Re: HIDDEN RICHNESS OF ELECTROMAGNETISM Revealed??
From: Bjoern Feuerbacher (feuerbac_at_thphys.uni-heidelberg.de)
Date: 03/22/05
- Next message: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: HIDDEN RICHNESS OF ELECTROMAGNETISM Revealed??"
- Previous message: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: light and neutrinos"
- In reply to: Bohl: "HIDDEN RICHNESS OF ELECTROMAGNETISM Revealed??"
- Next in thread: Uncle Al: "Re: HIDDEN RICHNESS OF ELECTROMAGNETISM Revealed??"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 11:29:36 +0100
Bohl wrote:
> People are subject to make mistakes. Dr. Bearden may be wrong in
> the past but he has learned
Why do you think so?
> and as a result created a masterpiece.
According to whom? Do you think you are in the position to judge
what is a "masterpiece"?
> In this message is the first 25 pages of his worldwide
> bestselling "Energy from the Vacuum" book
Bestselling to whom? Gullible laymen or actual knowledgeable
physicists?
A *lot* of cranky stuff becomes a bestseller.
> beng crazed over by European scientists
By whom, for example?
> which is also available for free (from 1-74
> pages of the 997 pages book) at
>
> http://www.cheniere.org/books/efv/Chapter_1.pdf
>
> This message is shared for scrutiny and to encourage those located
> in hidden corners of the world with no direct internet to check
> the free Chapter 1 above as well as for quotation purposes when
> replying and addressing the possible fallacies in bearden's
> hypotheses. Many great scientists like Einstein, Feynman seek to
> know the answers and Bearden is just suggesting the answers many
> asked. Therefore let us treat Bearden as just an advanced student
> of physics and subject to mistakes as well as making sense at
> times and giving out wonderful insights at least.
Your "therefore" is a non sequitur. If he wants to make money with
that stuff, he should pay attention that he is right. He does not
have special privileges - he should be subject to the same merciless
peer review as every other scientist.
> In our attempt in the coming years to unravel the hidden richness
> of electromagnetism, let us treat Bearden as just one material
> for reference and ensure we avoid the same pitfalls that may have
> befallen some of the wrong concepts he has made or may be making. What
> the mistakes are and what the theoretically possible ones are are
> what we are here to figure out. Should we found out Dr. Bearden
> is intentionally giving out false information or disinformation
We already found that.
> then we (or I) would construct an anti-bearden web site informing
> people of his motive. But before judging him. Let us judge his
> work first (note: there are many independent researchers
> unraveling the hidden richness of electromagnetism and Bearden
> is not representative of them so if he is wrong 90%, it doesn't
> mean there is no hope to learn the truth)
Qion/Cinquirer/Landle, this is you again, right? Having yet again
fallen for a crank, and asking other people to prove you wrong,
as usual.
> Starting 1-25 pages quote from Dr. Bearden "Energy from the
> Vacuum" (1-75 pages are available free at his web site mentioned
> above) which is in demand in many scientific establishments
> around the world.
>
> Dr. Bearden, a future Nobel laureate (?)
LOL!
> wrote:
>
> Chapter 1 Foundations and Scientific Mindset
>
> "...the scientist makes use of a whole arsenal of concepts which
> he imbibed practically with his mother's milk; and seldom if ever
> is he aware of the eternally problematic character of his
> concepts. He uses this conceptual material, or, speaking more
> exactly, these conceptual tools of thought, as something
> obviously, immutably given; something having an objective value
> of truth which is hardly even, and in any case not seriously, to
> be doubted. ...in the interests of science it is necessary over
> and over again to engage in the critique of these fundamental
> concepts, in order that we may not unconsciously be ruled by
> them." [Albert Einstein]{1}
>
> 1.1 Introduction Einstein's quote is a beautiful statement that
> scientists should never take the present understanding - and the
> present models - as absolute.
Fortunately, no scientist I'm aware of does do that.
> That is the approach the present
> author has taken for some 30 years, in a struggle to comprehend
> that class of electromagnetic (EM) systems that are open systems
> in disequilibrium in their virtual photon energy exchange with
> the active vacuum,
Whatever that is supposed to mean.
> and exhibiting a broken symmetry in that exchange.
And that.
[snip a lot rhetoric]
> Excellent scientists - Feynman, Wheeler, Bunge, Evans, Barrett,
> and many others - have indeed pointed out that classical EM
> theory is seriously flawed. In the words of Bunge {3}:
>
> "...it is not usually acknowledged that electrodynamics, both
> classical and quantal, are in a sad state."
I never heard of Bunge, so he can't be that excellent.
> The author also found it imperative to return to many of the
> original seminal papers of physics, particularly in
> electrodynamics. The major concepts in those papers led to the
> present classical EM model. This was particularly true of the
> work of Poynting {4a, 4b} and Heaviside {5a-5c}, who
> independently and simultaneously arrived at the notion of the
> flow of EM energy through space5. Their work occurred in the
> 1880s, after Maxwell was already deceased. It also necessitated
> reviewing Lorentz symmetrical regauging of the Maxwell-Heaviside
> equations, where Lorentz arbitrarily discarded all permissible
> COP>1.0 Maxwellian systems.
"COP>1.0"???
> (footnote 5 As we shall point out later, the concept of energy
> flowing through 3-space is a non sequitur
Err, then how does Mr. Bearden explain how the sun's energy gets
to Earth?
> and requires
> substantial revision today, to be consistent with the nature of
> observation and the fact that no observable continuously
> persists.
Huh?
> Any observation is an instantaneous frozen 3-space
> "snapshot" at a single instant,
What a nonsense. Every observation takes a finite amount of time.
One never gets a snapshot at a single instant. One always gets
a value averaged over a finite amount of time.
> gone the next instant when almost
> immediately replaced by another such frozen snapshot. In between
> observations, not mass but masstime exists.
Whatever that is supposed to mean.
[snip]
> The science of this "EM energy flow through space" is
> controversial to this day.
Perhaps among cranks, not in the least among real physicists.
> Which is the real "EM energy flow
> vector" as such has never been adequately resolved,
Huh? What exactly is his problem with the Poynting vector?
> and there
> continue to be polite debates about it {6}. One should also be
> aware that physicists really do not know what many things -
> including energy - are. The definitions of these fundamentals are
> still uncertain,
What a nonsense. Energy is defined as the ability to do work.
> as stated rather poignantly by Feynman {7} in
> this quote:
>
> "It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no
> knowledge of what energy is."
That does in no way imply that the *definition* of energy is uncertain.
Merely its interpretation! But the latter is part of metaphysics
and philosophy, not of physics!
> As another fundamental example, Feynman {8} also pointed out that
> we really do not know what force is6 either! Quoting:
>
> "One of the most important characteristics of force is that it
> has a material origin, and this is not just a definition. ... If
> you insist upon a precise definition of force, you will never get
> it!"
Indeed. So what?
[snip more nonsense]
Why on earth did you quote all that? A reference would have been
enough! Don't waste bandwidth!
Bye,
Bjoern
- Next message: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: HIDDEN RICHNESS OF ELECTROMAGNETISM Revealed??"
- Previous message: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: light and neutrinos"
- In reply to: Bohl: "HIDDEN RICHNESS OF ELECTROMAGNETISM Revealed??"
- Next in thread: Uncle Al: "Re: HIDDEN RICHNESS OF ELECTROMAGNETISM Revealed??"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
