So, everybody, can we have a discussion about this? Can we find any other source that can credibly make the case that Maxwell is...(at best) incomplete?
And when I say everybody, I really mean everybody that's tuned in here. Langely and Nate, you guys are great researchers... what can you find. Trickfox, you've got as good a handle on the math that circulates through this stuff as anybody here.
Gee Paul.... I sure wished I had seen this earlier. I guess I will have to respond now however.
Paul
As soon as you say "Bearden", You are loosing me altogether. Bearden has always been good for drawing the interests of pseudoscience and philosophers but serious mathematicians have never really followed his work because he has no real foundation or a reputation couched in classical math or physics. I did read a bit about Bearden however I was told that his work is of no consequence to anything I've been researching.
As soon as you say Maxwell you are bound to get into trouble because Maxwell constructed his foundation from Faraday and Coulomb. Heaviside is now being used by modern day revisionists who are trying to introduce conspiratorial conflicts to justify their pet theories about everything and anything.
It is my opinion that you will NOT FIND anything wrong with anything Maxwell said until you begin looking at Einstein/Rosen/Podolski paradox (EPR paradox). That is the last thing Einstein was working on and it remains incomplete to this day. There is plenty of evidence to proove that macroscopic scale rules of physics and science are justified by everything we have learned in classical physics and math. Maxwell was relatively unknown when we started in the sub-atomic realm so the theory of everything has never been realized from Maxwell to Einstein because everyone is stuck on "ELECTROMAGNETISM and SINUSOIDIAL WAVES......which involves Trigonometry and defines Frequency and Spectrum.
At the moment all of this post Einsteinian science has been extended to include Superstring theory, and Supersymetry. the bottom line as of March 2009 is the LHC and the "God particle" (Higgs Bozon)..... That whole classical physics and math foundation will explain the theory of "Nearly" everything mathematically.
But you see there is this pesky little phenomena called "ACTION AT A DISTANCE".... That is the issue that bugs everyone.
of all the known forces Gravity is the one which proclaims "ACTION AT A DISTANCE". But you have to define "Action" then you have to define "distance", so round and round you go with Einstein, Lorentz, Minkowski, Levi-Chivita,Wheeler, and a host of other pure theorists because the basic quantitative and qualitative definitions are ALL based on three primary units. MASS, DISTANCE, and TIME.
THAT's IT....... THREE PRIMARY UNITS DEFINES ALL OF REALITY AS WE KNOW IT!!!!!!
MASS.....Distance..... and TIME = all of our objective reality
Does anyone in this whole universe of experts have an argument against what I just said..... PLEASE, OH PLEASE, speak up!!!
Let's throw out our arbitrarilly selected references for MASS (like pounds, ounces. etc.) Let's use a single PROTON as an
absolute universal reference for MASS.
Let's use the DISTANCE unit that is used to define an electron when it jumps orbit. this is called the Planck length
In physics, the Planck length, is a unit of length, equal to about 1.616 252 × 10-35 meters. Let's use the Planck length as
the absolute reference for DISTANCE.
This leave only ONE SINGLE DEFINITION LEFT TO DEFINE....... TIME...!!!!!
According to the "Copenhagen Interpretaion" and the foundation of all modern classical physics TIME is defined by the Mikowski interval which was found using a principle called the "invariance of the interal". The mathematical relationship used to define time/space is probably the most controversial theorem in all of science and it's called the "the Time-Space Continuity" Theory. see:
http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0310/0310055. There is plenty more to review but Zeno of Elea is where you can begin if you want a nutshell explanation about the polemic nature of the definition of TIME
Conclusion
In summary, it was shown there is a necessary trade off of all precisely determined physical
magnitudes and values at a time, for their continuity through time, although with the parameter and
boundary of their respective magnitude and value being determinable up to the limits of possible
measurement as described by the quantum hypothesis,(1) but with this indeterminacy in precise value not
being a consequence of h and quantum uncertainty. This illustrated that in relation to indeterminacy in
precise physical magnitude,
the macro and microscopic are inextricably linked, rather than being a
variable only directly associated with the quantum world. The explanation provided was also shown to be
the correct solution to the motion and infinity paradoxes, excluding the Stadium, originally conceived by
the ancient Greek mathematician, Zeno of Elea.(9) It is not necessary for time to emerge from the
quantum foam present just after the big bang at approximately (Gh/c3)1/2 scale,(2-7) and the proposals of
Imaginary Time,(2, 3, 5-7) and Chronons,(2,
have been shown to be incompatible with a consistent
physical description, and would appear to be superseded on a theoretical basis.
And the beginning of all this modern science is the simple formula F=MA. The most simple and oldest of all math formulas came from Newton himself...... it simply states; FORCE=MASS times ACCELERATION..... simple right?
BIG mistake......
That is where the problems begin and the definition of FORCE become subject to several interpretations
When elecricity was discovered, Coulomb began to incorporate Newton's math into his own work. The electric Scalar and it's physical effect upon atoms
Coulomb's law, sometimes called the Coulomb law, is an equation describing the electrostatic force between electric charges. It was developed in the 1780s by French physicist Charles Augustin de Coulomb and was essential to the development of the theory of electromagnetism.
Now let's look at Maxwell gain:
Nevertheless all four of what are now described as Maxwell's equations can be found in recognisable form in vol. 2 of Maxwell's "A Treatise on Electricity & Magnetism", published in 1873, in Chapter IX, entitled "General Equations of the Electromagnetic Field". This book by Maxwell pre-dates Heaviside's and other publications
SEE......Heaviside's influence is UNIMPORTANT at this point..... It's Coulomb nearly 100 years earlier that is important here.
Remember Willoughby Cady????
Mr. Brown has no theory for the effects that he has demonstrated or claimed. He has advanced an empirical explanation for the magnitude of the force on a suspended condenser, but has not advanced supporting evidence.
That's correct T.T. Brown did not
publicly define the mathematical relationship which defines the "FORCE" with reference to Newtonian principles....in other words; NO MATH so....NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE.
That's OK....that was in 1952...... surely someone else tried later on......right?
Now let's seee.... The ARMY did something in 2003!!!! I found this on the net but I'm sure it's on Andy's website also:
http://members.fortunecity.com/jlnaudin ... index.html but.... here is the important page we should be looking at:
http://www.psychopropulseur.com/asymetric.pdf It states.
The FORCE due to IONIC wind is at least 3 orders of magnitude too small......and further on.....
More experimental work is needed to gain an understanding of the Biefeld/Brown Force.
That was 6 years ago Paul....
Now here is another paper which came out just recently:July 4th 2007
From the theoretical analysis by the zero-point field theory, it is considered that the origin of the
dynamical Biefeld-Brown effect might be attributed to the interaction of zero-point vacuum fluctuations
with high potential electric field impressed to the capacitor. This result suggests that the pulsed
electric field applied to the capacitor may produce artificial gravity sufficient for practical application
to the space propulsion technology.
This time they proclaimed that the FORCE itself originates for "Zero Point Energy"..... Fnny thing...ZPE is the new "holy grail" for SOME proponents of FUSOR energy also, so the MATH which defines the FORCE is again
riddled with inconsistencies, (of course others think that's a load of shit too) so it's no wonder you will find the same old polemic arguments about "the FORCE definition" again....
Stop listening to those people who THINK they found THE "one and only" answer in ZPE because they are still using classic definitions or the FORCE reference originated by Newton... F=MA.
Besides...this latest theory came about AFTER you began to write your book....
What good is that?
This is supposed to be a historical biography, NOT a justification for a "discovery" that is STILL purpously being controlled through "born Classified" disinformation tactics . How many spooks have you met since you started into this rabbit hole? How many experts are ready to lead you into any direction that feels good or follows someone's else's pet agenda?
F=MA Paul... that is all you need to question.
WHAT IS FORCE????...... DEFINE MASS.....THEN DISTANCE....THEN ACCELERATION....and THEN..... DEFINE TIME!!!!
Don't listen to anyone who tells you it's all "etched in stone" by Newton and Einstein because the THEORY OF EVERYTHING DOES NOT EXIST YET. Ask Richard Hull if you don't believe me!
Remember...... HELLO STUPID???
Unless and until you understand ALL the DATA.....and ALL the MATH.... and ALL the Physics.... you don't stand a chance against the organized attempt to discourage your written word on the subject of Biefeld/Brown FORCE.... so ..... let it continue to be an unsolved mystery....and let others duplicate the experiments in vacuum. THE FORCE IS THERE....It's REAL.... but it HAS NOT BEEN EXPLAINED IN
PUBLIC LITERATURE
YET. So just let the empirical explanations GO....for now. Concentrate on the Biography instead.
Take it from there Paul...... I'm done on this forum and this was my final post just for you....
You are either DONE with this shit or you are not...... MAKE A CHOICE BUDDY.... the ship is leaving.
Farewell to all who read this.
Trickfox