| The Tom Bearden Website |
| Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2006 10:58:59
-0600 Thanks for the kind words; they are very much appreciated. I don't think the thing to do is "submit" anything to the policy part of IEE. I would certainly be willing to discuss the source charge problem with them, independently, without "submitting" anything. Since all EM fields and potentials are assumed to be produced by their associated source charges, that means that all EM field energy and EM potential energy also comes from the associated source charges. One can physically "suddenly prepare" some charge, and with pre-established instruments along any radial one can directly measure the light speed progress of real observable photons pouring from the charge, establishing the field at each point reached and continuously replenishing the field and its local energy density there at that point, thereafter. Yet no instrument known to man can detect any OBSERVABLE energy input to that "isolated" charge. The problem then is to explain where ALL EM field energy and ALL EM potential energy come from in the first place; i.e., what is the input to the associated charge(s) creating their EM fields and potentials? The answer simply is not present at all in the CEM/EE model, which implicitly just assumes that the source charges FREELY CREATE -- FROM NOTHING AT ALL -- all that continuously flowing real EM energy (all the EM energy in the universe). This assumption of course also assumes the falsification of the conservation of energy law -- and thus the annihilation of most of physics and thermodynamics. These are not "policy" problems; they are very serious foundations flaws and falsities. So the CEM/EE model that IEE uses and propagates has some known and very serious flaws! What is needed is for the IEE to simply do a deep model analysis of their own. I.e., simply compile a comprehensive listing of the implicit assumptions (often called axioms) in that 1880s model, and then perform an examination of modern physics to see which of those very old assumptions are still valid, and which have been falsified. Most of modern physics was discovered after that old model was stuck together in the 1880s, with Lorentz's arbitrary symmetrization (and thus his arbitrary discarding of ALL asymmetrical Maxwellian systems) completing most of the hatchet job in 1892. Lorentz then completed the final coup de grace circa 1900 or so, by arbitrarily discarding Heaviside's usually nondiverged but giant curled energy flow component, leaving only the very feeble diverged Poynting component. In other words, if they wish to be truly scientific and not just dogmatic, they must re-examine their own model themselves, without bias, in the light of the modern physics knowledge of electromagnetics OUTSIDE and beyond that very old CEM/EE model.
A simple example is -- as pointed out by Feynman in his three volumes
of
physics, published in 1964, and by other scientists -- that there is
no EM
force field in space, nor can there ever be one since force and force
fields
exist only in and of matter. So unless there is something somewhere I
missed, IEE does not even calculate the true force-free EM field in
space,
but only the EFFECT in and on charged matter of the ongoing
interaction of
that field in and on charged matter. Simply put, the real EM field in
space
is the PRECURSOR to the EM force field in charged matter.
And the ongoing interaction of th It is the very foundations of the CEM/EE model that are fouled up. One is not questioning the application of the model, once its foundations are accepted as true. But any errors in the foundations automatically nullify the applications of the flawed model. As an example regarding force fields in space, at least Jackson had the courage to point out that they simply assume the problem away. Quoting:
To easily show the falsity that is assumed, take the standard equation for the force in an E-field. The little equation is F = Eq. Now let E be nonzero, but the charged mass q be zero (for empty space). The F is zero and vanishes, although the E-field is still there but in the absence of charged matter. So if one assumes a force in the vacuum, one has automatically assumed the presence of matter -- in short, one is still accepting the old material luminiferous ether, long after it was experimentally falsified in 1887. Indeed, not a single equation of the CEM/EE model was changed to REMOVE the long-assumed material ether from the model, even after Michelson's and Morley's experimental falsification of the material ether. Nothing has been done to this day to remove that century-old falsity. That's just one example; there are many others. I gathered together a listing of these falsities (most of them pointed out by eminent scientists such as Feynman, Wheeler, Margenau, Bunge and many others) and made it available in this paper. Best wishes, Tom Bearden I am probably one of Mr Bearden's biggest fans. Long-story-short the Institute of Electrical Engineers here in the UK wants Mr Bearden to send his materials (Manuscripts) to be reviewed and see if they're "Fit for purpose" (are they kiddin'?) I don't really know what they'll do once they see how deep the rabbit hole is but at least they demonstrate that they are aware of how much action is needed. Please contact Mr Bearden and tell him to start sending Emails with his materials in the order he sees appropriate and start publishing his contacts with the IEE on his Website on the "Selected Correspondence" section Lets see what the IEE say and how much "Electrical Engineering " they actually practice; Please send it to Mr Graham Paterson (www.iee.org/policy) or (http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/epa). Also send my love and appreciation to Mr Bearden and his Wife and Family please. He changed my life forever Best Regards Jose P.S How about some T-Shirts with the "Energy for the Vacuum" logo? I'll be the first to buy them!!!! |