Displacement current

Everything about Robert Distinti's Ethereal Mechanics, New Electromagnetism theories and Q-Vector Algebra.
Paul-Piero
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2014 4:55 pm

Displacement current

Post by Paul-Piero » Wed Oct 22, 2014 11:22 am

Hello Sir,

On the displacement current when we write the relation

Rot H = J + dD/dt

where d should be read as partial derivative,

we have supposed that chargess are the originators of EM fileds

So if we are in an electric cable, we have J but not D
If we are in empty space, long enough from any gravitationnal field
this equation becomes:

Rot H = dD/dt because there is no cable

and we are in empty space, no field around there
so in the case of empty space the J term is no more included.

But in te space between two plates there's not displacement current , just energy accumulation.

ANy thoughts ?

User avatar
Distinti
Posts: 35
Joined: Tue May 06, 2014 8:18 pm

Re: Displacement current

Post by Distinti » Wed Oct 22, 2014 10:19 pm

We must remember that these equations (Maxwell's as written by Heaviside) were developed when electricity (And matter) was thought to be a continuous fluid

Because in the 1920s it was realized that electric current is comprised of discrete charged particles, then you can no longer write J+dD/dT because then you would obtain over unity

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGdXfPeTtE8

Paul-Piero
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2014 4:55 pm

Re: Displacement current

Post by Paul-Piero » Fri Oct 24, 2014 5:01 am

A displacement current exists even without the presence of "charges"

That is what hypothesized Maxwell and which lead to the 6 equations

rotE = - dB/dt , B = mu.H
rotH = dD/dt , D = epsilon.E

div D = rho , dib B = 0

These should be adapted to considered case
In space without influence of any gravitational mass, these are written with rho = 0

User avatar
Distinti
Posts: 35
Joined: Tue May 06, 2014 8:18 pm

Re: Displacement current

Post by Distinti » Wed Oct 29, 2014 12:07 am

Maxwell's Hypothesis of Displacement current is rotH =dD/dt only! The other equations predate Maxwell.

If displacement current does generate a magnetic field (rotH=dD/dt) then a dipole antenna could not radiate.

furthermore, rotE=-dB/dt contradicts Kirchhoff's law: rotE =0. Text book authors never show these two equations in the same chapter to avoid this "confusion" -- they claim that Kirchhoff's law is not valid for time varying systems and that is bull**** because engineers use Kirchhoff's law in A.C. circuit analysis (thank you Mr Tesla)

rotE=-dB/dt is incorrect for other reasons which are in the videos (this is actually the worst fraud)

The B field model of magnetism is inadequate to describe a magnetic field (its in the videos)

Maxwells plane wave equation derived from the above equations leads to blinking photons which violate conservation of energy (engineers do not use Maxwell's model of light, it gives wrong answers)

The only equations remaining which I have not found significant errors with are D=epsilon.E and divD = rho

D=epsilon.E is just a definition (the number of D lines per charge is arbitrary)

divD = rho basically states that D lines begin and end on charges; which means that dD/dt CAN ONLY BE generated by charges and your beginning statement would only be correct if rotH =dD/dt were true and it is most certainly not.

Finally, why is F=QvxB excluded! Maxwell's equations are touted as being complete!

You obviously spent a lot of time mastering these equations; however, it is time for you to walk away ( run!). Had you been an engineer who actually had to make a living using these models to produce real machines, you would ask for a refund from your university. The Radar Handbook contains none of these equations; it contains engineering approximations which more accurately reflect observed phenomenon.

SHHH, don't tell the Physicists!. We engineers enjoy their discovery shows about their loony-toons theories based on flawed models of nature. Like the Big-Bang theory (OVER-UNITY), or their model of the atom (PERPERTUAL MOTION MACHINE) or how they think that Black holes are singularities (Division by Zero is undefined everywhere except in physics) and the new one that the entire universe is projected from the edges of the universe by holographic projectors. These shows provide great comic relief between the more serious shows about paranormal investigators and UFO hunters.

I'm starting to ramble -- time to end this

Paul-Piero
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2014 4:55 pm

Re: Displacement current

Post by Paul-Piero » Sat Nov 01, 2014 1:30 pm

It seems as you didnt read with sufficient attention my previous message

The most important thing to note is that I place the observation in a referential attached to space, void space, [*] without ANY influence of gravitationnal field - Vg = Cte - G.M/r ~ 0 - I just say these 6 relations are valid one in that referential

This is why this set CANNOT be applied to a referential that contains matter,
In particular it cannot be applied as a referential modelfor the antenna for one evident reason,
inertial mass and em are related.

Hoping reading more

[*] this particular referential is called a Spatial Inertial Referential

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest