author: António Marques

subject: Re: Hungarian

text:
On Jun 23, 6:19 pm, Donald Stahl <[email]> wrote:

The relationship between hungarian and finnish is comparable, in
remoteness, to that between english and armenian, so the simple truth
is that very few hungarians are in a position to pass judgement on it.

In addition to what Trond said, sumerian has no known relatives, which
makes it easier to include in such myths than say, egyptian or hittite
or sanskrit or tibetan or old chinese. Etruscan, otoh, is not as
prestigious as sumerian.


author: [redacted]

subject: Re: Hungarian

text:
On Jun 24, 10:20 am, António Marques <[email]> wrote:

While Sumerian may not have any _known_ relatives, it probably has
more _claimed_ relatives than any other language isolate, except maybe
Basque.


subject: Re: Hungarian

text:
On Jun 24, 5:19 am, Donald Stahl <[email]> wrote:

==========================================
        "With some reason, Finno-Ugrian linguistics can boast of being
older than Indo-European linguistics. The resemblances between Magyar
on
the one hand, and Finnish and Lappish on the other, awakened attention
early. But the Hungarians did not feel themselves quite flattered by
kinship with the Lapps; it savored too strongly of fish oil. They
would
have much preferred kinship with the Turks, especially with the famous
Huns, whose victorious plundering expeditions through Europe fourteen
hundred hears ago started the great folk migrations. As support for
this
claim they alleged the many points of agreement in vocabulary between
Hungarian and Turkish, without perceiving hat these were due to
loan-words which the Magyars had taken over from the Turks at various
times. Then in 1799 appeared the work of Gyármathi...in which proof
was
given for the relationship with Finnish. In this book the principle
which
became the lodestar of incipient Indo-European linguistics is clearly
pronounced, i.e. the preponderant importance of the inflectional
system
for linguistic comparison. Agreement in vocabulary is placed last as
evidence by Gyármathi, and he emphasizes the fact that Hungarian has
taken over a great many loan-words from various foreign languages,
such
as Turkish and Slavonic. From this time the Turkish hypothesis has
been
echoed only in circles remote from systematic investigation."

Holger Pedersen, Linguistic Science in the Nineteenth Century (1924)
        ====================================================


author: Yusuf B Gursey

subject: Re: Hungarian

text:
On Jun 23, 6:50 pm, "[email]" <[email]> wrote:

politically affinity with Turkish and Hunnic and then Sumerian was a
show of detachment from European oriented Austria.


subject: Re: Hungarian

text:
On Jun 23, 6:50 pm, "[email]" <[email]> wrote:

Hungarian has a great many loanwords from the Chuvash-Bulghar branch
of Turkic, Ottoman Turkish loans are few and there are loans from the
Qypchaq branch of Turkic, as the Comans partly migrated to Hungary. It
is presumed that the European Huns spoke the Bulghar-Chuvash branch of
Turkic. the word Hungary coms from Chuvash-Bulghar On Oghur, the Ten
Oghur, Oghur being a Chuvash Bulghar ethnonym. the ruling house of the
Hungarians who originally settled in modern Hungary were from the
Chuvash-Bulghar branch.


author: yangg

subject: Re: Hungarian

text:
On Jun 23, 7:19 pm, Donald Stahl <[email]> wrote:
***

Nothing serious.

There's a number of crackpot theories:

- one crazy Italian thinks Etruscan derives from Ancient Hungarian.
http://www.continuitas.org/books.html

- some people have been trying to relate Hungarian and Sumerian, which
is just as absurd.

- quite surprisingly, one serious Assyriologist has tried to connect
Finnish with Sumerian, which is just as absurd.
What I think of that is here:
http://macro-comparison-is-now.blogspot.com/2011/06/sumerian-supposedly-uralic-language.html

In my opinion the only serious candidate for a close relationship with
Sumerian is Elamite.
They have a number of grammatical features in common.

A.


author: Fánaí Gaelach na nGleannta

subject: Re: Hungarian

text:
On 24 Juni, 01:20, António Marques <[email]> wrote:

I would like to point out, as a native speaker of Finnish and a
learner of Hungarian, that although remote, the relationship is very
real once you get deeply enough into Hungarian to assess it, and as a
Finn, you do get emotional about it. Once I tended to snigger at those
Finnish nationalists who make such a fuss about Hungarian being
related to Finnish. Now that I can read Hungarian with a dictionary, I
don't snigger anymore.


subject: Re: Hungarian

text:
On 23 Juni, 20:19, Donald Stahl <[email]> wrote:

Nothing. It's all politics. It's just stupid Hungarian nationalism,
nothing else.


author: Trond Engen

subject: Re: Hungarian

text:
Donald Stahl:

That it's very old and was spoken in the first civilization, so the
ethno-mysticists can spin it as the language of Eden itself.


author: Oliver Cromm

subject: Re: Hungarian

text:
* Peter T. Daniels:

I don't know. Maybe proof that they're not a barbarized Germanic tribe,
maybe feeling stronger in a sea of Indo-Europeans.


author: Ruud Harmsen

subject: Re: Hungarian

text:
"Peter T. Daniels" <[email]> wrochtte:

Cannot be done, in the absence of a full e-mail address.


subject: Re: Hungarian

text:
* Peter T. Daniels:

That doesn't make any sense indeed, why, in context, I read his "making
a fuss" in the positive meaning:

| 4. A display of affectionate excitement and attention: Everyone made a
| fuss over the new baby.
(AHD)

If I'm right, it would be an interesting case if Hungarian nationalists
should be so negative and Finnish nationalists so positive about the
language relationship.


author: Peter T. Daniels

subject: Re: Hungarian

text:
On Jun 29, 1:16 pm, Oliver Cromm <[email]>
wrote:

You were the last of several to do so!

They don't. "Reply to Sender" works (unless, of course, Sender is
using a fake address.)


author: Nathan Sanders

subject: Re: Hungarian

text:
In article <[email]>,
 Ruud Harmsen <[email]> wrote:

I think it's funny that GG isn't even showing new messages its users
post, but is still passing those messages along just fine to the rest
of the world.

Nathan


author: MThomas

subject: Goldilocks Summer in Canada


author: Martin R. Howell

subject: Re: Goldilocks Summer in Canada

text:
MThomas wrote:

Wow.  Must be REALLY hot in Medicine Hat, Alberta


author: raymond larsson

subject: Re: Goldilocks Summer in Canada

text:
In article <9a02f$44c41388$4f23905$[email]>, Martin R. Howell
says...

Only 33 C (humidex 38) today, they have good insulation in their
basement.


author: nytecam

subject: Re: Goldilocks Summer in Canada

text:
raymond larsson Wrote:

We've been in a heatwave in UK for 10 days or so eg typically in the
low/mid 30'sC with tomorrow [Wednesday] predicted highest ever July
temps for UK - phew.  Went to beach yesterday for 5C cooler but 120
miles round trip too much for today;-(

Nytecam 51N 0.1W


author: Frog: The hero of gardina

subject: Re: Science and Existentialism

text:
[email] (Michael Huemer) wrote:

I understand your interpretation of QM.  It is the first one taught in
undergraduate QM courses.  However, when I went to grad school, I had the
chance to take a Foundations of QM.  Let me put forth some of the
arguements.  It is not that the observation changes the physical
properties of that which is measured.  It is that by mearly assuming that
they have those properties without observation leads to results that
contradict experimental observations.

The point of the Bell-Wigner analysis of EPR is that simply by assuming
that there are hidden variables that set what the spin will be when
measured, by assuming the distributive law of logic, and by assuming the
ability to count finite numbers, one obtains a contradiction with
experimental results.  Something has to go.  I think the assumption that
emperical observeables exist independant of observation is the best
choice of these three.

I am suprised that you think Kant was an idealist.  In the semester
course I took on him years ago and in works written on him, I've seen him
straddle in between idealism and realism.  His work tries to synthesize
these two schools.

Now let us look at the EPR experiment in light of a Kantiant viewpoint.
Electrons, neutrons, tables, chairs, etc. are  part of the
emperical world, or phenomenon.  This is the interface between our minds
and undifferentiated stuff.  Now on a macro level, we have organized
things so they all make sense.  However, as one gets out of the normal
realm of the senses, one has things such as particles that don't exist
until we look. This makes perfect sense.  There is stuff out there, but
what we observe is part us, part that stuff.

Now to the two slit experiment.  The light particle is in a superposition
of going through each slit until it is observed to interact on a screen.
 The observation forces it into an eigenstate.  Without an observer, it
will continue to be in a superposition.

The two slit experiment can be worked around, its fairly simple.  However
Kaon osccelations, renormalization,  the Weinburg angle the EPR
experiment, etc. are much harder to explain in terms of realism.
However, if the world is as Kant argues, all this can make perfect sense.
 Phenomenon do not exist without an observer, only numenon.

Dan M.


author: Ed Matthews

subject: Re: Science and Existentialism

text:
On 24 Apr 1996, Frog: The hero of gardina wrote:

[Stuff abou Kant and QM deleted.]

I disagree.  Where would the first observer come from?  Wouldn't someone
have to observe the proteins, genes, atoms, etc. which would form that
first observer?  Where would such things come from, if their very
existence (including the development of particles and matter following
the Big Bang) depends on being observed?

Moreover, without an _independent_ existence of their own, why would
particles obey physical laws?

------------------------
Ed Matthews
[email]


author: Michael Huemer

subject: Re: Science and Existentialism

text:
"Dan M." <[email]> writes:

Okay, I think you misunderstood, specifically what physical properties
I meant are being 'changed'.  I mean that the observation changes the
*wave function* for the system, and I'm taking the system's wave
function to be an objective, physical property of it.  If you reject
all hidden variable theories, then I think you *have to* say this
(well, unless you want to say there's no real world at all) -- i.e.,
once you discover the uncertainty principle, you don't conclude that
objects don't have any determinate states.  You just conclude, "Okay,
the object's state at any time *is* its wave function, *not* its
position + momentum."

And by the way, I don't have any problem *per se* with the idea that
observation changes the physical state of the thing measured.  I think
that's certainly true.  That happens in Bohm's theory too.  I just
have a problem with observation changing the physical state of the
observed system *in a way that isn't governed by the same principles
that govern all other interactions*, i.e. in a way that violates
Schrodinger evolution.

I'm not sure about this.  Bohm's theory is consistent with the
experimental results, the distributive law, and arithmetic.  I'm not
sure about whether it assumes the first thing, "there are hidden
variables *that set what the spin will be when measured*."  It does
assume that there are hidden variables (the particle position), but
these don't by themselves determine what the spin of the particle will
be.  Albert explains how you could have a particle in a state such
that, if you measured it with a stern-Gerlach device, it would turn
out to have spin up (and this would be necessitated by the initial
conditions), but, at the same time, if you had turned the
Stern-Gerlach magnet upside down and measured the same particle, it
would have had spin down (and *this* would be necessitated by the
initial conditions).  (See Albert's _Quantum Mechanics and Experience_
again.)

So yes, there are hidden variables, but no, *spin* isn't one of them,
and spin isn't completely determined by the hidden variables in
question, but partly depends on how you set up the rest of the
experiment.  But yes, the spin of the electrons *is* completely
determined by the *total* initial conditions.

If you meant that *this, last* supposition is incompatible with the
rest of the assumptions you listed above, then I think you're
mistaken -- although if you add in the assumption of locality, then
you get an inconsistency.  But I say we drop the latter.

Well, yeah, he's an 'empirical realist' and a 'transcendental
idealist,' as he says.  I was just simplifying for convenience.

OK so far.

Of course, this is where Kant would bristle.  In his view, the objects
of theoretical physics would just be more phenomena.  Anything that's
in space-time is a mere 'phenomenon,' since space and time are just
'forms of our intuition.'  Also, anything that arithmetic applies to
is a phenomenon.  Also, I *think* he would make a similar claim about
all objects of judgement (the reason for my uncertainty is I never got
through the transcendental analytic), because all judgement is going
to involve certain categories (the categories of the understanding),
just as all perception involves space & time.

Finally, if you claim that the objects of QM are not subject to the
categories of the understanding, or to arithmetic, and they're not
spatio-temporal, then Kant would say you can't possibly conceive of
them, and that it's impossible to understand or imagine these things.
(I mean completely impossible, not just barely possible, a little bit,
with a lot of training.)
The conclusion seems to be that QM would be a lot of meaningless talk.


subject: Re: Science and Existentialism

text:
Something I neglected to bring up.  You do realize, don't you, that
giving up hidden variables doesn't get you out of the proof of
non-locality?  I.e., whether there are hidden variables or not, QM is
inconsistent with relativity.  The Copenhagen interpretation requires
non-locality just as much as Bohm's interpretation.

If you don't agree with this, we'll have to discuss it some more.


author: Dan M.

subject: Re: Science and Existentialism

text:
[email] (Michael Huemer) wrote:

That's the whole point of Bell-Wigner.  How do spins correlate?

 Albert explains how you could have a particle in a state such
What?  That is not how magnets measure spin.  If you want me to break out
my old Jackson's Electromagnetism to prove this, I will.
That is not what I meant.  There is stuff out there, but what we
described is not that stuff.  Kant did not say the world was created out
of whole cloth from our perceptions.  The world of phenomenon is the
interface (my metaphor, not his) between our mind and this
undifferentiated stuff.  Physics do not get to these things in
themselves.


author: Dark Rose

subject: haarp.......

text:
mitchell coombes hacked into haarp....firewall is open......predicts
earthquake off alaska and los angeles coastline.......august 17th
2012........at 12 58 am. 9+........5 mintue quake.......tusumis. also
another date was 26th of sept.


author: Skywise

subject: Re: haarp.......

text:
[email] (Dark Rose) wrote in news:12583-502ED58B-306
@storefull-3171.bay.webtv.net:

Why are you posting a prediction over 15 hours AFTER the quake
was supposed to happen?

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?


subject: Re: haarp.......OK....

text:
Forget about the time i said.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j68YLAXK4w4&feature=related


author: Weatherlawyer

subject: Re: haarp.......

text:
It's a good job your here to help us all out.
Please don't ever give up. Your belief in the impossible is a shining
light to us all.


subject: Re: haarp.......OK....

text:
[email] (Dark Rose) wrote in news:12583-502F1E3F-393
@storefull-3171.bay.webtv.net:

"Don't believe everything you see on the Internet" - Abraham Lincoln

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?


author: Tom McCloud

subject: Saturation by water of pure gasses?

text:
If you had 1 cubic meter of pure nitrogen, pure oxygen, pure
helium, pure carbon dioxide, etc. at 10 deg. C,  atmospheric pressure,
would the weight of water in each at 100% saturation of the gas be the
same?     My gut feeling is that the weights would not be the same,
but I have no idea where to go looking for tables of data that might
have this information, and googling the question hasn't helped.
Information on quality data sources to answer this question would be
most appreciated.     Tom McCloud


author: [redacted]

subject: Re: Saturation by water of pure gasses?

text:
Tom McCloud wrote:

The weights would be very, very similar. You would expect the gas to
dissolve in the water to some extent, especially CO2, but if you were
careful to add water in small increments until the gas was just saturated
and only a very small amount of liquid remained, the amounts of water vapor
would be almost identical. The amount of interaction in the gas phase is
tiny. I don't know where to find data on mixtures, either, but there is a
modified Ideal Gas Law that includes empirical adjustments to pressure and
volume which reflect the interactions in pure gases. If I remember it
correctly it is (P + a)(V - b) = nRT. There is some data in my old CRC
Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, which might give you an idea how small
the corrections are.
Hope this helps,
Gil Johnson


author: Ian Gay

subject: Re: Saturation by water of pure gasses?

text:
Tom McCloud wrote:

Would be the same, if the gases were ideal. But they're not, quite. I'd
bet on CO2 having a higher water content than the others.


subject: Re: Saturation by water of pure gasses?

text:
[email] wrote:

I think you mis-remember the Van der Waals equation. It should read
(P+a/V^2) etc. To see that your form is nonsense, consider what happens
as P -> 0.

I don't know offhand where to find vdw constants for gas mixtures - nor
am I sure how one would use them to give a simple answer to the OP's
question.

Ian


author: Gil Johnson

subject: Re: Saturation by water of pure gasses?

text:
Ian Gay wrote:

No, I quoted the modified Ideal Gas law, where the consants a and b are
determined empirically. Check out CRC.
Gil Johnson


subject: Re: Saturation by water of pure gasses?

text:
Ian Gay wrote:

Ian - you were right, it is the Van der Waals equation, (P + (a/V^2)) times
(V - b). I was remembering a table of corrections to the Ideal Gas law, for
1 mole at 1 atm. and 273K.
CRC has a number of constants for materials ranging from He to SnCl4(!)
where P is in atmospheres, V in liters, R = .08206 L-atm./mole-K.
" a is a measure of the attractive force between the molecules."
" b is due to the finite volume of the molecules and to their general
incrompressability."
Gas - a     /  b
He   .03412 / .0237
O2   1.36   / .03183
N2   1.39   / .03913
CO2  3.592  / .04267
HCl  3.667  / .04081
NH3  4.17   / .03707
H2O  5.464  / .03049

For 1 mole CO2 at 1 atm. at 273K, V is about 22.4 L, a/V^2 is about 3.59/502
= .00716
This doesn't have anything directly to do with the original question, and I
don't know about data about mixtures, but it points out that the interaction
between two different molecules would have to be very large to increase the
amount of water taken up, for instance if carbonic acid (H2CO3) was stable
in the vapor phase. If the interaction is too strong, e.g. H2O and HCl or
NH3 and HCL, the gases don't remain in the vapor phase.
Anyway, thanks for pointing me toward the VdW equation - Gil Johnson


author: Starlord

subject: Strange Desert Weather!

text:
Was on astromart making a mod to an add and I'm sitting here looking at
others for the heak of it and I start hearing something hitting my trailer,
looked outside and RAIN! so ran out and covered up Babylon 8 and moved B10
to there and covered it up and pulled B8's rockerbox parts inside before the
worst of the rain it. Going to hat talk with old nature, it's not suppost to
rain out here in the desert!


author: Borked Pseudo Mailed

subject: Re: Rosamondo Trailer Park Weather Centre Report SPAM

text:
spamtard <[email]> reported:
     thanks shitetard     we need to know what your weather is like in rosamondo
calipornia     every hour     is the sun out yet   is it still raining

   what is the barometric pressure   right this fawking second   at the famous
dennis bishop    antelope valley trailer park     470 20th st w     rosamond  ca  93560
gerbil felching farm unit number  23        ph 661 256 2175  for reservtaoibns

because we care      pen pals really do fawking care


subject: Re: Strange Desert Weather!

text:
Want to know what's funny? I have a major garden area in the desert field
next door to this trailer park (same owner has that land as the trailer
park) and for 7 years I've dug, planted, did all my normal gardeing stuff
and I've never seen even one snake out there in my garden area (150ft x
100ft), in fact the ONLY snake I've seen was on 30th street crossing the
road and I stopped my car then (about 4 years ago) and let it keep on going
across and it was at lest 5ft long in size. You might think that with all
the ribbits and gophers and mice out in the field I'd see more snakes, but
not a one so far.


author: Hoots

text:
Borked Pseudo Mailed wrote:

You are right about that, Bork, penpals do care.


subject: Re: Rosamondo Trailer Park Snake In The Road Report SPAM

text:
spamtard <[email]> spammed spam spam:

    fawking shite shitelard    you saw a fawking snake crossing the fawking
road out in the middle of the fawking desert

   please tell us what the fawking weather is like right now in rosamondo
calipornia    is the sun up yet in your part of the world

  do you still have that festering pustule on your distended arsehole

 are you getting enough donations for your lager fund

    because we pen pals care


subject: Cystic fibrosis / infection / iron overload

text:
<<snip>>
ironoverload of the sputum of cystic fibrosis patients
<snip>>

1: Int J Immunopathol Pharmacol. 2005 Oct-Dec;18(4):661-70. Links

Iron availability influences aggregation, biofilm, adhesion and
invasion of Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Burkholderia cenocepacia.

Berlutti F, Morea C, Battistoni A, Sarli S, Cipriani P, Superti F,
Ammendolia MG, Valenti P.

Department of Public Health Sciences, University of Rome, La Sapienza,
Italy.

Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Burkholderia cenocepacia are predominant
opportunistic pathogens in cystic fibrosis (CF) patients. In healthy
humans the lower respiratory tract as well as all mucosa, contains a
very low free iron concentration (10-18 M), while in CF patients sputum
iron concentration is very high, showing a median value of 63x10-6 M.
Accumulation of catalytic reactive iron heavily contributes to
subsequent clinical complications in the lung disorders by the
production of reactive oxygen species and increases bacterial growth
and virulence. The data reported in this study indicate that low iron
concentration (Fe3+ 1 muM)induced free-living forms and motility both
in P. aeruginosa and B. cenocepacia, while high iron concentrations
(Fe3+ 10 and 100 muM) stimulated aggregation and biofilm formation
already in the fluid phases, so demonstrating that aggregation and
biofilm formation are positively iron-modulated in these bacteria.
Moreover, the different morphological forms (free-living, aggregates
and biofilm) showed different capabilities of adhering and invading the
bronchial cell line A549. P. aeruginosa PAO1 aggregates, and mostly
biofilm, exerted the highest adhesion efficiency, while B. cenocepacia
PV1 aggregates or biofilm the lowest. A significant reduction in
invasion efficiency by P. aeruginosa biofilm and a significant increase
in cell internalization by B. cenocepacia biofilm has been reported.
Therefore, the iron availability is an important signal to which P.
aeruginosa and B. cenocepacia counteract by leaving the motile
free-living forms and entering into a new lifestyle, i.e. biofilm.
These data could contribute to explain that the ironoverload of the
sputum of CF patients, inducing nonmotile forms, aggregates and
biofilm, may facilitate penetration of host epithelial barriers
contributing to the establishment of infection, colonization,
persistence and systemic spread of these opportunistic pathogens.

PMID: 16388713 [PubMed - in process]

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

Who loves ya.
Tom

Jesus Was A Vegetarian!
http://jesuswasavegetarian.7h.com

Man Is A Herbivore!
http://pages.ivillage.com/ironjustice/manisaherbivore

DEAD PEOPLE WALKING
http://pages.ivillage.com/ironjustice/deadpeoplewalking


author: Roddey

subject: Whittaker 1904 paper on scalar potential functions

text:
http://www.hyiq.org/Library/E.T.Whittaker-1904.pdf

ON AN EXPRESSION OF THE ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELD
DUE TO ELECTRONS BY MEANS OF TWO SCALAR
POTENTIAL FUNCTIONS
By E. T. Whittaker published in Proceedings of the London Mathematical
Society, Vol. 1, 1904)

Whittaker 1904 showed that all EM fields and waves can be decomposed
into two scalar potential functions. It follows that, by assembling
two such scalar potential functions in beams, one can produce a
"scalar potential interferometer" where the potential beams intersect
at a distance. In that interference zone, ordinary transverse EM
fields and energy appear.

You may state that it is written prior to special relativity. But note
that maxwell equations are naturally lorentz invariant.. so Whittaker
paper would still be in full force. Can anyone point out any flaw in
the paper that would make the above not possible?

Comments, objections, clarifications welcomed. Thanks.


author: Szczepan Bialek

subject: Re: Whittaker 1904 paper on scalar potential functions

text:
"Roddey" <[email]> napisal w wiadomosci
news:[email]...

Whittaker wrote: " the three components of dielectric displacement in the
aether ".

Faraday wrote: "I suppose we may compare together the matter of the aether
and ordinary matter (as, for instance, the copper of the wire through which
the electricity is conducted), and consider them as alike in their essential
constitution; i.e. either as both composed of little nuclei, considered in
the abstract as matter, and of force or power associated with these nuclei,
or else both consisting of mere centres of force, according to Boscovich's
theory and the view put forth in my speculation; for there is no reason to
assume that the nuclei are more requisite in the one case than in the
other".
From: http://www.padrak.com/ine/FARADAY1.html

Whittaker's aether is like the dielectric.
Faraday's aether is like the copper (ions and electrons). Such medium is a
conductor.

Whittaker's waves are transversal.
Faraday's lateral (longitudinal from the two sources).

Who do you prefer: Faraday or Whittaker?
S*


text:
On Jan 14, 5:39 am, Timo Nieminen <[email]> wrote:

Ok. Time for reeducation of the public and phycisists.

The following is an extremely simplified summary of what scalars are,
how they relate to Maxwell's equations, an explanation of how to unify
the three major disciplines of physics, specify what's wrong with the
three present versions of those disciplines that has prevented their
unification, and how this was in Maxwell's original quaternion
equations (some 200 of which are actually his theory, not the pale
four vector equations written by Heaviside and Gibbs which misses the
boat with respect to structured scalars.

We'll start with scalars and vectors (and what some physicists fail to
understand).

Basically we visualize things in the universe as two sorts: those that
move (have motion) and those that don't. In physics we know already
that this is in error; there isn't anything in the universe, anywhere,
that is motionless. At least it is moving through time, which is still
a special kind of motion. Also, we know that everything seems to be
made up of much finer things, and these finer things are always in
motion __ often very violent motion. So what we observe as a passive
thing __ sitting still spatially, so to speak __ is made up of
subthings in violent motion spatially. And the whole system that is
not moving spatially is still moving in time. However, we don't see
"time" but just space; therefore we see the thing as "motionless."
However, the "motionless" thing we look at is rather like a fixed
whirlpool in a swiftly flowing river: the whirlpool seems to us to
stay "fixed" and motionless, but internally its parts (the flowing
water) are in constant motion.

Another example is a container of gas under pressure __ such as the
air tank at the service station. The tank and "the air as a whole
spatial volume" isn't going anywhere, and we see them as "motionless."
But inside the gas its molecules are in violent motion, undergoing
collisions, etc. Indeed, inside the walls of the tank, the molecules
and atoms are in vibrational back-and-forth motion in a spatial
lattice.

The point is, physically "motion" and "motionless" only apply to the
external characteristics of the object to which we pin the label. So
it represents only an overall characteristic of the object, and does
not completely describe it. In a sense "motionless" is filled with
motion, and all is motion.

In vector analysis, a scalar quantity is considered to be a quantity
that has magnitude or size, but no motion. An example is pressure; the
pressure of a gas has a certain value of so many pounds per square
inch, and we can measure it, but the notion of pressure does not
involve the notion of movement of the gas through space. Therefore
pressure is a scalar quantity, and it's a gross, external quantity
since it's a scalar. Note, however, the dramatic difference here
between the physics of the situation and mathematics of the situation.
In mathematics, when you say something is a scalar, you're just
speaking of a number, without having a direction attached to it. And
mathematically, that's all there is to it; the number doesn't have an
internal structure, it doesn't have internal motion, etc. It just has
magnitude __ and, of course, location, which may be attachment to an
object.

However, physically, when we say something has pressure or a scalar
value, that is not all there is to it. That particular aspect of the
object or system may be scalar, but internally the thing it's labeling
can still be decomposed into subsystems or particles or small things
in violent motion. That is, in physics the scalar quantity can
mathematically be further decomposed into an ensemble of vector
quantities. Since these parts are rushing around in all directions but
the whole is not translating through space, then obviously the sum of
all those fractional motions must be zero. Scalar pressure, for
example, can be decomposed into a myriad of opposing force vectors per
unit area.

Mathematically, a vector is an entity that not only may have magnitude
or size, but is translating through space. In physics, we apply the
vector concept to something that is moving, and/or to position.
However, when we think further, that "something" is made of smaller
things, which also are in violent motion, and these smaller things may
be swarming all over the place with differing velocities __ or even
flowing at high speed in and out of the moving "system- thing"
represented by the vector. So even here, the vector thing is a special
case of an ensemble of smaller things.

In the physical world, in anything __ even inside a single point __
there are always infolded vector things in violent motion. We may say
that these interior critters are "hyperspatial" or "infolded" or
"virtual" or "hidden". But they're real and they're inside the point,
as seen by the external observer.

The point is this: Everything seen externally is a plenum internally.
In the real physical world, both a thing that's externally motionless
(a scalar) and a thing (a vector) that's externally translating
through space, are special cases of a system whose internal parts are
always in motion. If the sum of the internal motions is zero, the
external object seems to be sitting still and motionless to us (though
it's still moving through time with __ usually __ uniform motion). We
describe that internal characteristic of the system as a vector zero
resultant system. Externally we may also characterize it as a scalar,
because it still possesses attributes that have magnitude. On the
other hand, if the sum of the internal motions is not zero, but is a
motion in a certain spatial direction, then to us the external object
seems to be moving along in space. That is, it is translating
spatially. Externally it has both magnitude and direction, so we view
it as a vector. To label a thing as only a vector is to look only at
its external attributes. To label a thing as only a scalar is to look
only at its external attributes. To look at its internal attributes,
it must be recognized as a scalar and a vector at the same time. That
is, the scalar attributes must be recognized to be composed on
internal vectors.

Summing that up, physically a scalar thing is a thing that (1) is a
vector in time, which is hidden from direct observation, (2)
externally is just a magnitude spatially, and (3) has an internal
spatial vector structure, and therefore a hyperspatial or virtual-
state vector structure. A vector is a thing in motion in a dimension
(through a frame), whether in space, hyperspace, or time. Rigorously
it is not possible to exclusively separate the notions of vector and
scalar, because any scalar, to persist, is automatically a vector in
time.

These concepts or vector and scalar are normally not nearly so well
clarified in standard physics and mathematics texts, unfortunately.
Usually discussions of this type are reserved to obscure papers in
foundations of mathematics. It may surprise the casual student, for
example, that the notions of line, point, space, zero, length,
dimension, frame, time, and observer have no truly acceptable
definitions. Neither do the notions of force, mass, field, potential,
etc. In fact, mathematics no longer attempts to explain how a line can
be made of points. Instead, in foundations, it is simply stated as
three postulations thusly: "There is a class of entities called
points. There is another class of entities called lines. Lines are
composed of points."


text:
On Jan 14, 5:39 am, Timo Nieminen <[email]> wrote:

Ok. Time for reeducation of the public and phycisists.

The following is an extremely simplified summary of what scalars are,
how they relate to Maxwell's equations, an explanation of how to unify
the three major disciplines of physics, specify what's wrong with the
three present versions of those disciplines that has prevented their
unification, and how this was in Maxwell's original quaternion
equations (some 200 of which are actually his theory, not the pale
four vector equations written by Heaviside and Gibbs which misses the
boat with respect to structured scalars.

We'll start with scalars and vectors (and what some physicists fail to
understand).

Basically we visualize things in the universe as two sorts: those that
move (have motion) and those that don't. In physics we know already
that this is in error; there isn't anything in the universe, anywhere,
that is motionless. At least it is moving through time, which is still
a special kind of motion. Also, we know that everything seems to be
made up of much finer things, and these finer things are always in
motion __ often very violent motion. So what we observe as a passive
thing __ sitting still spatially, so to speak __ is made up of
subthings in violent motion spatially. And the whole system that is
not moving spatially is still moving in time. However, we don't see
"time" but just space; therefore we see the thing as "motionless."
However, the "motionless" thing we look at is rather like a fixed
whirlpool in a swiftly flowing river: the whirlpool seems to us to
stay "fixed" and motionless, but internally its parts (the flowing
water) are in constant motion.

Another example is a container of gas under pressure __ such as the
air tank at the service station. The tank and "the air as a whole
spatial volume" isn't going anywhere, and we see them as "motionless."
But inside the gas its molecules are in violent motion, undergoing
collisions, etc. Indeed, inside the walls of the tank, the molecules
and atoms are in vibrational back-and-forth motion in a spatial
lattice.

The point is, physically "motion" and "motionless" only apply to the
external characteristics of the object to which we pin the label. So
it represents only an overall characteristic of the object, and does
not completely describe it. In a sense "motionless" is filled with
motion, and all is motion.

In vector analysis, a scalar quantity is considered to be a quantity
that has magnitude or size, but no motion. An example is pressure; the
pressure of a gas has a certain value of so many pounds per square
inch, and we can measure it, but the notion of pressure does not
involve the notion of movement of the gas through space. Therefore
pressure is a scalar quantity, and it's a gross, external quantity
since it's a scalar. Note, however, the dramatic difference here
between the physics of the situation and mathematics of the situation.
In mathematics, when you say something is a scalar, you're just
speaking of a number, without having a direction attached to it. And
mathematically, that's all there is to it; the number doesn't have an
internal structure, it doesn't have internal motion, etc. It just has
magnitude __ and, of course, location, which may be attachment to an
object.

However, physically, when we say something has pressure or a scalar
value, that is not all there is to it. That particular aspect of the
object or system may be scalar, but internally the thing it's labeling
can still be decomposed into subsystems or particles or small things
in violent motion. That is, in physics the scalar quantity can
mathematically be further decomposed into an ensemble of vector
quantities. Since these parts are rushing around in all directions but
the whole is not translating through space, then obviously the sum of
all those fractional motions must be zero. Scalar pressure, for
example, can be decomposed into a myriad of opposing force vectors per
unit area.

Mathematically, a vector is an entity that not only may have magnitude
or size, but is translating through space. In physics, we apply the
vector concept to something that is moving, and/or to position.
However, when we think further, that "something" is made of smaller
things, which also are in violent motion, and these smaller things may
be swarming all over the place with differing velocities __ or even
flowing at high speed in and out of the moving "system- thing"
represented by the vector. So even here, the vector thing is a special
case of an ensemble of smaller things.

In the physical world, in anything __ even inside a single point __
there are always infolded vector things in violent motion. We may say
that these interior critters are "hyperspatial" or "infolded" or
"virtual" or "hidden". But they're real and they're inside the point,
as seen by the external observer.

The point is this: Everything seen externally is a plenum internally.
In the real physical world, both a thing that's externally motionless
(a scalar) and a thing (a vector) that's externally translating
through space, are special cases of a system whose internal parts are
always in motion. If the sum of the internal motions is zero, the
external object seems to be sitting still and motionless to us (though
it's still moving through time with __ usually __ uniform motion). We
describe that internal characteristic of the system as a vector zero
resultant system. Externally we may also characterize it as a scalar,
because it still possesses attributes that have magnitude. On the
other hand, if the sum of the internal motions is not zero, but is a
motion in a certain spatial direction, then to us the external object
seems to be moving along in space. That is, it is translating
spatially. Externally it has both magnitude and direction, so we view
it as a vector. To label a thing as only a vector is to look only at
its external attributes. To label a thing as only a scalar is to look
only at its external attributes. To look at its internal attributes,
it must be recognized as a scalar and a vector at the same time. That
is, the scalar attributes must be recognized to be composed on
internal vectors.

Summing that up, physically a scalar thing is a thing that (1) is a
vector in time, which is hidden from direct observation, (2)
externally is just a magnitude spatially, and (3) has an internal
spatial vector structure, and therefore a hyperspatial or virtual-
state vector structure. A vector is a thing in motion in a dimension
(through a frame), whether in space, hyperspace, or time. Rigorously
it is not possible to exclusively separate the notions of vector and
scalar, because any scalar, to persist, is automatically a vector in
time.

These concepts or vector and scalar are normally not nearly so well
clarified in standard physics and mathematics texts, unfortunately.
Usually discussions of this type are reserved to obscure papers in
foundations of mathematics. It may surprise the casual student, for
example, that the notions of line, point, space, zero, length,
dimension, frame, time, and observer have no truly acceptable
definitions. Neither do the notions of force, mass, field, potential,
etc. In fact, mathematics no longer attempts to explain how a line can
be made of points. Instead, in foundations, it is simply stated as
three postulations thusly: "There is a class of entities called
points. There is another class of entities called lines. Lines are
composed of points."


author: Timo Nieminen

text:
On Jan 13, 10:11 pm, Roddey <[email]> wrote:

You mentioned it, in another of your posts in the thread.

No. A scalar field is a scalar field. Thus a scalar entity.

Not "convolute", but simply add, or superpose. Not a "standing
wave" (which, usually, is time-harmonic, not time-independent), but a
static field.

No. Not all potentials represent "trapped energy density of vacuum".
Most don't. Consider Newtonian gravitational potential. Freedom of
choice of the zero says the potential is "trapped energy density of
vacuum".

[...]

Whittaker writes about ways in which solutions to PDEs can be
expressed. What do ways in which solutions can be expressed mean as
far as reality goes?

Consider a radio transmitter, turned off. Turn it on, and then turn it
off. This might produce something like a rectangular pulse (a
rectangular envelope over the carrier frequency). Turning to the work
of somebody else who wrote about solutions of PDEs, in this case
Fourier, we can write the wave as a sum of time-harmonic waves. These
time-harmonic waves "exist" before we turn the transmitter on, and
they exist into the eternal future (their amplitudes are independent
of time). So, in the time before we turn the transmitter on, do these
waves exist, in some physically meaningful sense?

You could claim that they do. A silly claim, IMHO. No logical or
physical way to say that they don't, since the mathematics (i.e.,
logic) is all fine, and the prediction is that we _cannot_ observe
them, and we don't observe them, so such a claim is experimentally
verified. One can reject such a claim on the basis of useful
heuristics, but that's neither logic nor experimental evidence. One
such heuristic is to consider that we can construct similar sets of
(different) solutions, that also satisfy the experimental evidence
(i.e., not observable). Which one is the real one? One of them, or
none of them?

(Yes, from this, we can argue that (time/frequency) spectra are not
"real". But we already have that clearly pointed out, and expressed in
Kramers-Kronig.)

[...]

If one is to claim that it is really real, then it's time to cough up
a prediction of something that can be measured. Then build it. If
Whittaker's solutions allow one to build magic interferometers one
can't build following Maxwell alone, then it's time to build it. If a
Whittaker-interferometer only does what a Maxwell-interferometer does,
then we have nothing new, other than some cute maths (new for 1903/4,
that is).


text:
On Jan 14, 12:05 am, Jos Bergervoet <[email]> wrote:

Indeed. Clearly evident since Whittaker starts with the Laplace
equation and the homogeneous wave equation. "Source free region" is a
common restriction. In this case, there are further (common)
restrictions as well ("source-free free space" will provide them all,
but the results are a little more general).


text:
On Jan 14, 7:39 am, Timo Nieminen <[email]> wrote:

Not "is", but "is not".


text:
On Jan 12, 10:13 pm, Roddey <[email]> wrote:

See also Hert vectors (the divergences of which give scalar electric
and magnetic potentials), Bromwich potentials, the description of TE
and TM fields by their "special" vector component (E_r and H_r in
spherical coordinates, and I suppose E_z and H_z in Cartesian
coordinates), etc.

Does it follow? Time to demonstrate. (Yes, it's assumed that
everything is linear, so the potentials should add. But one can
construct an interferometer for beams because the beams are finite in
width. Is the "potential beam" finite in width for any useful cases?)

Do they? Why? Time to demonstrate!

Whittaker writes some stuff about solutions of PDEs, ways to write
general solutions of PDEs, and solutions to PDEs in Hilbert spaces.
You're writing something about building something real. What's the
connection? Perhaps there is one, but you should be more explicit.

In his 1903 paper, since the electrostatic field and the gravitostatic
field can both be written in terms of potential satisfying the same
PDE, they can be written using the same solutions. That doesn't mean
that gravity affects light, or that light affects gravity. What
Whittaker does say is that since we have exactly the same solutions to
exactly the same PDEs, and electrostatic forces are one instance of
the more general case of electromagnetic fields, where (in free
space), we can write everything as waves travelling at c, the same
must apply to gravity. That is, it looks like (quasi-)static gravity
is a special case of a more general theory of gravitodynamics wherein
gravitational waves would travel at some particular wave speed. The
constant, as Whittaker explicitly discusses, need not be c, but could
be any constant value.


text:
On Jan 14, 9:13 am, Roddey <[email]> wrote:

So, no demonstration of anything concrete - nothing to show that "you
can build a scalar potential interferometer" is more than random
buzzwords strung together. Not even any mathematical proof, not even a
reasonable plausiblity argument.

Just nonsense, and incorrect assertions. E.g.,:

Not the scalar/vector split. So?

Is the centre of mass of the universe in motion, in the rest frame of
the centre of mass of the universe? "Motion" is a human convention.

So let us "extend" the meaning of "motion" until it is meaningless!

Assertion unsupported by experiment or theory.

Assertion unsupported by experiment or theory.

Irrelevant. The flow can be static (i.e., independent of time), but
there is still flow. Well known in classical continuum mechanics, and
so are the mathematical consequences. Nothing to do with scalar/
vector. Time-independent vector fields are well known (including time-
independent vector fields that don't involve motion).

So far, so good ...

... but followed by OTT wishy-washy handwaving "extension" of the
idea.

No. "Direction", not "motion". Not the same thing at all. My coffee
mug is in some particular direction from me. Choosing the origin to be
where my right elbow rests on my desk, I can describe its position
with a vector quantity. No motion involved.

Not always, but close enough for high school physics.

Oh? Every scalar quantity can be further decomposed into things in
violent motion? Take the displacement vector from an origin to an
unoccupied position in space. What is moving? What are the "things" in
violent motion?

No. Not the case, mathematically. If you insist that it is, give a
reference to show that this is so. If you care to look up the
mathematical definition of a vector, you will see that it has nothing
to do with "translating through space".

Assertion unsupported by experiment or theory.

Assertion unsupported by experiment or theory.

Assertion unsupported by experiment or theory.

Sometimes it seems to be sitting still. Not always. Consider a
spinning top - the sum of the internal motions is zero, but it does
not seem to be motionless.

Often very simplified, especially in introductory courses. "Vector"
has a well-defined meaning in mathematics, and a couple of well-
defined meanings in physics, depending on the context/field.

Likewise,

Assertion. Acceptable to who? The majority of the people using the
definitions accept them.

Likewise.

Not by any usual definition of energy.

What "physical" difference is that? Why does the mathematics, and
writing some field as the some of "opposing" fields make a _physical_
difference?

In general, no.

Oh! A new definition of "closed"?

Ah! Some new "remaining potentials"! What are they?

In the classical limit, where the phase of the wavefunction of some
quantum object (like an electron) produces no observable effects.
Exactly the same fields as used in classical EM, with a quantum
treatment of the electron, yields Aharonov-Bohm. So it isn't the
classical fields that eliminate AB, but the classical treatment of the
electron.

So, no.

You make some good points, but contaminate them with a bunch of crap.
So, hard to see what is worthwhile. Some is clearly correct (some is
even well-known, in the good textbooks, etc), but some is simply
nonsense.

So, overall, good rhetoric, but it falls short of science. Get rid of
the nonsense, support (or prove) your various assertions, and perhaps
you'll have something worth reading.

Build your magic potential interferometer and then you might have
something good too.


text:
On Jan 14, 9:36 am, Timo Nieminen <[email]> wrote:

Ok. Let us go into details and describe the physics of the Whittaker
internalized EM energy structure of the scalar potential. Fundamental
changes are made to two "untouchable" primary sciences: general
relativity and quantum mechanics. In so doing, one unites and extends
both of them into a common unified approach, and drastically enriches
the present conception of the physical exchanges in, of, between,
among, and within physical systems. The foundations changes to general
relativity allow the incorporation of a hidden variable theory (the
Whittaker internalized EM energy structure of the potential) without
violation of Bell's theorem.

So First one must change general relativity. One must unite EM and G
on the most fundamental level possible: that of the quantum particles
of the fields. The clue to the procedure is the fact that, in quantum
field theory, the graviton has spin-2 and the photon has spin-1. This
strongly suggests that two photons ought to couple together to produce
a graviton, if the resultants of the E- and B-fields of the coupled
photons are reduced to zero. In fact, such a bound (coupled, as in a
standing wave) photon/antiphoton pair makes a basic spin-2 graviton.

To the first order, a spacetime composed of spin-2 gravitons is said
to be a flat spacetime.

However, spacetime in a sense may be regarded as a conglomerate of
potentials — including the scalar EM potentials. Therefore the
simplest structure of EM scalar potentials (trapped EM energy) is also
nominally composed of such spin-2 gravitons. Note that each of the
coupled photons in the graviton may be constantly circling the other
at nominal light speed tangentially, but the graviton system itself
may be essentially stationary. In other words, the two trapped photons
in a simple graviton are like whirling dervishes, spinning and running
at top speed in non-translating circles.

Of course, the graviton system can also translate as a system.

The scalar EM potential may be regarded as an infinite set of pairs of
bidirectional EM planar waves, where the two members of each pair are
multiplied together, totally modulating each other.

Destructive interference of photons infolds them as EM structures
inside gravitons; i.e., it constructs gravitons. Destructive
interference of gravitons outfolds the internal EM structures; i.e.,
it constructs ordinary EM.

In a scalar EM potential the EM energy communicates vertically, which
is harmonic translation of frequency energies, or time-wise. The time-
wise two-wave EM energy communication represents a stress upon the
rate of flow of local observer time; hence it represents gravitational
stress. Further, the local rate of flow of time is determined by this
local time-stress of vacuum potential. One can easily engineer the
harmonic bidirectional wave structure of the vacuum potential When one
does so, then one also (1) curves local spacetime, (2)
deterministically structures that local curvature with selected hidden-
variable EM engines, (3) changes the local rate of flow of time, (4)
gravitationally affects local systems, and (5) dynamically structures
that local gravitational change to affect different system structures
at will.

So a graviton is regarded as a particle (cell) of the vacuum and of
the spacetime medium. It is in fact any one of the ghost forms we
previously referred to. But it is not a sternly fixed, quantized
fundamental particle, in the sense presently used in physics. Instead,
the graviton is like a quivering balloon or jelly-like cell in the
vacuum medium, with many input and output pipes (coupling and
decoupling waves) in and out.8 The instantaneous size and composition
of the balloon (the graviton cell) depends upon a multiplicity of
internal states and their exchanges. A relatively stable graviton cell
— such as the nominal spin-2 graviton — represents only an envelope of
the average equilibrium state of multi-photon coupling in a dynamic
coupling and decoupling photon flux.

Thus the graviton is the average coupled-photon structured cell of the
local vacuum EM potential. When the graviton (average) spin is two,
the local spacetime is flat and uncurved. All that the concept of
"flat spacetime" means is that the predominant average activity of the
virtual photons of the local vacuum flux is simply the coupling and
decoupling of pairs of single photons and single antiphotons. When the
graviton (average) spin is less than or greater than two, the local
spacetime is curved, and EM and G are no longer mutually exclusive.
Spin less than two gives curvature in one manner, and spin greater
than two gives curvature in the opposite manner.9 All that the concept
of "curved spacetime" means is that the predominant average activity
of the virtual photons of the local vacuum flux involves either (1)
increased decoupling and decreased coupling of photon/antiphoton pairs
(negative curvature; graviton spin less than two), or (2) decreased
decoupling and increased coupling of photonlantiphoton pairs (positive
curvature; graviton spin more than two.)

In quantum mechanics (QM), any EM frequency — even in a single quantum
— now must be regarded as continually having internal dynamic
exchanges subharmonically and harmonically. Indeed, each photon
wavelength (single oscillation) must be considered as a graviton cell
having its own spectral content. At the same time, it is also a part
of the spectral content of many other graviton cells. Note that this
describes a holographic connection and interaction. It also accounts
for the fact that the photon stubbornly refuses to act solely as a
simple, localized particle. One therefore regards photons as single-
wavelengths of waves, to the first order. One regards the vacuum as
composed of harmonic bidirectional wave structures, always marvelously
and dynamically varying at incredible rapidity. This photon-structured
vacuum permits the inclusion of internalized ordered-photon structure
in spacetime, in quantum change itself.

Accordingly, the fundamental QM postulate that quantum change is
random must be changed. Since there now may exist hidden subquantal
and quantal orders within the randomness, the altered postulate must
state that quantum change is chaotic. This produces an already chaotic
quantum mechanics, and resolves one of its most pressing foundations
difficulties: that of the missing chaos.

It turns out that these changes to GR and QM unite them into a single
unified conceptual approach.

Before sharing more details of the physics. Comments, objections,
clarifications welcomed. Many thanks.


text:
On Jan 13, 5:06 pm, "Szczepan Bialek" <[email]> wrote:

No. Whittaker paper was not about the aether. Note Maxwell also
mentioned about the aether. Yet one can just ignore the aether part
and apply the same maxwellian physics to spacetime. Also don't miss
Whittaker 1903 paper which would make sense all the ideas (including
reference to electrogravitation or unification of electromagnetism and
gravity).

http://www.hyiq.org/Library/E.T.Whittaker-1903.pdf

Someone summarized Whittaker 1903 and 1904 paper as implying the
following (Hope someone who has actually read the two papers can
comment. Take note Whittaker is one of major player of physics in
early 20th century akin to Lorentz and Poincare and is no crackpot):

"Whittaker, a leading world-class physicist himself, single-handedly
rediscovered the "missing" scalar components of Maxwell's original
quaternions, extending their (at the time) unseen implications for
finally uniting "gravity" with the more obvious electrical and
magnetic components known as "light." In the first paper, Whittaker
theoretically explored the existence of a "hidden" set of
electromagnetic waves traveling in two simultaneous directions in the
scalar potential of the vacuum -- demonstrating how to use them to
curve the local and/or distant "spacetime" with electromagnetic
radiation, in a manner directly analogous to Einstein's later "mass-
curves-space" equations. This key Whittaker paper thus lays the direct
mathematical foundation for an electrogravitic theory/technology of
gravity control. In the second paper, Whittaker demonstrated how two
"Maxwellian scalar potentials of the vacuum" -- gravitationally
curving spacetime -- could be turned back into a detectable "ordinary"
electromagnetic field by two interfering "scalar EM waves"... even at
a distance. "

Question. Do the two papers result in the above? Hope someone can read
the two papers and comment.


text:
On Jan 13, 7:09 pm, Timo Nieminen <[email]> wrote:

It's good you mentioned the 1903 paper because it started it all. For
now. Let's focus on the scalar potential mentioned in those 2 papers.

Again 1903 paper: http://www.hyiq.org/Library/E.T.Whittaker-1903.pdf
1904 paper: http://www.hyiq.org/Library/E.T.Whittaker-1904.pdf

Summary of what the above papers have shown:

A "scalar" potential is not a scalar entity at all. Instead, it's a
bundle of bidirectional longitudinal waves, as shown by Whittaker in
his 1903 paper which stated that a standing scalar potential wave can
be decomposed into a special set of bidirectional EM waves that
convolute into a standing scalar potential wave. As a corollary, a set
of bidirectional EM waves -- stress waves --
can be constructed to form a standing scalar potential wave in space.
Since all potentials represent trapped energy density of vacuum, they
are gravitational in nature. Because it represents a "standing wave"
whose magnitude represents the variation in the local energy density
of the vacuum, the Whittaker scalar potential wave represents a
standing wave of variation in the local curvature of vacuum, sharply
in contradiction to the assumptions of present electromagnetics and
general relativity. It also represents a standing wave of the
variation of the local gauge.

Turning G-Potential Back to EM
The very next year, Whittaker's second paper showed how to turn such
Gpotential
wave energy back into EM energy, even at a distance, by scalar
potential interferometry, anticipating and greatly expanding the
Aharonov-Bohm effect. Indeed, Whittaker's second paper shows that the
entire present force-field electromagnetics can be directly replaced
with scalar potential interferometry. In other words, scalar EM
includes and extends the present restricted vector subset of Maxwell's
original theory.

All this is possible intrepretation of Whittaker papers do you agree
or can you refute them by sheer arguments? Summarized in the
following:

Unrecognized for what it was, in 1903-1904 E.T. Whittaker (W)
published a fundamental, engineerable theory of electrogravitation
(EG) in two profound papers. The first (W-1903) demonstrated a hidden
bidirectional EM wave structure in the scalar potential of vacuum, and
showed how to produce a standing scalar EM potential wave -- the same
wave discovered experimentally four years earlier by Nikola Tesla.
W-1903 is a hidden variable theory that shows how to deterministically
curve the local and/or distant space-time using EM. W-1904 shows that
all force field EM can be replaced by interferometry of two scalar
potentials, anticipating the Aharonov-Bohm effect by 55 years and
extending it to the engineerable macroscopic world. W-1903 shows how
to turn EM into G-potential, curve local and/or distant space-time,
and directly engineer the virtual particle flux of vacuum. W-1904
shows how to turn G-potential and curvature of space-time back into
force-field EM, even at a distance. The papers implement Sakharov's
1968 statement that gravitation is not a fundamental field of nature,
but a conglomerate of other fields. Separately applied to
electromagnetics (EM), quantum mechanics (QM), and general relativity
(GR), an extended superset of each results. The three supersets are
Whittaker-unified, so that a testable, engineerable, unified field
theory is generated. EM, QM, and GR each contained a fundamental error
that blocked unification, and these three errors are explained. The
Schroedinger potential can also be structured and altered, indicating
the direct engineering of physical quantum change. Recently Ignatovich
has pointed out this hidden bidirectional EM wave structure in the
Schroedinger potential, without referencing Whittaker's 1903 discovery
of the basic effect.


author: Jos Bergervoet

text:
On 1/13/2012 12:09 PM, Timo Nieminen wrote:

That's all very fine, but still the claim is not true
(you _cannot_ write "all EM fields and waves" in that
way!) It only works in a source free region.

How to "demonstrate" that the claim is nonsense? (At
least as it is presented in the message above, one can
of course use a better wording.)

1) Just choose the 3 E-components as arbitrary functions
2) This forces B and rho and J to have certain values to
satisfy Maxwell: show that this is consistent, i.e. div J
is -d rho/dt, so that a physical source distribution is
possible to realize the situation.
3) Use the mathematical fact that you cannot replace 3
arbitrary functions with 2, under the restrictions of
continuity, etc., that we have for physical functions.

For those who believe that you can replace replace 3
arbitrary functions with 2: then why not replace the 2
functions by 1 to finish it!

For those who believe there are more than 3 arbitrary
functions in the EM fields: show us a fourth one that
does _not_ follow from the 3 E-components.

So 3 is the correct number! (For non-empty space.)

--
Jos


text:
On 1/13/2012 10:17 PM, Timo Nieminen wrote:

OK, so the claim (in general) is evidently wrong.
And we should add that 3 functions (instead of 2)
will also not suffice if you see the gauge as
belonging to "all EM fields and waves".

After all, we have 4 components in A_mu and they
are (to most people) EM quantities and they all
propagate with the speed of light. The mere fact
that one of them does not couple to any other
field that we know of today, while a second one
is not quantized in QFT, leaves only 2. But that's
just current knowledge! Scientists should be modest..

--
Jos


author: John Polasek

text:
On Fri, 13 Jan 2012 15:13:22 -0800 (PST), Roddey <[email]>
wrote:

The interesting scalars are those that are the scalar product of 2
vectors.
For example, "3 feet" is a scalar isn't it, being true in any
coordinate system. It's the product of an intensity vector and an
extensity vector in a manner of speaking. It can be shown to equal 1
yard, also a scalar.


text:
On Jan 13, 5:06 pm, "Szczepan Bialek" <[email]> wrote:

No. Whittaker paper was not about the aether. Note Maxwell also
mentioned about the aether. Yet one can just ignore the aether part
and apply the same maxwellian physics to spacetime. Also don't miss
Whittaker 1903 paper which would make sense all the ideas (including
reference to electrogravitation or unification of electromagnetism and
gravity).

http://www.hyiq.org/Library/E.T.Whittaker-1903.pdf

Someone summarized Whittaker 1903 and 1904 paper as implying the
following (Hope someone who has actually read the two papers can
comment. Take note Whittaker is one of major player of physics in
early 20th century akin to Lorentz and Poincare and is no crackpot):

"Whittaker, a leading world-class physicist himself, single-handedly
rediscovered the "missing" scalar components of Maxwell's original
quaternions, extending their (at the time) unseen implications for
finally uniting "gravity" with the more obvious electrical and
magnetic components known as "light." In the first paper, Whittaker
theoretically explored the existence of a "hidden" set of
electromagnetic waves traveling in two simultaneous directions in the
scalar potential of the vacuum -- demonstrating how to use them to
curve the local and/or distant "spacetime" with electromagnetic
radiation, in a manner directly analogous to Einstein's later "mass-
curves-space" equations. This key Whittaker paper thus lays the direct
mathematical foundation for an electrogravitic theory/technology of
gravity control. In the second paper, Whittaker demonstrated how two
"Maxwellian scalar potentials of the vacuum" -- gravitationally
curving spacetime -- could be turned back into a detectable "ordinary"
electromagnetic field by two interfering "scalar EM waves"... even at
a distance. "

Question. Do the two papers result in the above? Hope someone can read
the two papers and comment.


text:
"Roddey" <[email]> napisal w wiadomosci
news:[email]...

how they relate to Maxwell's equations, an explanation of how to unify
the three major disciplines of physics, specify what's wrong with the
three present versions of those disciplines that has prevented their
unification, and how this was in Maxwell's original quaternion
equations (some 200 of which are actually his theory, not the pale
four vector equations written by Heaviside and Gibbs which misses the
boat with respect to structured scalars.

understand).

move (have motion) and those that don't. In physics we know already
that this is in error; there isn't anything in the universe, anywhere,
that is motionless. At least it is moving through time, which is still
a special kind of motion. Also, we know that everything seems to be
made up of much finer things, and these finer things are always in
motion __ often very violent motion. So what we observe as a passive
thing __ sitting still spatially, so to speak __ is made up of
subthings in violent motion spatially. And the whole system that is
not moving spatially is still moving in time. However, we don't see
"time" but just space; therefore we see the thing as "motionless."
However, the "motionless" thing we look at is rather like a fixed
whirlpool in a swiftly flowing river: the whirlpool seems to us to
stay "fixed" and motionless, but internally its parts (the flowing
water) are in constant motion.

air tank at the service station. The tank and "the air as a whole
spatial volume" isn't going anywhere, and we see them as "motionless."
But inside the gas its molecules are in violent motion, undergoing
collisions, etc. Indeed, inside the walls of the tank, the molecules
and atoms are in vibrational back-and-forth motion in a spatial
lattice.

external characteristics of the object to which we pin the label. So
it represents only an overall characteristic of the object, and does
not completely describe it. In a sense "motionless" is filled with
motion, and all is motion.

that has magnitude or size, but no motion. An example is pressure; the
pressure of a gas has a certain value of so many pounds per square
inch, and we can measure it, but the notion of pressure does not
involve the notion of movement of the gas through space. Therefore
pressure is a scalar quantity, and it's a gross, external quantity
since it's a scalar. Note, however, the dramatic difference here
between the physics of the situation and mathematics of the situation.
In mathematics, when you say something is a scalar, you're just
speaking of a number, without having a direction attached to it. And
mathematically, that's all there is to it; the number doesn't have an
internal structure, it doesn't have internal motion, etc. It just has
magnitude __ and, of course, location, which may be attachment to an
object.

value, that is not all there is to it. That particular aspect of the
object or system may be scalar, but internally the thing it's labeling
can still be decomposed into subsystems or particles or small things
in violent motion. That is, in physics the scalar quantity can
mathematically be further decomposed into an ensemble of vector
quantities. Since these parts are rushing around in all directions but
the whole is not translating through space, then obviously the sum of
all those fractional motions must be zero. Scalar pressure, for
example, can be decomposed into a myriad of opposing force vectors per
unit area.

or size, but is translating through space. In physics, we apply the
vector concept to something that is moving, and/or to position.
However, when we think further, that "something" is made of smaller
things, which also are in violent motion, and these smaller things may
be swarming all over the place with differing velocities __ or even
flowing at high speed in and out of the moving "system- thing"
represented by the vector. So even here, the vector thing is a special
case of an ensemble of smaller things.

there are always infolded vector things in violent motion. We may say
that these interior critters are "hyperspatial" or "infolded" or
"virtual" or "hidden". But they're real and they're inside the point,
as seen by the external observer.

In the real physical world, both a thing that's externally motionless
(a scalar) and a thing (a vector) that's externally translating
through space, are special cases of a system whose internal parts are
always in motion. If the sum of the internal motions is zero, the
external object seems to be sitting still and motionless to us (though
it's still moving through time with __ usually __ uniform motion). We
describe that internal characteristic of the system as a vector zero
resultant system. Externally we may also characterize it as a scalar,
because it still possesses attributes that have magnitude. On the
other hand, if the sum of the internal motions is not zero, but is a
motion in a certain spatial direction, then to us the external object
seems to be moving along in space. That is, it is translating
spatially. Externally it has both magnitude and direction, so we view
it as a vector. To label a thing as only a vector is to look only at
its external attributes. To label a thing as only a scalar is to look
only at its external attributes. To look at its internal attributes,
it must be recognized as a scalar and a vector at the same time. That
is, the scalar attributes must be recognized to be composed on
internal vectors.

vector in time, which is hidden from direct observation, (2)
externally is just a magnitude spatially, and (3) has an internal
spatial vector structure, and therefore a hyperspatial or virtual-
state vector structure. A vector is a thing in motion in a dimension
(through a frame), whether in space, hyperspace, or time. Rigorously
it is not possible to exclusively separate the notions of vector and
scalar, because any scalar, to persist, is automatically a vector in
time.

clarified in standard physics and mathematics texts, unfortunately.
Usually discussions of this type are reserved to obscure papers in
foundations of mathematics. It may surprise the casual student, for
example, that the notions of line, point, space, zero, length,
dimension, frame, time, and observer have no truly acceptable
definitions. Neither do the notions of force, mass, field, potential,
etc. In fact, mathematics no longer attempts to explain how a line can
be made of points. Instead, in foundations, it is simply stated as
three postulations thusly: "There is a class of entities called
points. There is another class of entities called lines. Lines are
composed of points."

vector mathematics __ which is well-known not to be a complete system
of mathematics in the first place __ is that the presence of a bunch
of vectors that sum to zero is just treated as a zero or absence of
any vectors at all. That is, the absence of any internal vectors at
all is made synonymous to the presence of a bunch of internal vectors
that are fighting each other to a draw. What this does is throw away
the internal energy and internal ordered structuring of the medium __
specifically, the energy of all the vector fighters that is
continually going on inside the local medium __ inside spacetime
itself. Physically that's quite wrong, and one is throwing away
exactly half the energy of the situation. There is a very real
physical difference between a system of real vectors that fight to a
draw and so do not translate en masse, and the absence of any vectors
and vector-fighting at all. The difference is composed of stress and
its internal vector patterns __ the internal energetic engines in
local spacetime and local rest mass __ in short, the energy trapped in
the local medium.

the fact that the four vector Heaviside equations of EM are not
closed. One always has to assume that one or more of the "remaining
potentials" is zero __ that is, absent. So right there all the texts
and professors reduce even Heaviside's equations to a special case of
the absence of any "left-over and hanging around" scalar potentials.
As an example, that little assumption gets rid of any possibility of
the Aharonov-Bohm effect, where potentials alone can interfere, even
in the absence of EM force fields, and produce real force effects in
charged particle systems. That is, the sole agent of the interference
of scalar potentials can induce EM changes, according to the
experimentally proven Aharonov-Bohm effect, even in the total absence
of EM force fields.

fields are not primary agents at all. We know that classical EM theory
is completely wrong on this. QM shows that it's the potentials that
are primary, not the force fields. In fact, it can be shown that the E-
field and B- field do not exist as such in vacuum; only the potential
for the E-field and the B-field exist in vacuum. Feynman pointed that
out, but nearly all of his modern cohorts seem not to have recognized
that fact. Indeed, vacuum is just a conglomerate of potentials,
nothing more, nothing less. And if you just look carefully at the
definitions of force and E-field, you see immediately that (1) force
(nonrelativistic case) consists of mass times acceleration. Therefore
a force consists of an accelerated mass. An electric force consists of
an accelerated charged mass, normalized for a unit. But it really
isn't treated that way in the EM theory, where it continues to
erroneously considered to exist as a force field in the vacuum.

to differentiate vacuum things from material things. One can correctly
state that a virtual electric force field exists in vacuum, comprised
of accelerating virtual masses, but not an observable force field. The
observable electric force field requires, and consists of, accelerated
observable charged particles. And the only place observable particles
exist are in a physical medium, of a collection of one or more
observable particles in space.

there are some very serious, fundamental things wrong with the present
foundations of EM theory. There are lots of other flaws in EM, such as
the fall of the Lorentz force law in modern railgun experiments. The
law has always been false, but is a sufficient approximation if the
energy regime is not too high.
electromagnetics) discards the internal, trapped EM energy of local
spacetime. Now if the internal trapped energy of spacetime varies from
place to place, that is called a curved spacetime, relativistically
speaking. And when a spacetime is curved, there is communication of
energy between the internal, infolded, virtual EM energy state and the
external, translating, observable EM energy state. Curved one way, the
local spacetime is a sink, with external energy pouring into it
continually, and disappearing from observation of the external state.
Curved the other way, the local spacetime is a source, with energy
pouring out of it continually, and appearing in observation in the
external state.

ability to use the very strong EM force as an agent to curve local
spacetime. The very mathematics itself, a priori, assumes and
guarantees a locally flat spacetime. And in an uncurved region of
spacetime, for example, you are never going to make an over-unity
machine __ a so-called "free energy" machine that will give you more
energy out than you put in __ because the application of the vector
theory a priori guarantees the elimination of any hidden sources from
the local spacetime (ST) medium. If you're going to tap the trapped
vacuum energy, and make a so-called "free energy" device, you're going
to have to curve the local spacetime. That is the only way to produce
a local energy source in the vacuum, from which a current issues.
Notice that, when we put a paddlewheel in a river, we produce a free
energy device because we tap some of the energy in the flow. But we
tap a current, we do not just tap a potential per se. The entire
secret of tapping vacuum energy, to build a free energy device, is to
produce a current in the local vacuum potential that is self-
sustained, and then tap that current.

the situation involved. From time to time yet another physicist
discovers that astonishing fact, and publishes a paper on it to point
it out. Nobody does anything about it, however, because no one has the
foggiest notion of what to do. So everybody just lets it pass and
nothing is changed.

clarifications welcomed.

"Peter Graneau's work is fundamental in this respect."

The two citations from the History by Whittaker:
http://www.electricityforum.com/a-timeline-of-history-of-electricity.html

"1825  -  Ampere publishes his collected results on magnetism. His
expression for the magnetic field produced by a small segment of current is
different from that which follows naturally from the Biot-Savart law by an
additive term which integrates to zero around closed circuit. It is
unfortunate that electrodynamics and relativity decide in favor of Biot and
Savart rather than for the much more sophisticated Ampere, whose memoir
contains both mathematical analysis and experimentation, artfully blended
together. In this memoir are given some special instances of the result we
now call Stokes theorem or as we usually write it. Maxwell describes this
work as ``one of the most brilliant achievements in science. The whole,
theory and experiment, seems as if it had leaped, full-grown and full-armed,
from the brain of the `Newton of electricity'. It is perfect in form and
unassailable in accuracy; and it is summed up in a formula from which all
the phenomena may be deduced, and which must always remain the cardinal
formula of electrodynamics.''

"1867  -  Ludwig Lorenz develops an electromagnetic theory of light in which
the scalar and vector potentials, in retarded form, are the starting point.
He shows that these retarded potentials each satisfy the wave equation and
that Maxwell's equations for the field potentials. His vector potential does
not obey the Coulomb gauge, however, but another relation now known as the
Lorenz gauge. Although he is able to derive Maxwell's equations from his
retarded potentials, he does not subscribe to Maxwell's view that light
involves electromagnetic waves in the aether. He feels, rather, that the
fundamental basis of all luminous vibrations is electric currents, arguing
that space has enough matter in it to support the necessary currents. "

You and Graneau want to change the teaching program.

Now the St. Nicolas is to teach the small children to write letters.
The EM by Heaviside is to teach the students to use the vector calculus.

But after this everybody can read Ampere, Faraday, Stokes, Helmholtz, L.
Lorenz, Tesla, Dirac and the rest not mentioned in the texbooks.

The above mentioned are too sophisticated for students. Do you agree?
S*


text:
"Roddey" <[email]> napisal w wiadomosci
news:[email]...
On Jan 14, 9:36 am, Timo Nieminen <[email]> wrote:

<Ok. Let us go into details and describe the physics of the Whittaker
internalized EM energy structure of the scalar potential. Fundamental
changes are made to two "untouchable" primary sciences: general
relativity and quantum mechanics. In so doing, one unites and extends
both of them into a common unified approach, and drastically enriches
the present conception of the physical exchanges in, of, between,
among, and within physical systems. The foundations changes to general
relativity allow the incorporation of a hidden variable theory (the
Whittaker internalized EM energy structure of the potential) without
violation of Bell's theorem.

<So First one must change general relativity. One must unite EM and G
on the most fundamental level possible: that of the quantum particles
of the fields. The clue to the procedure is the fact that, in quantum
field theory, the graviton has spin-2 and the photon has spin-1. This
strongly suggests that two photons ought to couple together to produce
a graviton, if the resultants of the E- and B-fields of the coupled
photons are reduced to zero. In fact, such a bound (coupled, as in a
standing wave) photon/antiphoton pair makes a basic spin-2 graviton.

<To the first order, a spacetime composed of spin-2 gravitons is said
to be a flat spacetime.

<However, spacetime in a sense may be regarded as a conglomerate of
potentials ï¿½ including the scalar EM potentials. Therefore the
simplest structure of EM scalar potentials (trapped EM energy) is also
nominally composed of such spin-2 gravitons. Note that each of the
coupled photons in the graviton may be constantly circling the other
at nominal light speed tangentially, but the graviton system itself
may be essentially stationary. In other words, the two trapped photons
in a simple graviton are like whirling dervishes, spinning and running
at top speed in non-translating circles.

<Of course, the graviton system can also translate as a system.

<The scalar EM potential may be regarded as an infinite set of pairs of
bidirectional EM planar waves, where the two members of each pair are
multiplied together, totally modulating each other.

<Destructive interference of photons infolds them as EM structures
inside gravitons; i.e., it constructs gravitons. Destructive
interference of gravitons outfolds the internal EM structures; i.e.,
it constructs ordinary EM.

<In a scalar EM potential the EM energy communicates vertically, which
is harmonic translation of frequency energies, or time-wise. The time-
wise two-wave EM energy communication represents a stress upon the
rate of flow of local observer time; hence it represents gravitational
stress. Further, the local rate of flow of time is determined by this
local time-stress of vacuum potential. One can easily engineer the
harmonic bidirectional wave structure of the vacuum potential When one
does so, then one also (1) curves local spacetime, (2)
deterministically structures that local curvature with selected hidden-
variable EM engines, (3) changes the local rate of flow of time, (4)
gravitationally affects local systems, and (5) dynamically structures
that local gravitational change to affect different system structures
at will.

<So a graviton is regarded as a particle (cell) of the vacuum and of
the spacetime medium. It is in fact any one of the ghost forms we
previously referred to. But it is not a sternly fixed, quantized
fundamental particle, in the sense presently used in physics. Instead,
the graviton is like a quivering balloon or jelly-like cell in the
vacuum medium, with many input and output pipes (coupling and
decoupling waves) in and out.8 The instantaneous size and composition
of the balloon (the graviton cell) depends upon a multiplicity of
internal states and their exchanges. A relatively stable graviton cell
ï¿½ such as the nominal spin-2 graviton ï¿½ represents only an envelope of
the average equilibrium state of multi-photon coupling in a dynamic
coupling and decoupling photon flux.

<Thus the graviton is the average coupled-photon structured cell of the
local vacuum EM potential. When the graviton (average) spin is two,
the local spacetime is flat and uncurved. All that the concept of
"flat spacetime" means is that the predominant average activity of the
virtual photons of the local vacuum flux is simply the coupling and
decoupling of pairs of single photons and single antiphotons. When the
graviton (average) spin is less than or greater than two, the local
spacetime is curved, and EM and G are no longer mutually exclusive.
Spin less than two gives curvature in one manner, and spin greater
than two gives curvature in the opposite manner.9 All that the concept
of "curved spacetime" means is that the predominant average activity
of the virtual photons of the local vacuum flux involves either (1)
increased decoupling and decreased coupling of photon/antiphoton pairs
(negative curvature; graviton spin less than two), or (2) decreased
decoupling and increased coupling of photonlantiphoton pairs (positive
curvature; graviton spin more than two.)

<In quantum mechanics (QM), any EM frequency ï¿½ even in a single quantum
ï¿½ now must be regarded as continually having internal dynamic
exchanges subharmonically and harmonically. Indeed, each photon
wavelength (single oscillation) must be considered as a graviton cell
having its own spectral content. At the same time, it is also a part
of the spectral content of many other graviton cells. Note that this
describes a holographic connection and interaction. It also accounts
for the fact that the photon stubbornly refuses to act solely as a
simple, localized particle. One therefore regards photons as single-
wavelengths of waves, to the first order. One regards the vacuum as
composed of harmonic bidirectional wave structures, always marvelously
and dynamically varying at incredible rapidity. This photon-structured
vacuum permits the inclusion of internalized ordered-photon structure
in spacetime, in quantum change itself.

<Accordingly, the fundamental QM postulate that quantum change is
random must be changed. Since there now may exist hidden subquantal
and quantal orders within the randomness, the altered postulate must
state that quantum change is chaotic. This produces an already chaotic
quantum mechanics, and resolves one of its most pressing foundations
difficulties: that of the missing chaos.

<It turns out that these changes to GR and QM unite them into a single
unified conceptual approach.

<Before sharing more details of the physics. Comments, objections,
clarifications welcomed. Many thanks.

The Sun produces the rare plasma.
Why it can not be a medium for the electron waves?
S*


text:
"Roddey" <[email]> napisal w wiadomosci
news:[email]...
On Jan 13, 5:06 pm, "Szczepan Bialek" <[email]> wrote:

<No. Whittaker paper was not about the aether. Note Maxwell also
mentioned about the aether. Yet one can just ignore the aether part
and apply the same maxwellian physics to spacetime. Also don't miss
Whittaker 1903 paper which would make sense all the ideas (including
reference to electrogravitation or unification of electromagnetism and
gravity).

http://www.hyiq.org/Library/E.T.Whittaker-1903.pdf

Wave model of gravitation was made in XIX century.
Now are the optical tweezers and ultrasonic levitators.

<Someone summarized Whittaker 1903 and 1904 paper as implying the
following (Hope someone who has actually read the two papers can
comment. Take note Whittaker is one of major player of physics in
early 20th century akin to Lorentz and Poincare and is no crackpot):

<"Whittaker, a leading world-class physicist himself, single-handedly
rediscovered the "missing" scalar components of Maxwell's original
quaternions,

Maxwell's oryginal model was quite different than the Biot-Savart.

< extending their (at the time) unseen implications for
finally uniting "gravity" with the more obvious electrical and
magnetic components known as "light." In the first paper, Whittaker
theoretically explored the existence of a "hidden" set of
electromagnetic waves traveling in two simultaneous directions in the
scalar potential of the vacuum -- demonstrating how to use them to
curve the local and/or distant "spacetime" with electromagnetic
radiation, in a manner directly analogous to Einstein's later "mass-
curves-space" equations. This key Whittaker paper thus lays the direct
mathematical foundation for an electrogravitic theory/technology of
gravity control. In the second paper, Whittaker demonstrated how two
"Maxwellian scalar potentials of the vacuum" -- gravitationally
curving spacetime -- could be turned back into a detectable "ordinary"
electromagnetic field by two interfering "scalar EM waves"... even at
a distance. "

<Question. Do the two papers result in the above? Hope someone can read
the two papers and comment.

For me  the "major players of physics* were Faraday and Tesla. They made
experiments.
So I am adding the Tesla's opinion:
""I have read the article, and I quite agree with the opinion expressed -
that wireless power transmission is impractical with present apparatus.
This conclusion will be naturally reached by any one who recognizes the
nature of the agent by which the impulses are transmitted in present
wireless practice.
"When Dr. Heinrich Hertz undertook his experiments from 1887 to 1889 his
object was to demonstrate a theory postulating a medium filling all space,
called the ether, which was structureless, of inconceivable tenuity and yet
solid and possessed of rigidity incomparably greater than that of the
hardest steel.  He obtained certain results and the whole world acclaimed
them as an experimental verification of that cherished theory.  But in
reality what he observed tended to prove just its fallacy.

"I had maintained for many years before that such a medium as supposed could
not exist, and that we must rather accept the view that all space is filled
with a gaseous substance.  On repeating the Hertz experiments with much
improved and very powerful apparatus, I satisfied myself that what he had
observed was nothing else but effects of longitudinal waves in a gaseous
medium, that is to say, waves, propagated by alternate compression and
expansion.  He had observed waves in the ether much of the nature of sound
waves in the air.

"Up to 1896, however, I did not succeed in obtaining a positive experimental
proof of the existence of such a medium.  But in that year I brought out a
new form of vacuum tube capable of being charged to any desired potential,
and operated it with effective pressures of about 4,000,000 volts.  I
produced cathodic and other rays of transcending intensity.  The effects,
according to my view, were due to minute particles of matter carrying
enormous electrical charges, which, for want of a better name, I designated
as matter not further decomposable.  Subsequently those particles were
called electrons."

From: http://www.tfcbooks.com/tesla/1929-09-22.htm

The key issue is the light polarization.

Faraday explained it with the longitudinal waves from the two sources.

The Hertz waves were from the dipole and were exactly like the light.

The Tesla's waves were from the monopole and were unpolarised.

Try to find the math for Faraday-Tesla's waves.

S*


author: Ajinkya Kulkarni

subject: Re: Graphical procedure to establish the quiescent point

text:
Dear Sir

Thank you for your help.
But what is the fact that, I am an Engineering Student(Computer Sci.)
and this above mentioned question is asked in the university
examination in the subject Electronic Devices and Circuits(EDC) and I
searched a lot for the particular answer ,  so that I can write the
answer in the examination. However, I failed to get the answer in
examination point of view.

The complete question is as follows

"Suggest a graphical procedure to establish the Q-point for JFET as a
amplifier with voltage divider bias( 6 Marks)"

If you know any e-book or any website, that explains this answer and
some other websites for EDC then please tell me.

Thank you,
Ajinkya


author: Rheilly Phoull

text:
"Ajinkya Kulkarni" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
Google is your friend, did you try ??
My first try gave (amongst many)
http://bear.ces.cwru.edu/eecs_cad/tut_spice3_jfet_bias.html
Why not search for yourself ??


author: Jasen Betts

text:
On 2005-10-26, Ajinkya Kulkarni <[email]> wrote:

some universities have their previous examinations (and answers) in
their library... very few recycle ther exams.

Bye.
   Jasen


author: Brian Sandle

subject: Re: Precautionary Principle - Personal Definitions

text:
In sci.agriculture Jim Webster <[email]> wrote:

: Wakefield wrote in message <8vrmtk$q1$[email]>...
:>
:>"Brian Sandle" <[email]> wrote in message
:>news:[email]...
:>> In sci.agriculture R. N. Robinson <[email]> wrote:
:>>
:>
:>snip
:>
:>> : In Canada farmers who have not
:>> bought GM crops but had GM pollen drifting on to their fields have been
:>> charged by Monsanto with saving their own seed, some of which has become
:>> GM.
:>
:>snip
:>
:>   I am afraid I would have to have documentation of this before I bought
:>into it as actually having happened. It sounds like a very far-fetched
: smear
:>of Monsanto. I am not supporting them in any way, but I find myself very
:>sceptical of the truth of this particular assertion.
:>--
:>
:>-- L Wakefield, owner and operator of the beastly truck heretik, that
:>refuses to stay between the lines when parking --
:>

: I suspect Brian is refering to a collection of cases, the most well known
: being the case of  Percy Schmeiser  a 68 year old Saskatchewan farmer. If
: you run a search using Percy Schmeiser's name and Saskatchewan you should
: find details. While Brians comments may be a little broad brush he is giving
: a reasonable precis of the Schmeiser case, although if I remember correctly,
: Schmeiser claims it was blown seed not pollen. Other cases may well involve
: pollen. I'm not sure how the case currently stands at the moment and whether
: anything has been decided.

Schmeiser says that if Monsanto win then biotech companies will have
control of the seed supply, so the food supply and every farmer will
become a serf.

It has become impossible to produce pedigree canola seed in Western
Canada, GM seed included, without contamination from GM pollen, so it has
been abandoned by producers.


author: Dennis G.

text:
Brian Sandle <[email]> wrote:

For a Canadian farmer's perspectivce see:
http://www.producer.com/articles/20000525/news/20000525news01.html

or;
http://www.producer.com/articles/20001116/market_quotas/20001116mkt02.html

for:
<begin quote>
GMO canola market secure in 2001:industry survey
    By Adrian Ewins
Saskatoon newsroom
      One question canola growers won't have to consider when they start
planning for
2001 is the market for genetically modified varieties.
The answer, according to the people who buy and process the stuff, is that it
doesn't matter.
"As far as growers are concerned, it's business as usual for 2001," said Gary
Bennewies of the market research firm Ipsos-Reid.
His company's survey of grain merchants and canola processors in Western Canada
last month indicated that none are planning to offer price premiums or discounts
based on whether a variety is genetically modified.
The reason is simple. There is no demand from Canada's traditional customers for
non-GM canola.
.....
Dale Adolphe, president of the Canola Council of Canada, agreed there is no
demand from Canada's traditional customers for non-GM canola. Even if there
was such a market, it would be almost impossible for Canada to tap into it,
given the tight tolerances imposed by buyers of such products in Europe.

<end quote>

It wouldn't pay to grow pedegree canola because Europe isn't a traditional
market and will not support the price needed for 'pure' by their standards.

Dennis


text:
In sci.agriculture Dennis G. <[email]> wrote:

Yeah, it a fait a compli. No-one can supply beer that has not been spat
in.

If I know someone has used the beer tank for a spittle I don't go to
that pub.

They just want the stuff without the spit in it.

Did you miss the point that the GM producers cannot produce their own
pedigree either? They cannot sell the product because they will have
other companies' GM genes in it. Explain the standards in that!