Best Recent Content
I vote for "Wave Mechanics" at first place, "Vectors and Matrices" at second.
And I wish if you would use the rest of the time for preparing a lot of Ethereal Mechanics videos, so when the New Math will be released, you can quickly release those too. The other topics you listed are interesting too, but in my opinion, not the highest priority now. (Eg.: we can criticize politics, but nothing we can change about it, however, if we had a usable knowledge of physics, we could design a lot of new electronic stuff, design materials on the atomic level, etc.)
About wave mechanics: it would be interesting to see the correction of the superposition principle. When two coherent waves hit the target on the same surface area, we get an interference pattern, where energy is conserved. But what happens when two coherent waves hit the target in a very small angle?
- If they meet 180° out of phase, the current superposition principle suggests that energy is destroyed. (Mechanical waves simply bounce back on each other in this case, so the superposition principle is not correct.)
- If they meet in phase, the current superposition principle suggests that energy is created (doubled), which is clearly wrong too.
Another thought experiment with electromagnetic waves (IR light): We take a near black body material sheet (A), and we coat it using another material (B) which is transparent in the range of 1 µm - 100 µm, but have a high refractive index (like thermal camera lens). We have a layer of air (C) on this sheet, then another (uncoated) sheet of near black body material (D). Material "A" radiates isotropically independent of direction (but inside of the coating), so some part of the light (emitted in low angles) will be reflected back from the surface between "B" and "C". Sheet "D" also radiates isotropically independent of direction, but inside air "C", and most of this light goes through the surface between "C" and "B", and finally hits sheet "A". If this is all true, then we get a temperature difference between sheet "A" and "D", where "A" will be warmer, "D" will be colder. Thus we constructed a Maxwell's demon, which makes Lord Kelvin angry. So, where is the mistake in this thought experience?
By the way, I hate in physics and electronics, that everybody measures light sources by wavelength instead of frequency. Wavelength is dependent on the medium, but frequency is the property of the source (independent of the conducting medium).
The drawing is misleading because in reality the tides are much higher further from the equator. Further, the drawing is obviously wrong as the acceleration of the water from earth's gravity would be much greater than the moon from the greater mass and proximity. Earth's gravitational pull is much greater than the moon but diminishes relative to the moon where the vector of the moon from the surface is perpendicular ie far north or far south. (Where the vector is at right angle to the center of the earth the acceleration of the water towards the moon is unaffected by the earth's gravity). At perpendicular the acceleration of the water towards the moon is greatest and the acceleration can be calculated by the gravitational formula. Perhaps after correcting the lies taught in school about tides then we can turn to your analysis. I agree the vortex supplies a better explanation for the tide on the far side of the earth.
This is the first set of simulations (11) that will be referened in the Transvariance Paper.
This video follows the content of chapter 2 of the paper
This will be made public Xmas Day
My name is Joe Tavares, I’m a recently retired professional electrical engineer.
I have designed 3 free energy devices and they are offered for free and are open source:
A high voltage homopolar generator consumes 0.1 kw and produces 30 kw electrical power.
A no back emf motor consumes 0.05 kw and produces mechanical power equivalent to 20 kw.
A electromagnetic thruster lifts 1000 kg against gravity and consumes 0.2 kw.
In the link to my youtube channel there are videos with detailed design instructions and explanations on how they work.
Regarding the candidate for the missing term for NEV5:In the experiments in the video D004 New electromagnetism demonstration, it was demonstrated that a wire moving towards or outwards from a magnet at rest results in an induction and corresponds to term #2 in NEV5 equation. Also demonstrated was a magnet moving towards or outwards from a wire at rest results in an induction and corresponds to term #3 in NEV5 equation. What was not demonstrated is what would happen if the wire and the magnet moved together. The wire is placed on the side of the magnet and moving both the wire and the magnet together sideways. Counter intuitively, an induction will still occur. Could this be the missing term in the NEV5 equation. It could be expressed as follow: A Target charge and a Source current element with the current direction perpendicularly and parallel to the page moving together sideways results in a force on the Target charge in the SAME direction as the current direction if the charge is on the LEADING side of the current element with respect to the sideways movement or results in a force on the Target charge in the OPPOSITE direction as the current direction if the charge is on the LAGGING side of the current element with respect to the sideways movement. Note: I’m using electrical engineering definition for current direction. Therefore a Force in a direction results in induced current flow in opposite direction.
Hi Robert,Have you seen videos of Norm Wildberger?(Related: -- "How to construct the (true) complex numbers I | Famous Math Problems 21a | N J Wildberger")His description:This channel aims to explain a lot of interesting mathematics to a broad audience, to introduce exciting new research directions for geometry, and to fix some of the logical weaknesses of modern pure mathematics. You'll find playlists on Rational Trigonometry (much simpler, more powerful), Linear Algebra, Algebraic Topology, History of Mathematics, Universal Hyperbolic Geometry (a complete new treatment of this subject, a YouTube first!), the Foundations of Mathematics (it needs fixing) and even an elementary introduction to K-6 mathematics. I (N J Wildberger) am a professional mathematician, BSc U. Toronto 1979, PhD Yale 1984 and currently Assoc Prof at UNSW, with over 40 papers, one book, and a love of teaching.(My emphasis)Two people: I watch videos one and him!My poor communication since of stroke in Nov 2020 -- Aphasia. My brain now independently [speech]--[written]--[hear]. Before, used "[speech/hear/written]". Like a foreign language. My brain not translated (many words) my voice to my written -- I use Google Translate for (my) voice-to- (my) text! Other voice to my ear - my brain not translated some words. !!Weird!!Sincerely,Ray Delaforce
Our Robert Distinti and everybody.I don't know who e-mail list, but you must interestingI'll put it here:
This evident discrepancy of the experimental data with respect to the theoretical data should make us doubt about the validity of Quantum electrodynamics (QED). However, it seems that no one is willing to question the validity of the QED and the scientific community prefers to propose new hypotheses to solve the discrepancy (new elementary particles, new fundamental forces, etc ...).
A year ago, we already anticipated this situation and published this paper:
"Quantum electrodynamics (QED) is considered the most accurate theory in the history of science. However, this precision is based on a single experimental value: the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron (g-factor). An examination of QED history reveals that this value was obtained using illegitimate mathematical traps, manipulations and tricks. These traps included the fraud of Kroll & Karplus, who acknowledged that they lied in their presentation of the most relevant calculation in QED history. As we will demonstrate in this paper, the Kroll & Karplus scandal was not a unique event. Instead, the scandal represented the fraudulent manner in which physics has been conducted from the creation of QED through today." (12 pag)
The paper is fun to read and is already in the Vixra Top 500. But if you think that vixra is an unreliable source and the tone of the paper is too rude for your taste, you can also read a more objective and polite version published in ARXIV: "The Unpublished Feynman Diagram IIc"
Here is paper:
I thought you might find this interesting or at least entertaining, so I decided to create an account and post this link. What he talks about should have overlaps with subjects you are interested in. He is basically an electrical engineer who branced off into fields like spirituality etc. I personally don't have enough knowledge or understanding to evaluate his theories compared to distintis though, I'm more of a skimmer when it comes to those subjects.
Crazy scientist and electrical engineer Dan Winter
We are going to start an Open-Source-Hardware project about Robert's Ethereal Mechanics Experiments! What we really need are exact drawings and 3D models of each experiment.
We are using Onshape as CAD and Collaboration tool to design Paradox Generators and the Railgun Experiments.
With a free account (www.onshape.com click "Create Account" and "I'm a hobbyist or maker") you can create public documents and invite other users work with you in real time. No need to install anything, just use a compatible browser (Chrome, Firefox, Safari, Opera)!
I think this is the perfect tool to capture the complete information so everyone in the world can recreate the experiments.
You can also make copies of the complete designs and vary the size of the experiment. This could help generate more experimental data to verify the simulation models!
Here is a preview of the Paradox 1: https://cad.onshape.com/documents/87781 ... 10915ad05a
Robert Distinti -- 50 years old.
I have a Masters in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science -- specialty is Electromagnetic Physics
My day job is a Software Engineer so that there is no conflict of interest.
Ethereal Mechanics started 20 years ago (this summer) when I read that researchers discovered that the spring force in a spring is due to Coulomb forces. This stopped me in my tracks because the capacitor (which is also operated by coulomb forces ) is the electric analog for the spring. By symmetry I surmised that the inductor (which is the analog of a "mass") must be the mechanism of Inertia.
Finding a link between inertia and electricity was the missing link that Einstein was looking for.
It took me a while to realize that Faraday's "Law" was ridiculous -- A Model of electromagnetism that does not apply to point charges? Seriously?
There had to be a better model for inductance, that research let to the New Inductance Model and then to the New Magnetism model.
I kept pulling on the thread -- and now the emperor has no clothes.
Hope you enjoy this Blog. Many Thanks to Sebastian for this effort.