e. SR allows different methods of clock synchronization.

 

Now - if STs are just about a certain way of clock synchronization - SR allows such a things so STs are part of SR even though Einstein never explored that particular bit of math; SR is general enough to allow extra things like that.

 

------ Original Message ------
From: r.j.an...@btinternet.com
To: Stepha...@sta.uwi.edu; munda...@gmail.com; ta...@hotmail.com Cc: frank...@yahoo.com; steph...@hotmail.com; kc...@yahoo.com; r.j.an...@btinternet.com; siri...@yahoo.com; cre...@elgenwave.com; cpr...@gmail.com; greenaethe...@gmail.com; cro...@gmail.com; hartwi...@jku.at; jimm...@yahoo.com; john.eri...@gmail.com; kis...@bellsouth.net; mark.cr...@gmail.com; mike.gamb...@gmail.com; musa...@gmail.com; nper...@snet.net; pete...@aol.com; p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk; reub...@gmail.com; reg.c...@flinders.edu.au; npa-rel...@googlegroups.com; frit...@bellsouth.net; sung...@aol.com; stre...@gmail.com; se...@lastrega.com; tomin...@yahoo.com; vira...@yahoo.co.uk; electr...@gmail.com; fro...@ieee.org; mon...@aol.com; sorli.bijec...@gmail.com
Sent: Monday, August 26th 2024, 15:42
Subject: Re: RE: [npa-relativity] Direction of electromagnetic force in propagating light wave
 

yeah but that will be using a "convention as to how to synchronize the clocks"

 

------ Original Message ------
From: Stepha...@sta.uwi.edu
To: munda...@gmail.com; ta...@hotmail.com Cc: frank...@yahoo.com; steph...@hotmail.com; kc...@yahoo.com; r.j.an...@btinternet.com; siri...@yahoo.com; cre...@elgenwave.com; cpr...@gmail.com; greenaethe...@gmail.com; cro...@gmail.com; hartwi...@jku.at; jimm...@yahoo.com; john.eri...@gmail.com; kis...@bellsouth.net; mark.cr...@gmail.com; mike.gamb...@gmail.com; musa...@gmail.com; nper...@snet.net; pete...@aol.com; p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk; reub...@gmail.com; reg.c...@flinders.edu.au; npa-rel...@googlegroups.com; frit...@bellsouth.net; sung...@aol.com; stre...@gmail.com; se...@lastrega.com; tomin...@yahoo.com; vira...@yahoo.co.uk; electr...@gmail.com; fro...@ieee.org; mon...@aol.com; sorli.bijec...@gmail.com
Sent: Monday, August 26th 2024, 15:26
Subject: RE: [npa-relativity] Direction of electromagnetic force in propagating light wave
 

Synchronized clocks (clocks which tell the same time at the same instant) are available in the GPS and these have been used to measure the one-way speed of light on the surface of the earth. They yield one-way light speed c+v west and c-v east where v is the surface speed of the Earth at the particular latitude.

 

From: Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com> 
Sent: Monday, 26 August 2024 9:58 am
To: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>
Cc: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>; Stephan Gift <steph...@hotmail.com>; Stephan Gift <Stepha...@sta.uwi.edu>; HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>; r.j.an...@btinternet.com; David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Christopher Provatidis <cpr...@gmail.com>; DeWayne Birkhofer <greenaethe...@gmail.com>; Goeffrey Neuzil <cro...@gmail.com>; Hartwig Thim <hartwi...@jku.at>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>; John-Erik Persson <john.eri...@gmail.com>; KISRAY <kis...@bellsouth.net>; Mark CreekWater <mark.cr...@gmail.com>; Mike Gamble Retired <mike.gamb...@gmail.com>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <nper...@snet.net>; Pete Moore <pete...@aol.com>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; REUBENUHR <reub...@gmail.com>; Reg Cahill <reg.c...@flinders.edu.au>; Relativity googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>; Robert Fritzius <frit...@bellsouth.net>; Robert <sung...@aol.com>; STRES. ES <stre...@gmail.com>; Sepp Hasslberger <se...@lastrega.com>; Tom Miles <tomin...@yahoo.com>; cc: Viraj Fernando <vira...@yahoo.co.uk>; electr...@gmail.com; fro...@ieee.org; mon...@aol.com; Amrit Sorli <sorli.bijec...@gmail.com>

Subject: Re: [npa-relativity] Direction of electromagnetic force in propagating light wave

 

The "one-way" speed of light, from a source to a detector, cannot be measured independently of a convention as to how to synchronize the clocks at the source and the detector.

Experiments that attempt to directly probe the one-way speed of light independent of synchronization have been proposed, but none have succeeded in doing so.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-way_speed_of_light

[HARRY RICKER]

Franklin,

My advice is to stop discussing this since your definition of what you require is based upon your misguided idea that there is no magnetic field in a radio wave despite numerous proofs have been presented to you disproving your assertion. So if you insist on continuing this discussion please do it in private. 

Harry

[Roger Munday]

They yield one-way light speed c+v west and c-v east where v is the surface speed of the Earth’s co-rotating atmosphere at the particular latitude.

Roger Munday

[Akinbo Ojo]

Roger M.,

Supposing by some phenomenon, you have “a magnetic compass needle, which normally has no locally generated stronger static field other than the North-South field generated by the Earth, will naturally align with this observed magnetic field”, then after this natural alignment which you see with your own eyes, the Earth’s North-South field starts reversing and switching at a very high rate between N-S to S-N, upwards of 10^10 times per second, do you think the natural alignment you initially saw with your own eyes will vary?

Akinbo

---

From: Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 2:12 PM
To: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>
Cc: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>; Stephan Gift <steph...@hotmail.com>; cc: Stephan Gift <stepha...@sta.uwi.edu>; HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>; r.j.an...@btinternet.com <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Christopher Provatidis <cpr...@gmail.com>; DeWayne Birkhofer <greenaethe...@gmail.com>; Goeffrey Neuzil <cro...@gmail.com>; Hartwig Thim <hartwi...@jku.at>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>; John-Erik Persson <john.eri...@gmail.com>; KISRAY <kis...@bellsouth.net>; Mark CreekWater <mark.cr...@gmail.com>; Mike Gamble Retired <mike.gamb...@gmail.com>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <nper...@snet.net>; Pete Moore <pete...@aol.com>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; REUBENUHR <reub...@gmail.com>; Reg Cahill <reg.c...@flinders.edu.au>; Relativity googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>; Robert Fritzius <frit...@bellsouth.net>; Robert <sung...@aol.com>; STRES. ES <stre...@gmail.com>; Sepp Hasslberger <se...@lastrega.com>; Tom Miles <tomin...@yahoo.com>; cc: Viraj Fernando <vira...@yahoo.co.uk>; electr...@gmail.com <electr...@gmail.com>; fro...@ieee.org <fro...@ieee.org>; mon...@aol.com <mon...@aol.com>; Amrit Sorli <sorli.bijec...@gmail.com>

[Akinbo Ojo]

Franklin,

Do you agree that in the laboratory, either from to-and-fro motion of a bar magnet, or from the switching on and off of a primary circuit, a time-varying magnetic field can cause electric current to flow in a circuit that is not in any physical contact with the bar magnet or the primary circuit? Or do you reject this evidence? If you reject, what then is the cause of the electric current?

Do you accept the various evidence relating the strength and frequency of variation of this magnetic field to the frequency and magnitude of the current it produces? What is your explanation for these effects of time-varying magnetic field, if you reject the evidence?

By understanding and accepting the established experiments dating from Faraday to Hertz to Marconi, etc, what is left is for you to ask yourself, whether there is a distance limit beyond which what happens in the laboratory due to time-varying magnetic field will no longer happen beyond the laboratory.

Akinbo

---

From: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 3:45 PM

[Roger Munday]

Akinbo,

I think this question was essentially answered in my post yesterday, but to clarify:-

The Earth’s observed N-S magnetic fields act atom to atom, within the atomic structure of the atmosphere.

The progression of a “ray” of light, which interacts continuously within and through these essentially and relatively static atmospheric atoms of a surface density of 25 x 10¹⁸ atoms per cubic centimetre, (e.g. 25 x 10,000,000,000,000,000,000 atoms/cc) and at light’s observed velocity of 299,792,458 m/s, which rays are transmitted in the atmosphere at these extremely high frequencies.

Further, it is generally assumed (and numerously stated by theoretical physicists online) that in the observed expansions and contractions of matter, individual atoms of any element remain at the same structural volumes and densities in the progressions to and from the solid, the liquid and the gaseous states with observed inputs and emissions of energy, and that it is a hypothetical interatomic and vacuous empty “space” (of various descriptions) which expands and contracts due to variations in the “kinetic velocities” of such isolated atoms.

But the simple and unequivocal fact is that this “vacuous” state cannot be attained in experiment and so there is no evidence whatsoever that this state “exists” anywhere.

If this vacuum did exist inter-atomically here on Earth, and accordingly would expand exponentially out into space, then the entire universe obviously could not function as it is observed to do.

It is time for theoretical physicists to consider facts and to use some logic.

Regards

Roger Munday

[Akinbo Ojo]

Roger M.,

I do not see any clarity in your response. I asked you whether if compass needle is reversing and switching at a very high rate between N-S to S-N, upwards of 10^10 times per second, what will you be able to see with your own eyes?

I believe what I will see will be a static needle which is the average value between N-S and S-N.

Regards,

Akinbo

---

From: Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2024 4:05 PM

[Franklin Hu]

Of course, one would have to an agree that magnetic fields can induce currents. There is overwhelming evidence and this is obviously settled science.

However, that is not the only way currents can be created in wires. For example, the electrochemical reactions in a battery can generate a current - and there is absolutely no magnetic field involved in this action. The same is true of photovolatic solar cells which generate a current with absolutely no magnetic field involved. In fact, all simple electronic oscillator circuits generate oscillating signals using resistor/capacitor components with no involvement of any magnetic fields.

If it were the case that the ONLY way that oscillating signals could be induced on a wire was through magnetic means, then you might have a point as it would be the only possible way. But this is simply not the case.

What is "left" is that there must be another way that the signal is getting into the receiving antenna. I believe that this "other way" by being directly conducted by the aether medium (a sea of poselectrons or simply neutrons) by ordinary longitudinal pressure waves. This is EXACTLY the same way the signal is propagated within the wire as a pressure wave of electrons, but instead of electrons, it is using the non-conductive aether sea to transmit the wave.

This is what I propose as the "alternative" explanation for how a signal is transmitted from the transmission antenna to the receiving antenna. It is as if there were a "hidden wire" connecting the transmitter and receiver acting as a direct conductor and that is how the signal is getting passed. This is why I call this a "conduction" theory of radio transmission.

While you might measure some minor magnetic field as the direct result of the moving electrons in the transmitter, this is a very weak signal compared to the actual radio signal and typically can only be detected within the near field of the transmitter and contributes nothing to the far field detection of the signal in far away locations.

-Franklin

On Aug 27, 2024, at 2:46 AM, Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com> wrote:



Franklin,

Do you agree that in the laboratory, either from to-and-fro motion of a bar magnet, or from the switching on and off of a primary circuit, a time-varying magnetic field can cause electric current to flow in a circuit that is not in any physical contact with the bar magnet or the primary circuit? Or do you reject this evidence? If you reject, what then is the cause of the electric current?

Do you accept the various evidence relating the strength and frequency of variation of this magnetic field to the frequency and magnitude of the current it produces? What is your explanation for these effects of time-varying magnetic field, if you reject the evidence?

By understanding and accepting the established experiments dating from Faraday to Hertz to Marconi, etc, what is left is for you to ask yourself, whether there is a distance limit beyond which what happens in the laboratory due to time-varying magnetic field will no longer happen beyond the laboratory.

Akinbo

---

From: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 3:45 PM

To: Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Stephan Gift <steph...@hotmail.com>; cc: Stephan Gift <stepha...@sta.uwi.edu>; HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>; r.j.an...@btinternet.com <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Christopher Provatidis <cpr...@gmail.com>; DeWayne Birkhofer <greenaethe...@gmail.com>; Goeffrey Neuzil <cro...@gmail.com>; Hartwig Thim <hartwi...@jku.at>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>; John-Erik Persson <john.eri...@gmail.com>; KISRAY <kis...@bellsouth.net>; Mark CreekWater <mark.cr...@gmail.com>; Mike Gamble Retired <mike.gamb...@gmail.com>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <nper...@snet.net>; Pete Moore <pete...@aol.com>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; REUBENUHR <reub...@gmail.com>; Reg Cahill <reg.c...@flinders.edu.au>; Relativity googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>; Robert Fritzius <frit...@bellsouth.net>; Robert <sung...@aol.com>; STRES. ES <stre...@gmail.com>; Sepp Hasslberger <se...@lastrega.com>; Tom Miles <tomin...@yahoo.com>; cc: Viraj Fernando <vira...@yahoo.co.uk>; electr...@gmail.com <electr...@gmail.com>; fro...@ieee.org <fro...@ieee.org>; mon...@aol.com <mon...@aol.com>; Amrit Sorli <sorli.bijec...@gmail.com>; Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: [npa-relativity] Direction of electromagnetic force in propagating light wave

Akibo, once again, this is not about it being "difficult" to measure the magnetic field. You mention a physical compass, but we can use hall effect sensors which have no inertial components to vibrate and merely send a beam of electrons across a small gap to detect magnetic fields and these are sensitive into the kHz oscillation range, well within normal radio wave production. Also, as you mention, even with a physical compass, it should be possible using a low mass compass, a powerful transmitter and very low frequencies which could be as low as 1hz. 

However, despite an extensive and exhaustive search, I have failed to find any evidence that there is a detectable magnetic field in an "in flight" radio wave. There is no technological reason why this couldn't be done with existing technology, especially solid state hall effect sensors.

If you feel that there is a magnetic field in the radio wave, then I would say that it is your "burden of proof" to experimentally show that this actually happens. My inability to actually find any experiments doesn't exactly disprove that it doesn't happen, but you certainly would think that this should be easily demonstrated experimentally using readily available equipment.

Go ahead, search the internet all you like. You will not find any direct evidence for a directly measured oscillating magnetic field in a radio/light wave. 

Akinbo, what would you think, if we were able to find an experiment which directly tries to measure this and it came out negative? Then, I think you would have to abandon your hypothesis that it is a magnetic field induction which is causing the reception of a radio signal. I would challenge you to think of some other way that the signal could arise in the receiving antenna if it isn't by induction.

-Franklin

<Screenshot_13-8-2024_113827_.jpeg>

[Roger Munday]

Akinbo,

"a static needle which is the average value between N-S and S-N."

Would not the "average value between N-S and S-N"  be E-W or W-E.

Regards,

Roger

[Roger Munday]

Franklin, you say:-

"the electrochemical reactions in a battery can generate a current - and there is absolutely no magnetic field involved in this action"

A battery generates a 'direct' and static N-S magnetic current, i.e. directly from its north pole to its south pole via a resistive component, say a light bulb.

An AC generator generates an alternating magnetic current, i.e. a current which is successively reversed N-S - S-N by the rotation of the numerous, permanent magnetic poles of its rotor, which generated current is also directed via a resistive component.

Roger Munday

[Akinbo Ojo]

Roger M.,

Re: “Would not the "average value between N-S and S-N"  be E-W or W-E”

Well, it could be. The important thing is that the needle remains quivering in one place, due to the very rapid opposite signals received.

Regards,

Akinbo

---

From: Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2024 8:53 PM

[Akinbo Ojo]

Franklin,

Re: “Of course, one would have to an agree that magnetic fields can induce currents. There is overwhelming evidence and this is obviously settled science.”

Okay. And I agree with you that this may not be the not the only way currents can be created in wires.

And on the settled science, it is not just enough for there to be magnetic fields, in the laboratory, this magnetic field MUST be fluctuating (time-varying and spatially-varying).

Such fluctuating magnetic field can be created around a wire using AC current. And if there is a second wire nearby, a current will be produced in that second circuit.

So, while, your alternative can be considered, it must also explain how current is produced in that second wire. Is this by “hidden wire” joining both wires or by the time-varying magnetic field around the first wire?

Akinbo

---

From: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2024 3:46 PM
To: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>
Cc: Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>; Stephan Gift <steph...@hotmail.com>; cc: Stephan Gift <stepha...@sta.uwi.edu>; HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>; r.j.an...@btinternet.com <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Christopher Provatidis <cpr...@gmail.com>; DeWayne Birkhofer <greenaethe...@gmail.com>; Goeffrey Neuzil <cro...@gmail.com>; Hartwig Thim <hartwi...@jku.at>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>; John-Erik Persson <john.eri...@gmail.com>; KISRAY <kis...@bellsouth.net>; Mark CreekWater <mark.cr...@gmail.com>; Mike Gamble Retired <mike.gamb...@gmail.com>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <nper...@snet.net>; Pete Moore <pete...@aol.com>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; REUBENUHR <reub...@gmail.com>; Reg Cahill <reg.c...@flinders.edu.au>; Relativity googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>; Robert Fritzius <frit...@bellsouth.net>; Robert <sung...@aol.com>; STRES. ES <stre...@gmail.com>; Sepp Hasslberger <se...@lastrega.com>; Tom Miles <tomin...@yahoo.com>; cc: Viraj Fernando <vira...@yahoo.co.uk>; electr...@gmail.com <electr...@gmail.com>; fro...@ieee.org <fro...@ieee.org>; mon...@aol.com <mon...@aol.com>; Amrit Sorli <sorli.bijec...@gmail.com>

[Franklin Hu]

Akinbo,

Good to see that you can accept that there can be other ways of the current to get into a wire other than fluctuating magnetic fields.

To answer your question, I would say that the current is being produced by a direct fluctuating "pressure" exerted on the exterior of the receiving antenna which is then acting to apply pressure to the exterior electrons which are then literally pushed in and out of the surface of the receiving antenna surface. We see that pressure fluctuation as an oscillating voltage. 

As much as you might want to see the magnetic field having something to do with producing the current, this does work, but only in the very close near field. This is how transformers work where current is directly induced into the winding of the transformer over very short distances. But since this does work, you may just presume that this can just keep on going out into the far field for miles like radio waves do. Definitely such magnetic fields can be measured coming out of a transmitter and you can't say that the signal reaches zero in the far field, but this is deceiving when the true mechanism has nothing to do with magnetic fields. They are just a minor, contributor to the signal.

The simple explanation I am trying to present is that radio waves travel through space in EXACTLY the same way as oscillating electrical signals travel in a wire as a compression of a medium such as either the electron gas within a wire or the sea of aether particles in space. It is that simple. The kinetic energy of the oscillating electrons gets directly transferred to the particles of the aether which carry the signal away to a distance receiver. 

Do you understand this "dead simple" mechanism that I am proposing?

-Franklin 

[Roger Munday]

Akinbo, you say:-

“compass needle is reversing and switching at a very high rate between N-S to S-N, upwards of 10^10 times per second”,

and:- “the needle remains quivering in one place, due to the very rapid opposite signals received.”

I do not understand why the Earth’s observed static magnetic field should reverse in any circumstance.

Regards,

Roger

-------

DC and AC currents

A “direct” current, generated and connected say between the N-S poles of a 12 volt battery into a copper wire, which wire circuit includes a light bulb of the same voltage, is ultimately the physical realignment of the naturally static N-S magnetic alignments of all the copper atoms that compose the transmission wire, as well as those of the atoms of the light bulb’s element wire, and the relative resistance of this very finely coiled element wire in the bulb generates light (and heat).

In other words on the introduction of a direct current in the wire all its component atoms are aligned N-S longitudinally and when connected to the fine elements of a standard electric bulb, this current is observed to generate light (and heat).

However if an “alternating current” is produced in the wire, e.g. by the forced physical rotations of an “AC” generator, which successively reverses the currents produced in the atoms of the wire from N-S to S-N at, for example 60 cycles per second, these alternating currents also generate light (and heat) by the relative resistance of the fine wire elements of a light bulb.

Roger Munday

[Akinbo Ojo]

Roger M.,

I was just giving a hypothetical example why it may appear that a compass needle remains at zero in the presence of magnetic field.

Akinbo

---

From: Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 31, 2024 12:36 AM

[Roger Munday]

Akinbo,

You say:- "a compass needle remains at zero in the presence of magnetic field."

A compass needle does not "remain at zero" in a magnetic field, it aligns with the

Earth's  N-S magnetic fields.

Roger Munday

[Akinbo Ojo]

Franklin,

Re: “Good to see that you can accept that there can be other ways...”

Yes, I believe it is always good to keep an open mind. This can even help close gaps that may exist in one’s preferred model. I recommend this.

Re: “But since this does work, you may just presume that this can just keep on going out into the far field for miles like radio waves do...”

So, we have no dispute about workability over the near field. The disputation is why it should work into the far field.

On the “dead simple” mechanism that you are proposing...

In this proposal, you say, “radio waves travel through space in EXACTLY the same way as oscillating electrical signals travel in a wire as a compression of a medium such as either the electron gas within a wire.”

I am not a radio engineer, so I stand to be corrected. In the simplest antenna, while the electric signals travel in the wire as you said, I believe the radio signals travel sideways of the wire, i.e. orthogonal/perpendicular to the wire. This direction corresponds with the direction of the magnetic field created by the current. Is this not so?

I would expect that for the dead simple mechanism, the radio waves created will continue pointing to and travel in the direction of the oscillating signals, if it was a compression of a medium. But appears they travel sideways to it. Comment.

Akinbo 

---

From: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Friday, August 30, 2024 9:03 PM

[Roger Munday]

Akinbo,

You say:- “radio waves travel through space in EXACTLY the same way as oscillating electrical signals travel in a wire as a compression of a medium such as either the electron gas within a wire.”

A radio wave travels, e.g. through a copper wire, as successive oscillations of the natural N-S alignments of the component copper atoms, there is no “compression of an unexaminable electron gas" in the wire.

These oscillations are generated by the radiant emissions, and the successive and progressive N-S alignments of the wires component atoms intrinsic magnetic fields.

You all still believe that your “vacuous atoms” are of consistent masses and volumes in any state of matter, and which are in "kinetic motion" in an “interatomic vacuum”, or an “electron gas”.

Sub-atomic or extra-atomic vacua do not “exist”, as is proven in experiments.

Roger Munday

[Franklin Hu]

Akinbo,

Yes, this is a dispute as to whether the magnetic field can represent the actual radio signal in the far field, rather than just being an irrelevant side effect.

The mainstream definition of the magnetic field has the field circling around the conductor in a perpendicular fashion. This is the "convention"

One way to visualize the radiation pattern of a simple rod antenna would be to dip the rod antenna into a wave pool such that the rod is sitting on the surface of the water. Then wiggle the rod up and down to generate waves. 

It would look something like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DiSJspAVFh0

The waves propagate in a perpendicular fashion away from the rod (or the wire) and it actually takes the shape of the transmitting rod. This is another "dead simple" explanation of how waves propagate away from an a transmitter. It ALSO shows how the wave creates a polarization by defining a continuous wavefront vector which will then interact differently with objects placed at different angles to waves. For example if you placed an identical receiving rod in the tank, you would see it would receive a lot of energy. However, if you oriented the rod perpendicularly so it stood up and pointed into the tank, you would see it would receive almost nothing since it is exposed to only a tiny part of the wavefront. This is how real radio polarization works - we see exactly this type of behavior when the receiver and transmitter are oriented either in the same direction or 90 degrees to each other. So, this directly shows how polarization can occur in a medium which can only support longitudinal waves and proves that a medium capable of supporting transverse waves is NOT NECESSARY!

Now, maybe you are confused because you visualize the current slowly travelling from the base of the rod to the other end and this is an up/down movement and not generally only an outward movement. Well, this is actually a problem for real radio antennas that has to be modeled. If the frequency of the signal is very slow relative to the actual length of the antenna, then there can be severe efficiency problems. This is why the length of the antenna you are using should be at least the same as the wavelength frequency so that at least 1 full wave can fit inside the antenna. This allows the rod to build up a consistent charge on the entire antenna rod so it is fully charged before reversing direction. The time it takes for the signal to propagate from the base of the antenna to the tip is generally negligible for an practical sized antenna since the signal travels as near light speed. These "practical" considerations also support the idea that the radio waves are being generated as a result of a "pressure" oscillation within the transmitting rod and not due to any magical conversion of electric or magnetic fields which can leap off into far space without any support of real nearby currents or magnets.

In the last CNPS video conference, Harry was asking the very relevant question of how a radio wave manages to leap off of a conducting wire. He wasn't satisfied with John's explanation which basically said that the currents generated magnetic fields and that was how the radio wave was generated. That type of explanation is not satisfying because it just explains one thing we don't understand like "radio waves" with something we also don't understand "magnetic fields". 

I replace all of that with this very simple and fully mechanical mechanism that as the voltage rises in the transmitting antenna, it physically pushes out the electrons on the surface and these electrons directly interact with the particles of the aether which are then pushed by the electron. The aether particles pick up the oscillating pressure differential as a wave which then takes energy away from the transmitter and converts into a pressure wave in the aether medium. If Harry was looking for a reason for why an aether needs to exist, this would be it. It is the ONLY LOGICAL way energy can be carried into space, there must be a medium to carry that energy. With no medium, there can be nothing to carry the energy. "Nothing" cannot carry energy, therefore, there logically has to be "something" material to carry the energy. So there MUST be an aether. Otherwise radio waves would be simply impossible. On the receiving end, the opposite process occurs where aether particles impress upon the surface electrons and generate a current within the receiver. 

So, Harry, how is that for a fully mechanical explanation for how a radio wave is generated?

Of course, you would have to completely abandon almost everything associated with the EM wave equation, but I think you would find that it is already perfectly compatible with all existing practical radio engineering practices, most of which have absolutely nothing to do with the EM wave equation. Think about it, how much of radio engineering would be impacted if you just removed all references to the EM wave equation. I am betting that would be almost nothing. This is because it cannot rely on the EM wave equation because it really is fundamentally false. We would still use the uncorrupted Maxwell's equations which deal with real currents and magnets, we would just toss out stuff like "displacement current" which make the EM wave equation possible. Is there really anything in radio engineering that actually depends on the "displacement current" being real???? It has just been the "poster boy" for explaining how radio waves work. "Look! We got a bunch of equations which say how radio waves work!" "Brilliant! Lets just go with that". Don't bother testing that, it is just too brilliant and beyond question - Maxwell couldn't be wrong.

-Franklin

[Akinbo Ojo]

Franklin,

Re: “The mainstream definition of the magnetic field has the field circling around the conductor in a perpendicular fashion. This is the "convention"”

It is not convention. It is practically observed that the direction in which a magnetic field points is perpendicular to the direction of the force on charge, which is also the direction of current.

 

Re: Your rod and water tank analogy...

The rod cannot be restricted to the surface of water tank. It must be completely immersed in it, since an antenna in space is also wholly immersed.

Doing this, if you move the immersed rod “to and fro”, it creates compression waves in the same direction as the to and fro motion, not side ways. The same occurs in air when sound waves are created. This is because the medium, water or air has resistance to being compressed or extended. So, the “to” motion does work on the medium, and this work is stored as energy in the medium, which can subsequently propagate as water or sound wave (longitudinal waves).

But for radio waves, the work done on the medium is in the perpendicular direction to the “to and fro” motion of current. This work is also stored as energy in the medium, in which form we call it a magnetic field B.

Moral of the story: B is the form in which energy is stored in space. Do you agree to this?

Akinbo

---

From: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 1, 2024 11:22 PM

[Akinbo Ojo]

Roger M.,

Don't misquote me. It was Franklin that said what you are attributing to me.

Akinbo

---

From: Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 1, 2024 10:29 PM
To: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>
Cc: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>; Stephan Gift <steph...@hotmail.com>; cc: Stephan Gift <stepha...@sta.uwi.edu>; HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>; r.j.an...@btinternet.com <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Christopher Provatidis <cpr...@gmail.com>; DeWayne Birkhofer <greenaethe...@gmail.com>; Goeffrey Neuzil <cro...@gmail.com>; Hartwig Thim <hartwi...@jku.at>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>; John-Erik Persson <john.eri...@gmail.com>; KISRAY <kis...@bellsouth.net>; Mark CreekWater <mark.cr...@gmail.com>; Mike Gamble Retired <mike.gamb...@gmail.com>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <nper...@snet.net>; Pete Moore <pete...@aol.com>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; REUBENUHR <reub...@gmail.com>; Reg Cahill <reg.c...@flinders.edu.au>; Relativity googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>; Robert Fritzius <frit...@bellsouth.net>; Robert <sung...@aol.com>; STRES. ES <stre...@gmail.com>; Sepp Hasslberger <se...@lastrega.com>; Tom Miles <tomin...@yahoo.com>; cc: Viraj Fernando <vira...@yahoo.co.uk>; electr...@gmail.com <electr...@gmail.com>; fro...@ieee.org <fro...@ieee.org>; mon...@aol.com <mon...@aol.com>; Amrit Sorli <sorli.bijec...@gmail.com>

[Franklin Hu]

Roger,

Yes, that was me asserting that the oscillations are due to the pressure of an electron gas.

This is the current mainstream interpretation of this and I agree with that and disagree with your assertion this this is an oscillation of the N-S alignments of atoms. I know you like to attribute EVERYTHING to the magnetic force and that is your preference. I think that preference is wrong and I think that everything is based on the electric force.

As such, I think we would have to agree to disagree. But I think there is far more evidence to suggest that a current is an actual motion of electrons being pumped in a circuit and that the density of such electrons represents voltage and the varying voltage is what we see oscillating within the wire as signals. That is a very simple picture that doesn't require any atomic alignments to occur.

What is your equivalent explanation of what voltage and current are?

-Franklin

[Franklin Hu]

Akinbo,

Yes, a 2-d wave tank isn't the same thing as a 3-d wave tank. This is why we use analogies, because it is much easier to visualize and I can show you actual experiments in YouTube.

In an actual 3-d wave-tank, the action of the rod would not be "to and fro". It would actually be more of an expansion of the entire rod along all its dimensions and then a contraction. This would be like taking a long balloon (like those used for balloon animals) and putting a pump on it which alternates between pumping more air in and then removing it. This causes the skin of the balloon to expand/contract outwards in a perpendicular direction on all sides of the balloon and this creates creates the perpendicular outward wave that we would see. So it isn't any kind of linear "to and fro" motion. It is a 3 dimensional expansion and contraction.

Do you understand how that would work? Yes or No. If you answer No, then please explain the difficulty in your understand as this is a very, very important point in demonstrating how a real radio wave leaves an antenna. This is why the shape of the radio antenna is so critical to its function. I'd still like to hear from Harry what he thinks of this mechanical model for wave generation.

Now undoubtably, the near field magnetic field is able to store energy. This is how inductors work. However, this is only a near field effect and is not directly related to how the energy leaves into the far field as a radio wave. These magnetic interactions are real, but they aren't what actually causes the energy to be transmitted into the far field. In my theory of how magnetic fields work, energy is being stored into the near field as an unnatural alignment of the dipoles that make up the aether. However, that has NOTHING to do with how the energy is being stored in the aether as a radio wave. That energy is being stored as a simple compression of the aether particles for a radio wave and has nothing to do with their alignment. Both of these energy storage mechanisms can go on at the same time, but only the compression energy phenomenon can travel into the far field. The magnetic effects are limited to the near field because the nearby current can only align the dipoles which are physically nearby the current. It can't turn a dipole which is miles away. However, a compression wave can travel nearly unlimited distances since no matter particles have to physically move from point A to point B. They just have to wiggle in place.    

The near field effects also intimately rely upon the currents being active. If you turn off the oscillating current in the wire, the magnetic field immediately dies and any effect it could have possibly carried off also dies with it. But radio waves are different in that if you suddenly shut off the current to the transmitter, the wave that you had generated previously can continue on its own forever, even though the original energy source has been completely cut off. This ability for the signal to propagate even when the source is cut off is yet another reason to believe that the magnetic field could not be the mechanism by which radio waves travel. If the radio wave were fully magnetic, then you would expect that as soon as you shut off the transmitter, the wave should then immediately and completely disappear everywhere. Would you agree?

-Franklin

[Roger Munday]

Franklin, et al,

“a current is an actual motion of electrons”

So, all you (or anyone else here and in the mainstream) have to do is to prove that an absolute vacuum can “exist” anywhere, to allow your “electrons” to exist and move as distinct particles within a “vacuous medium”.

Which unexaminable “medium” you assume/believe is inherent in the Earth’s local atmosphere which consists of :-

25x10,000,000,000,000,000,000 atoms per cc

Roger Munday

[Roger Munday]

Franklin,

You say:- "a current is an actual motion of electrons being pumped in a circuit"

Voltage is the transmission value of either a direct (DC) current, e.g. that generated between the N-S poles of a 12 volt battery, or that of an alternating (AC) current, e.g. that generated by the forced rotations of the N-S poles of a 240 volt generator’s element.

The currents generated between either circuits requires the inclusion of a resistive element between the N-S poles, such as a 12 volt or a 240 volt lamp bulb, otherwise a direct “shorting” will occur in the weakest physical point in the wires of the circuits between the two poles.

Which “shorting” would result in the liquefaction of the metal at this point and a physical separation of these circuits, these effects are observed.

Roger Munday

On Tue, 3 Sept 2024 at 03:54, Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[Akinbo Ojo]

Franklin,

Okay let us focus on areas where there seems to be agreement to some extent, i.e. the near-field.

You seem to accept that the near-field of a wire can reversibly store energy. That is, work can be done on it and this work stored in it as energy.

This will be by twisting the elastic necks of the flags in your model into what you refer to as “unnatural alignment” against some resistance by those flags to being so twisted. And when the stress is removed, the natural alignment is restored.

Essentially, this is how your model describes energy storage as a magnetic field in the space surrounding a wire.

Ingress of energy = unnatural alignment of the dipoles

Egress of energy = restoration of natural alignment of dipoles

If energy continues to be dumped into the near-field of an AC-current carrying wire, is there no elastic limit to the neck twisting of the flags? It is unreasonable for this limit to be infinite. When that energy storage limit is reached, what prevents the excess from spilling further out, so that the dipoles beyond the near-field share in the burden of energy storage?

Akinbo

---

From: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, September 2, 2024 5:24 PM

[Franklin Hu]

I would say that if there is such a limit to the elasticity of the dipoles, then what would happen is that energy would simply not be able to be efficiently transferred and stored to the medium. Any such energy would simply not be able to take any other forms and cannot "spill out" further as you seem to suggest and would simply be trapped in the wire. Much like a compass in an oscillating magnetic field, a slow oscillation will result in a very visible swing and an efficient transfer of energy. If you raise the oscillations to be very fast, then the needle wiggles very little absorbing little of the energy.

This would be similar if a radio antenna was badly tuned to the frequency it was trying to transmit. Transmission distance is reduce by the inefficient transfer of energy to the wrong sized antenna which is limited by its inherent resonance properties in a manner that might be seen as analogous to the switching rate of aether dipoles to the magnetic field oscillations. Of course, this is only an "analogy" for how efficiency drops if you exceed some limiting property. Nothing "magical" happens after you exceed the physical limits that cause energy to then be transferred by other methods.

So really, the only way energy can get out into the far field is by longitudinal compression waves which don't require any local and directly driven phenomenon like applying a torque on a dipole to twist it into a particular direction.

Also, you didn't say if you understood how a radio wave is generated by a transmitter as an expansion/contraction phenomenon which is perpendicular to the surface of the antenna. This motivates how the longitudinal wave is generated which can go into the far field.

-Franklin

[Franklin Hu]

Roger,

No, what does an absolute vacuum have to do with electrons being able to exist and move as distinct particles?

I can shoot a single electron at a detector and pick it up as the particle I expect. That is more than ample proof which requires no vacuum.

I do believe that a medium exists, but it exists without the need of the atmosphere. The atmosphere sits on top of the medium which light uses which I believe is a positron/electron sea of almost unimaginable density (something like 1 million times more than steel).

Your devotion to the idea that the atmosphere is the medium is limiting you and is obviously wrong. If that were the case, then we would predict that things like light and radio wave would travel much better in the denser medium of the atmosphere compared to deep space. But this doesn't happen. 

Roger, how can you explain why radio waves travel just as easily through the thick atmosphere as deep space where there would be much fewer of the particles needed to transmit forces???

Why???

I know you cannot answer that question. It only points out that you are incorrect about the atmosphere as being the primary contributor to the medium. Please come back to reality that there must be a medium, but that medium cannot be the tangible atmospheric atoms.

If the actual medium were a poselectron sea, then this would trivially explain why radio signals travel as well through deep space as they do in the dense atmosphere because the signal doesn't use the atmosphere to travel. Simple and elegant. You on the other hand have NO explanation.

-Franklin

[Roger Munday]

Franklin, 

You say:-

"how can you explain why radio waves travel just as easily through the thick atmosphere as deep space where there would be much fewer of the particles needed to transmit forces"

Radio waves, light, magnetic fields, etc., travel by interacting within a continuum of atomic matter. They could not by any means act/travel within and through an empty space/vacuum, or within a vacuously discontinuous gaseous volume of matter.

As I have shown in the image of gold atoms on a number of occasions, these are obviously continuously and directly connected and there is no evidence, no indication whatsoever, of an interacting “space” separating them.

You and apparently everyone here stick to the general belief that atoms remain at a constant mass density and volume.

It is observed that if heat is applied to the gold wire it expands laterally and longitudinally, and no interatomic “space” is produced.

It is observed that the application of heat energy to say a volume of gas in a container its pressure increases and if the container is flexible it expands in accordance with this input.

These expansions are due entirely to the individual expansions of the component solid and gaseous atoms.

Magnetic radio waves, light, etc etc. are observed to act continuously within the atmosphere and, for example, light in its transmission through the varying densities of the Earth’s atmosphere and (away from the observers zenith) is observed to be refracted in its passage down from any celestial body.

So there are fewer atmospheric atoms per cc with progressive increases in altitude from the Earth’s surface.

But as the Earth’s atmosphere at sea level is 25 x 10¹⁸ atoms per cubic centimetre, this reduction in numbers does not create an absolute vacuum at ANY altitude from Earth.

Roger Munday

[Akinbo Ojo]

Franklin,

You correctly identify that “I would say that if there is such a limit to the elasticity of the dipoles, then what would happen is that energy would simply not be able to be efficiently transferred and stored to the medium”.

But this statement of yours is astonishing, viz. “Any such energy would simply not be able to take any other forms and cannot "spill out" further as you seem to suggest and would simply be trapped in the wire”.

*How much capacity does a wire have in order to have allowed the initial spillage of energy into the near-field? If it has enormous capacity, there would have been no energy spillage in the first place. In any case this capacity must have been saturated before energy entered into the near-field.

*Is there an iron curtain between the near-field and the far-field that prevents the energy from spilling over?

Note that in theory, the boundary between near-field and far-field is dependent on the dimensions of the antenna and the frequency of the current.

If you really want to continue on a logical path, you should at the minimum either install a brick wall between the near-field and the far-field, or more logically you must entertain the possibility that 1) energy can spill into the far-field from the near-field, just as energy spilled from the wire to the near-field, 2) if the near-field is populated by dipoles, so also must the far-field be so populated.

 

On expansion/contraction phenomenon...

If an antenna expands or contracts, the wave generated will be in the line (linear) to the direction of the volumetric stress. It cannot be perpendicular to it. In that line, longitudinal waves can be generated.

 

Akinbo

---

From: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2024 7:32 PM

[Roger Munday]

The Speed of Light

If you generate a ray of light from a source bulb, and direct this ray horizontally through an atmosphere of a consistent altitudinal density at 90 degrees to the vertical surface of a glass filled with perfectly iodised water, the ray passes into and directly through the glass and horizontally through the contained water and then on into and through the vertical glass at the other side into the surrounding atmosphere, after which the ray is in contact at 90 degrees with a metallic mirror, from which mirror the ray is reflected directly back horizontally towards the source through the exactly the same gaseous, solid and liquid barriers.

The velocities of these horizontal rays will vary in accordance with the densities of the materials through which they are passing, and so the times of these, to and fro, transmissions will be exactly the same in both directions.

The propagation of light is not constant, it is entirely dependent on the densities of the materials in which it is passing.

Roger Munday

On Sun, 25 Aug 2024 at 07:16, Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com> wrote:

https://romunpress.co.nz/romunnose/?s=Continuous+Magnetic+Atoms

On Sat, 24 Aug 2024 at 13:34, Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com> wrote:

The static, natural alignments of atoms in a copper wire.

Roger Munday

On Sat, 24 Aug 2024 at 13:20, Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com> wrote:

 

The transmission of alternating currents in a copper wire.

Roger Munday

On Sat, 24 Aug 2024 at 10:09, Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com> wrote:

DC and AC currents

A “direct” current, generated and connected, say between the N-S poles of a 12 volt battery, into a copper wire, which wire circuit includes a light bulb of the same voltage, is ultimately the physical realignment of the naturally static N-S magnetic alignments of all the copper atoms that compose the transmission wire, as well as those of the atoms of the light bulb’s element wire, and the relative resistance of this very finely coiled element wire in the bulb generates light (and heat).

In other words, on the introduction of a direct current in the wire, all its component atoms are aligned N-S longitudinally and when connected to the fine elements of a standard electric bulb, this current is observed to generate light (and heat).

However if an “alternating current” is produced in the wire, e.g. by the forced physical rotations of an “AC” generator, which successively reverses the currents produced in the atoms of the wire from N-S to S-N at, for example 60 cycles per second, these alternating currents also generate light (and heat) by the relative resistance of the fine wire elements of a light bulb.

“Electricity” is a human explanation for the observed transmission of magnetic fields.

Roger Munday

On Sun, 18 Aug 2024 at 09:49, Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com> wrote:

Akinbo,

You say:- "Reproduce the successes of the current models"

What "successes"?

It is assumed in current models that "kinetic" atoms are discontinuous and separated by a vacuum.

Are you suggesting that a vacuum is endemic?

Regards,

Roger Munday

On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 at 22:14, Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Roger M.,

Your assignment is well cut out for you. Reproduce the successes of the current models you are criticizing using your own model that there is no vacuum. After succeeding with that, then make some predictions from your model that are hitherto unknown and not yet experimentally demonstrated. That is how it is done.

It cannot be done by calling people names.

On the universe falling apart... Essentially, the universe is existing within its Schwarzschild radius, r = 2GM/c². Nothing can escape from this. So, no falling apart.

Check also the wikipedia page I just sent to Carl.

Regards,

Akinbo

---

From: Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 17, 2024 12:35 AM
To: Akinbo Ojo <ta...@hotmail.com>; cc: Stephan Gift <stepha...@sta.uwi.edu>; HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>; r.j.an...@btinternet.com <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; David Tombe <siri...@yahoo.com>; Carl Reiff <cre...@elgenwave.com>; Christopher Provatidis <cpr...@gmail.com>; DeWayne Birkhofer <greenaethe...@gmail.com>; Goeffrey Neuzil <cro...@gmail.com>; Hartwig Thim <hartwi...@jku.at>; Jim Marsen <jimm...@yahoo.com>; John-Erik Persson <john.eri...@gmail.com>; KISRAY <kis...@bellsouth.net>; Mark CreekWater <mark.cr...@gmail.com>; Mike Gamble Retired <mike.gamb...@gmail.com>; Musa D. Abdullahi <musa...@gmail.com>; NICHOLAS PERCIVAL <nper...@snet.net>; Pete Moore <pete...@aol.com>; Peter Rowlands <p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk>; REUBENUHR <reub...@gmail.com>; Reg Cahill <reg.c...@flinders.edu.au>; Relativity googlegroups.com <npa-rel...@googlegroups.com>; Robert Fritzius <frit...@bellsouth.net>; Robert <sung...@aol.com>; STRES. ES <stre...@gmail.com>; Sepp Hasslberger <se...@lastrega.com>; Tom Miles <tomin...@yahoo.com>; cc: Viraj Fernando <vira...@yahoo.co.uk>; electr...@gmail.com <electr...@gmail.com>; fro...@ieee.org <fro...@ieee.org>; mon...@aol.com <mon...@aol.com>; Amrit Sorli <sorli.bijec...@gmail.com>; frank...@yahoo.com <frank...@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [npa-relativity] Re: "Gravity" and electromagnetism.

 

Akinbo,

Your post to me on another thread:-

"You said this, “However IF there were “only 5.9 protons per (vacuous) cubic meter” then the universe would fall apart.”

This is not true.

Flat universe means Ω = 2GM/rc² = 1 (my analysis).

Therefore, even if a particle is moving at c, this will still be below the universe’s escape velocity given by √(2GM/r).

Current estimated mass based on flatness ~10⁵²kg"

My response:-

Akinbo,

Before we can consider the unexaminable structure of the universe, we need to agree on the ultimate structure of the Earth’s examinable atmosphere.

Which atmosphere, according to theoretical physicists is essentially vacuous, as per the hypothetical (and ancient) “kinetic theory of gases” which states unequivocally that atoms are collectively in “kinetic” motions in vacua.

And today it is also stated that atoms are also “composed” essentially of vacua, and further that atoms of differing elements all remain at the same physical mass/volumes in all states.

These vacuous beliefs, of theoretical physicists in general, means that they have no physical basis for the transmission of the observed interactions between existential material bodies of any physical dimensions, such as atoms or the Earth and the Moon.

But they stick dogmatically to this belief, even when there is no possible proof, no experimental evidence, of the “existence” of vacua.

Atoms are observed to exist as distinct entities and with absorption (and emission) of energy they physically expand (and contract) and these expansions (and contractions) are observed to occur in practice.

Gold atoms are observed to expand and contract.

Regards,

Roger Munday

On Sun, 11 Aug 2024 at 09:00, Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com> wrote:

Magnetism

Magnetism is observed to act continuously within the Earth’s atmosphere, for example to facilitate the observed transmission of its inherent N-S fields between the north and south poles. As indicated by the alignments of magnetic compasses.

This field is essentially static within the atmosphere, however this static atmospheric field can be disturbed, for example by the positioning of an iron magnet, which generates a local, limited and continuous field within the atmosphere around its perimeter.

And, when this magnet is removed from such a position, the Earth’s static field is immediately restored within the atmosphere.

This static field acts continuously within the Earth’s atmosphere between its north and south poles, and there is no point in the Earth’s atmosphere where this magnetic field does not act.

The atmosphere is observed to transmit what are termed as “electromagnetic fields”, in other words the relatively static magnetic alignments of the Earth’s atmospheric atoms are disturbed by the transmissions of extraneous magnetic fields generated by extraterrestrial bodies, such as rays of light from the Sun.

The radiant spectrum of light is the process of the progressive oscillations and alignments of atmospheric atoms away from their natural N-S alignments to the Earth’s all encompassing magnetic fields.

In other words this radiant energy collectively and progressively realigns gaseous atoms from their natural atmospheric N-S alignments to other N-S alignments. e.g. those generated by the continuously acting light rays transmitted from the Sun.

Magnetism is the only, the ultimate, universal force that “keeps your feet on the ground”, it is the one, and the only one, universally acting force.

Roger Munday

On Fri, 9 Aug 2024 at 11:00, Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com> wrote:

Or, as Newton politely said centuries ago, you "do not have a  competent faculty of thinking".

On Fri, 9 Aug 2024 at 09:16, Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com> wrote:

So, you all believe in the "existence" of vacua.

Which if this did exist as you all assume in the total absence of evidence, would mean that the entire universe could not function as it is observed to do.

You are collectively insane.

Roger Munday

On Fri, 9 Aug 2024 at 08:06, Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com> wrote:

https://chemed.chem.purdue.edu/genchem/topicreview/bp/ch4/kinetic4.html

Gases are composed of a large number of particles that behave like hard, spherical objects in a state of constant, random motion.

These particles move in a straight line until they collide with another particle or the walls of the container.

These particles are much smaller than the distance between particles. Most of the volume of a gas is therefore empty.

There is no force of attraction between gas particles or between the particles and the walls of the container.

Collisions between gas particles or collisions with the walls of the container are perfectly elastic. None of the energy of a gas particle is lost when it collides with another particle or with the walls of the container.

The average kinetic energy of a collection of gas particles depends on the temperature of the gas and nothing else.

https://www.newscientist.com/

And gravity remains on many levels fundamentally mysterious. Why is it so weak compared with the other forces? Why does it only pull, not push?

Carry on - "up the Khyber"

Roger Munday

On Thu, 8 Aug 2024 at 08:46, Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com> wrote:

https://romunpress.co.nz/romunnose/continuous-magnetic-atoms/

Roger Munday

On Wed, 7 Aug 2024 at 11:48, Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com> wrote:

Magnetism

There are just two options for the transmission of forces universally:-

1) Vacuous atoms in vacuum, i.e. impossibility.

2) Vacuum is a universally impossible state. Instead there is a universal continuity of magnetic atoms which expand (and contract) with input (emission) of energy and fractionally decrease (increase) in mass density and accordingly increase (decrease) in fluidity.

In conclusion the mythical, one way, force of ‘gravity’ does not exist, there is just one ultimate force acting universally between individual atoms that are composed entirely of matter, which force is also acting between two massive iron spheres suspended in proximity on 40 metre long cables, and which is observed to act throughout a spherical volume of over 4 metres of atmosphere around a 5cm long neodymium magnet, and which is acting between the Earth and the Moon and between vast Galaxies.

All atoms in the universe are magnetic and extend their internally generated N-S fields externally to adjacent atoms and these (relatively weak) individual fields generate the magnetic field that is observed to be generated by the Earth and is acting continuously within an atmosphere composed of 25 x 10¹⁸ atoms per cubic centimetre.

I.e. 25,000,000,000,000,000,000 atoms per cubic centimetre – a humanly incomprehensible number.

Magnetism is the ultimate universal force.

Roger Munday

On Wed, 7 Aug 2024 at 09:23, Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com> wrote:

Typical "explanations" for the “Kinetic Theory of Gases”

Different gases have different atomic sizes, but they occupy the same volume. How and why?

“In gases the particles are far apart. So, the amount of space actually taken up by the molecules is tiny compared to the volume of the gas. The smaller the molecule, the more ‘ideal’ the gas becomes. Two gases of different molecule size will have the same volume if at the same temperature and pressure.

No explanation of what an extra-atomic “space” is composed of.

https://www.newscientist.com/definition/gravity/

And gravity remains on many levels fundamentally mysterious. Why is it so weak compared with the other forces? Why does it only pull, not push?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetism

In physics, electromagnetism is an interaction that occurs between particles with electric charge via electromagnetic fields. The electromagnetic force is one of the four fundamental forces of nature. It is the dominant force in the interactions of atoms and molecules. Wikipedia

https://www.newscientist.com/definition/electromagnetism/

When asking what electromagnetism, one of four known fundamental forces of nature, does, it is perhaps easier first to say what it doesn’t do. It doesn’t keep our feet on the ground, Earth swinging around the sun, or the stars and galaxies in the universe moving on large scales: this is the domain of gravity.

Roger Munday

On Mon, 5 Aug 2024 at 15:23, Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com> wrote:

https://metalcutting.com/knowledge-center/heat-expansion-of-metals-and-the-summertime-blues/

Quote:- "The expansion (or contraction) of any material is due to the kinetic energy of its atoms. When a material is heated, the increase in energy causes the atoms and molecules to move more and to take up more space. This is true of even a solid such as a metal."

In other words it is stated that the increase in "kinetic energy" applied to this metal matter "causes the atoms - to take up more space" and accordingly that this increase in energy applied results in an exponential increase in the volumes of interatomic vacua with altitude from the Earth's surface.

These hypothetical, exponential increases (decreases) in the collective "volumes" of vacua is, according to "kinetic theory", that which generates the observed increases (decreases) in volumes.

And YOU all believe this totally vacuous rubbish of a vast, universal non-existence, in other words that the Universe is volumetrically almost entirely vacuous.

Do try thinking.

Roger Munday

On Mon, 5 Aug 2024 at 09:11, <r.j.an...@btinternet.com> wrote:

says

 

 >>One of the reasons for alternative conceptions like
the continuous nature of matter is a lack of understanding by students of the way in which
scientists like Newton, Boyle, Lavoiser, Proust, Dalton, Gay-Lussac, Berzelius and Avogadro
crafted their atomic and kinetic theories<<

 

------ Original Message ------
From: munda...@gmail.com
To: ta...@hotmail.com; stepha...@sta.uwi.edu; kc...@yahoo.com; r.j.an...@btinternet.com; siri...@yahoo.com; cre...@elgenwave.com; cpr...@gmail.com; greenaethe...@gmail.com; cro...@gmail.com; hartwi...@jku.at; jimm...@yahoo.com; john.eri...@gmail.com; kis...@bellsouth.net; mark.cr...@gmail.com; mike.gamb...@gmail.com; musa...@gmail.com; nper...@snet.net; pete...@aol.com; p.row...@liverpool.ac.uk; reub...@gmail.com; reg.c...@flinders.edu.au; npa-rel...@googlegroups.com; frit...@bellsouth.net; sung...@aol.com; stre...@gmail.com; se...@lastrega.com; tomin...@yahoo.com; vira...@yahoo.co.uk; electr...@gmail.com; fro...@ieee.org; mon...@aol.com; sorli.bijec...@gmail.com; frank...@yahoo.com
Sent: Sunday, August 4th 2024, 21:15
Subject: [npa-relativity] Re: "Gravity" and electromagnetism.
 

This is just one of numerous similar statements posted by universities, etc.

https://www.aare.edu.au/data/publications/2002/har02049.pdf

"The History of the Particle Theory

Two particle theories feature in chemistry textbooks - Dalton's atomic theory and the molecular kinetic theory; however, they rarely appear together and the account of each is more descriptive than explanatory. Dalton's atomic theory and the molecular kinetic theory are usually presented using some of the postulates in this list (Garnett, 1996; Bucat, 1984).

1. Matter consists of submicroscopic, indestructible particles called atoms.

2. All atoms of an element are identical and have the same mass but atoms of different elements have different masses.

3. Particles join together in simple consistent ratios when two different substances react to form a third substance.

4. Mass is conserved in these reactions.

5. Gas particles are evenly scattered in an enclosed space and there are empty space between particles.

6. Gas particles are in constant random motion and collisions are perfectly elastic.

7. Particles move slower in liquids and vibrate about fixed positions in solids.

8. The spacing between solid-solid, liquid-liquid and gas-gas particles is close to 1:1:10 (Andersson, 1990; de Vos and Verdonk, 1996)

The first postulate is intuitive (matter comprises tiny indivisible particles called atoms) but the remainder are counterintuitive and abstract (e.g., empty spaces separate particles; particles are in constant random motion). Secondary students find this theory difficult to mentally model. Postulate 8 is not discussed in many textbooks and, when it is, the spacing is mostly incorrect (Wilbraham et al., 1997)"

 

Conclusion.

All atoms of any specific element are identical in any physical circumstance i.e. are of exactly the same masses and volumes in any state. 

I.e. in the gaseous, liquid and solid states, where there are “empty spaces” between atoms in any state, i.e. such atoms are separated by an absolute vacuum.

This conjecture assumes that, as gases become less dense with altitude from the Earth’s surface, this absolute vacuum increases exponentially with altitude.

Which hypothetical and totally non-interactive “vacuum” cannot be isolated in experiment.

So, this total nonsense is the ultimate basis of all your extensive and complex theories, none of which can explain how your hypothetical “gravity” is transmitted universally.

Roger Munday

 

On Mon, 5 Aug 2024 at 00:30, Amrit Sorli <sorli.bijec...@gmail.com> wrote:
 

Gravity force is the pushing force of ether 

https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/epdf/10.1142/S2424942423500056
 

 

On Tue, 30 Jul 2024 at 22:03, Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com> wrote:
 

https://thesciencespace.quora.com/How-close-have-scientists-got-to-absolute-zero
 

"Absolute zero is impossible to reach in practice.
 

 

The current record holder is a team of researchers from MIT and Harvard who cooled a cloud of sodium atoms to 500 nanokelvin in 2023 .

That's 0.0000005 kelvin, or -273.1499995 degrees Celsius, or -459.6699991 degrees Fahrenheit, colder than outer space."

 

 

On Wed, 31 Jul 2024 at 07:43, Roger Munday <munda...@gmail.com> wrote:
 

https://www.quora.com/Is-there-anything-like-attraction-or-repulsion-in-gravitational-field-as-we-have-in-magnetic-and-electrostatic-field

“Our sciences exist in a state of almost total ignorance about gravity. 

But, contrast our knowledge of gravity with that of electromagnetism. We can generate electromagnetic radiation at the frequency and intensity we choose. 

We have theorized the existence of a gravity particle, known as a “graviton,” but no one has ever experimentally proved that gravitons actually exist. 

This is one of the great voids in our knowledge and one of the great frontiers of physics.”

 

 

-- 
 

 

 

Sincerely Yours, Amrit Srečko Šorli 

https://www.webofscience.com/wos/author/record/ABH-6270-2020
 

Bijective Physics Institute

https://bijective-physics.org/
 

 

 

 

 

 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "npa-relativity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to unsub...@googlegroups.com">npa-relativit...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/npa-relativity/CACi_vwf8g5tMLkFuC2Dgbfjf-rvgST0faBL_efAmayNmEm7Pjg%40mail.gmail.com.
 

[Franklin Hu]

Akinbo,

The so called "brick-wall" is enforced by the particles that must be "directly" influenced by the source which is causing them to be influenced. 

A magnetic field has to physically "turn" and apply a torque to only the local aether dipoles. There is a very fixed limit to how far this can occur before the influence drops to nothing.

This is like if you have an olympic sized swimming pool and you stir the water into a vortex on one end. The thing which is stirring the water can only effect the very local water atoms which have to move in a circular pattern. This is much how the magnetic field is limited to the near field and nearby aether dipoles. The "near field" is a specific radio term meaning less than about 1 or 2 wavelengths out, but serves as a rough stand in for the limitations of the the magnetic field.

On the other hand, compression wave phenomenon DO NOT rely upon there being a force being directly applied to nearby particles. So if you put a speaker in the big pool and you play sound waves, they can easily travel to the other end of the pool where you can hear them. The molecules of water didn't have to be transported from one end of the pool to the other by the driving speaker in order to be detected.  But, the local vortex is completely lost and cannot be picked up at the other end of the pool because it cannot drive atoms around in a circle to the other side. 

This is the difference.

Concerning expansion/contraction, I have no idea what you mean by volumetric stress or perpendicular to what or if you even disagreeing with me.

If you have a sphere which is growing and contracting, won't it generate longitudinal waves which are expanding "perpendicular" to the surface of the sphere? Do you agree with that???

If you have a rod which is expanding and shrinking, won't it generate waves which travel away from the rod in a direction which is perpendicular to the rod? The waves themselves appear as being parallel to the rod, but the moving of the wave front is perpendicular and away from the rod. Do you agree with that?

-Franklin