Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?

[Joshua Cude]

On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 3:08 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax 
 wrote:

Lomax>>> The world is so complex that math can be useless, unless
simplifying assumptions are made. It is certain simplifying assumptions that
led to the conclusion that QM predicts that LENR is impossible. This was
already a problematic assumption, because we already knew of a three-body
example where fusion is known to take place, muon-catalyzed fusion, so the
question then naturally arises if there might be other "exceptions."



Cude>> What? Muons are exceptional in nature, and muonic atoms are exotic,
but muon-catalyzed fusion in no way represents an exception to standard QM.


Lomax>Nor did I claim so. It's an exception to the oft-stated claim that
fusion at room temperature is impossible.


I will repeat my response to this from elsewhere, since I know you say you
don't read most of my posts.


You are hung up on muons, but it's not as persuasive as you think. At least
not for me.


Look, absolute statements are rarely absolute. To be accurate, they usually
requires some qualification. But often these qualifications are not stated
explicitly because the context makes it obvious.


For example, I might say I can't walk on water, and people will understand
the implied qualifications that I mean I can't walk on liquid water with
ordinary footwear at ordinary speed. Of course I and my audience will be
fully aware that I can walk on ice, and that some people can skim on water
on skis (or even barefoot) behind a fast boat, and others will believe that
Jesus can walk on water, and so on,  but this doesn't make my statement
operationally false, except in a pedantic, irrelevant way. No one will say,
that since I can walk on ice, *maybe* I can also walk on liquid water in
ordinary footwear, at normal speed, without divine power.


In the case of fusion, everyone who says fusion at room temperature violates
known theory, is fully aware that muon catalyzed fusion at room temperature
is possible, and that fusion with an accelerator at room temperature is
possible, and that deuterium fusion at room temperature occurs, but at a
vanishingly small rate. What they mean, and what most people will
understand, since they also know these things, is that fusion in ordinary
matter at room temperature, without accelerating the particles, (i.e. in the
context of a CF experiment) is predicted to be far too rare to produce
useful heat.


The point these people are trying to make is that CF as claimed violates
theory, so bringing up muon catalyzed fusion which is consistent with
theory, hardly negates the claim.


Just because the statement as spoken, is in some literal sense, false,
doesn't mean the intended message as understood by the audience becomes
false.


It's a complete red herring


> The only connection here is that if one form of catalysis is possible,
with one catalyst, there might be others, unknown to us.


Of course there is always a possibility that there are things unknown to us.
The point of the skeptics is that it is highly unlikely, just like it is
highly unlikely that a rock will fall up instead of down if I drop it, and
the existence of muon catalyzed fusion has no bearing on that.


> In fact, even if we didn't know about MCF, the principle that there might
be something unknown is solid,


Exactly. So you agree the MCF is a red herring.



>> Physics is also extraordinarily successful at describing mathematically
the properties of materials, crystals, and lattices, just the sort of
environment cold fusion is supposed to take place in.


> Actually, not quite, apparently.


Apparent only if you believe the CF claims.



>> That's revisionist balderdash. They were clueless about nuclear physics,
and expected to find fusion, and said as much in interviews after the fact.


> I'd love it if Cude would point to that.


They spent 5 years looking for excess heat. I seriously doubt they were only
interested in the science, or that they expected to find nothing. That
scenario certainly doesn't come across in their early papers or in their
early interviews. They sounded more like prescient sages who discovered what
arrogant physicists missed. In an interview on Macneil Lehrer in 1989 he
said "It is this enormous compression of the species in the lattice [which
he earlier said was 10^27 atmospheres] which made us think that it might be

feasible to create conditions for fusion in such a simple reactor."


> They were looking for fusion, yes, but they understood very well that
"nuclear physics," i.e., existing assumptions, based on certain
approximations, predicted that it would be unobservable. Ever hear of
testing hypotheses, Cude?


Sure, but there is not enough time to test all conceivable hypotheses, so
one has to choose wisely.


Existing nuclear physics did not just predict that fusion would be
unobservable, but that it was 30 orders of magnitude below observable.


If P&F were really interested in the science, and not being seduced by free
energ

Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?

[Mauro Lacy]

> On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 8:25 PM, Mauro Lacy  wrote:
>> The
>> fact
>> that you have an explanation, and that it seems to coincide with my
>> ideas
>> about both, the electric and magnetic fields,
>> and the aether, does not mean that that explanation is accepted and
>> mainstream.
>
> You might consider studying Don Hotson and his idea of the epo field
> relating to PAM Dirac and the sea of negative energy to find some
> insight.

Thank you. I realized recently that a better idea is to start by studying
(and clearly understanding) the standard explanations first. I'm now
studying electromagnetic theory, via MIT OCW courses. Afterwards I'll take
the courses on General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics.

Regards,
Mauro

Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?

[John Berry]

I know the calculations exist, but that is not my forte.

What can we detect from the magnetic component of an EM wave?

What we detect is the electric force it places of charges, this force is
orthogonal to the magnetic field and is identical to the electric component.
In other words the only way we can detect the magnetic component is from
detecting the electric component.

And if the magnetic component was not present, how would you know?

Everything would be the same, for instance if you had just the electric
component of an EM wave (transmitted from a wire antenna) and you had a
magnetic particle such as a tiny permanent magnet which creates a magnetic
field in the same way as a tiny electromagnet would. (only the size of an
electron orbit)

Then you would expect to notice a force on this tiny magnet, however the
force you get would infact be manifested as an electric force on the
electrons.
And if you looked as it, the electric force on the electrons would make
sense as the force on the electrons that are moving toward the source would
be forced up while the ones moving away would be forced down.

And if we were to look at what happens when we thrust a wire towards one
carrying a current we would find a voltage induced into it, that is how
generators work and why motors have back EMF.
If we move the wire away the electrons would be induced in the opposite
direction.

Ok, so why is this electric force created? Well the distortion of the
electric field of the electrons in the wire is complex as they are moving
and you are moving toward them, if you look at the path they take you are
closer to each electron as it moves away.

Ok, so now I can explain this however it just occurred to me how this could
be explained.
Imagine you are approaching a train, the train is spraying water from
several hoses straight out and you are walking towards this.
The water hits you, first from your left then the right as the train is
moving by, because you are approaching the train you get more wet on your
right side because when each hose passes by your right side you are closer
than when it was spraying at your left side.

This means that if the train was negatively charged these negative charges
would have more effect on your right side, this would induce a current in
you that would push electrons to your left side.
This is the same direction you would expect a current to be induced.

Now I'll admit, I have no equations on any of this.
I thought of all this myself thinking I had made a breakthrough only to
learn that this has been known for a very long time and apparently the
equations have been done.

Maybe the equations wouldn't add up? At any rate I'm not the person to find
out.

But I would think it very strange that they didn't, seriously what are the
odds of the same (except in magnitude) electric forces being created by
Magnetism and by motion distorted electric fields being a coincidence?

I'll admit I could be wrong, but you really must weigh up the evidence...

All sources of magnetic fields are moving charges/electric fields.
Magnetic fields are only felt as an orthogonal electric field, which is to
say it only effects charges and the direction is Dependant on their sign &
motion.
Analysis of how motion should distort electric fields creates predictions of
forces the same as those expected from magnetic analysis and according to
those who are able to calculate these the magnitude is the same.

You and I should be able to come to agreement on all but the issue of
magnitude which I can't hope to work out and will just take the word of
those who apparently can and have said it adds up.

Sure, when you hold a magnet and a piece of iron it takes some effort to do
away with the illusion of a magnetic field and it is far easier than trying
to work it out electrically.
But if you want to you can explain it all based on electric fields being
distorted.


On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 8:07 AM, Mark Iverson  wrote:

>  So you are postulating that:
>  "What mainstream calls a magnetic field is really a 'relativistically
> distorted electric field'."
>
> Okay, that's a good start...
> But then you say,
> "...ignoring the fact that I have already essentially proven that magnetic
> fields are non-existant..."
>
> I'm afraid that simply asserting that you've "proven" something doesn't fly
> on this forum...
> What you have done is postulated an alternative explanation, and that is
> what I was looking for, and is certainly out the box thinking, however, it
> is NOT PROOF of what you are postulating.  Can you provide some specific
> examples with calculations???  Are there any examples where your
> theoretical framework explains aspects of electromagnetics that current
> theory does not???
>
> -Mark
>
> --------------------------
> *From:* John Berry [mailto:aethe.

Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?

[Terry Blanton]

On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 8:25 PM, Mauro Lacy  wrote:
> The
> fact
> that you have an explanation, and that it seems to coincide with my ideas
> about both, the electric and magnetic fields,
> and the aether, does not mean that that explanation is accepted and
> mainstream.

You might consider studying Don Hotson and his idea of the epo field
relating to PAM Dirac and the sea of negative energy to find some
insight.

T

Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?

[Mauro Lacy]

Sorry, I was away during the weekend.
I think the same as you about the electric and magnetic fields(they both 
are aspects of the same thing). And I have stated it clearly in other 
mails, by the way.
I just wanted to hear, and was trying to understand, the standard 
explanation. If you think that that is beating a dead horse, I disagree. 
The fact
that you have an explanation, and that it seems to coincide with my 
ideas about both, the electric and magnetic fields,
and the aether, does not mean that that explanation is accepted and 
mainstream.


Regards,
Mauro

On 05/29/2011 07:00 AM, John Berry wrote:

Ok, as you might guess from my email address I very much disagree that the
aether was proven false, nothing of the sort.  Only a static Aether was
found to have evidence against it.

Secondly if you still want to know why Electric and Magnetic fields are
perpendicular in an EM wave etc... then you are ignoring the fact that I
have already essentially proven that magnetic fields are non-existant and
only a convenient was to understand how relativistically distorted electric
fields manifest.

So it is like asking why I am perpendicular to that dark guy lying on the
floor where I am standing by a light at night, how come we are always
perpendicular when I am standing on the floor.
If I have told you that it just looks like a man but it is just my shadow do
you really need to keep on being curious when you now understand precisely
how it comes to be that way?

I can show you every example where magnetic forces arise are due to electric
fields/forces that are distorted by movement that creates precisely the same
force we expect and get magnetically.
Quite a co-incidence.

If you choose to ignore the simple logical truth that makes sense then it is
likely you are really just practicing mysticism, and IMO there are plenty of
real mysteries to work out, no need to create them where none exists.

Electrons spin and orbit, Nucleus's spin, and distort their electric fields
doing so and should create the forces that we experience with permanent
magnets.
Wires attract and repel in theory as experienced.



On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 1:26 AM, Mauro Lacy  wrote:

   

On 05/27/2011 07:50 PM, Charles Hope wrote:

 

I suppose we are all somewhere on the conservative/crank spectrum. I think
physics is a difficult place for novel thought because the current models
are so excellent. Yet mysteries do remain. However I didn't know that Cooper
pairs was one of them.


But I see the difficulty in our communication. I take epistemic issue with
the idea that there can be a mathematical model without true understanding.
If we have a model, it behooves us to twist our minds into understanding
that! There is no understanding but the use of a valid model.


   

Exactly. And once you understood it, you stick with it because "it just
works". You almost never question it at the philosophical or epistemological
level. During most of the last century, there was a lot of confusion,
introduced by Relativity theory, about the concept of time, by example.

The case of the aether is also paradigmatic: when the results of some
experiments were not the expected ones, the aether was disregarded, and
relativity theories appeared. Nobody, or almost nobody, took the time to
reflect at the philosophical level on what had happened, and as a
consequence, a lot of confusion ensued. What had happened was that the
mechanical model of the aether was found to be false by experiment. As a
replacement, purely mathematical models were quickly introduced, which
agreed with the experiments. But those models were now devoid of physical
meaning. Just the general idea of "relativity", and of "all is relative"
popped up, and stuck like a grand revelation. That happened during most of
the last century, and is still happening.
That philosophical thinking is still lacking, and it's coming from
outsiders like me, because "real scientists" are so busy trying to
understand the math first, and to apply for grants and publish later, that
they don't have time to really reflect and think.

Philosophy was disregarded(a big mistake) in the name of results and
predictive power. The other consequence of the increasing complexity and the
quest for results was super-specialization. You have to be an expert to be
able to talk with authority and understanding about something. And when you
finally study to be an expert in one field, you cannot talk about anything
else! Moreover: you mostly lost the ability to relate and correlate
knowledge from different fields of knowledge.

That is an unfortunate state of affairs, and we can say that a great part
of the decadence of the western culture we experience today is related to
our urge for control only from the mechanistic perspective.

Regards,
Mauro


 
   

Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 04:31 AM 5/29/2011, Joshua Cude wrote:
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 10:09 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax 
<a...@lomaxdesign.com> wrote:


Lomax>The world is so complex that math can be useless, unless 
simplifying assumptions are made. It is certain simplifying 
assumptions that led to the conclusion that QM predicts that LENR is 
impossible. This was already a problematic assumption, because we 
already knew of a three-body example where fusion is known to take 
place, muon-catalyzed fusion, so the question then naturally arises 
if there might be other "exceptions."



What? Muons are exceptional in nature, and muonic atoms are exotic, 
but muon-catalyzed fusion in no way represents an exception to standard QM.


Nor did I claim so. It's an exception to the oft-stated claim that 
fusion at room temperature is impossible.


 In fact, the phenomenon was predicted theoretically before it was 
observed. The reaction rates fit the calculations perfectly.


Right. That's because it's a very simple reaction, comparatively.

 The fusion reactions follow expected branches. The production of 
muons for the purpose is understood. Everything makes sense. This 
was all understood in the 1950s. The only way this can be 
bootstrapped to explain CF is if you claim electrolysis, or 
deuterium absorption in Pd, or hydrogen absorption in Ni produces 
exotic nuclear particles, a process just as unlikely as any other 
proposed mechanism for nuclear reactions producing useful heat.


I do not cite MCF to "explain CF," only to point out the foolishness 
of blanket impossibility statements. There are exceptions. How many? 
We knew one in 1989. We also knew other exceptions to the claim that 
nuclear effects were not possible at room temperature.


MCF was proposed as possibly related. That wasn't a tenable idea. The 
only connection here is that if one form of catalysis is possible, 
with one catalyst, there might be others, unknown to us.


In fact, even if we didn't know about MCF, the principle that there 
might be something unknown is solid, and is the basis for new 
research, which, properly, is always looking for anomalies.


> Physics only uses math in the interpretation of results, in the 
development of theories, and some of these theories, applied in 
simplified situations -- such as plasma conditions -- are 
extraordinarily successful, amazingly accurate. As long as you stay 
away from messy situations, like the stuff that we live with all the time.



Physics is also extraordinarily successful at describing 
mathematically the properties of materials, crystals, and lattices, 
just the sort of environment cold fusion is supposed to take place in.


Actually, not quite, apparently. But the world moves on and my ideas 
might become obsolete. Takahashi has proposed that deuterons 
occasionally would form a tetrahedral symmetric configuration, where 
four deuterons, with electrons, so this could be considered two D2 
molecules, are arranged tetrahedrally. He *calculates* -- math -- 
that if this configuration arises (and this probably requires that 
the relative temperature of the four deuterons is close to absolute 
zero, my guess), it will collapse within a femtosecond and fuse 
within a femtosecond, to form Be-8. Be-8 normally decays within, as I 
recall, a femtosecond to form two helium nuclei. However, what 
happens after collapse and fusion has not been well-described by 
Takahashi. So there are two big problems with this theory, in spite 
of the math.


1. How does the TSC condition form? The approach is closer than two 
molecules will ordinarily manage, because if they approach at the 
cross-wise configuration that would, if the vectors continued, lead 
them to TSC, the repulsive forces from the electrons would break 
apart the molecules. Thus, for TSC to form, there must be some force 
resisting dissociation. The lattice, I presume. And has anyone 
calculated all the forces and times involved? Not to my knowledge. 
The math is very difficult, apparently.


2. What happens inside a Bose Einstein Condensate, if fusion takes 
place that results in a single excited nucleus? The electrons are 
part of the BEC, I think? What will that Be-8 nucleus do? Takahashi, 
at one point, predicted that it would radiate energy in a series of 
transitions down to the ground state, up until it fissions? Does 
being inside a BEC change the half-life? Does it change how the 
energy is distributed?


And this is just one theory. Kim has published a different approach, 
also using BECs.


I don't think the math has been done to examine the range of possible 
behaviors in Pd-D. For one thing, the environment is quite complex. 
Some think that oxides are involved, and it's a surface effect. It 
may happen only in lattice defects, not in the lattice itself. I'm 
not at all convinced that most research in the field is being 
published; consider that Rossi apparently worked for years. Consider 
Pons and Fleischmann them

RE: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?

[Mark Iverson]

So you are postulating that:
 "What mainstream calls a magnetic field is really a 'relativistically 
distorted electric field'."
 
Okay, that's a good start...
But then you say,
"...ignoring the fact that I have already essentially proven that magnetic 
fields are
non-existant..."
 
I'm afraid that simply asserting that you've "proven" something doesn't fly on 
this forum...
What you have done is postulated an alternative explanation, and that is what I 
was looking for, and
is certainly out the box thinking, however, it is NOT PROOF of what you are 
postulating.  Can you
provide some specific examples with calculations???  Are there any examples 
where your theoretical
framework explains aspects of electromagnetics that current theory does not???

-Mark


  _  

From: John Berry [mailto:aethe...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, May 29, 2011 3:00 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?



Ok, as you might guess from my email address I very much disagree that the 
aether was proven false,
nothing of the sort.  Only a static Aether was found to have evidence against 
it.


Secondly if you still want to know why Electric and Magnetic fields are 
perpendicular in an EM wave
etc... then you are ignoring the fact that I have already essentially proven 
that magnetic fields
are non-existant and only a convenient was to understand how relativistically 
distorted electric
fields manifest.

So it is like asking why I am perpendicular to that dark guy lying on the floor 
where I am standing
by a light at night, how come we are always perpendicular when I am standing on 
the floor.

If I have told you that it just looks like a man but it is just my shadow do 
you really need to keep
on being curious when you now understand precisely how it comes to be that way?

I can show you every example where magnetic forces arise are due to electric 
fields/forces that are
distorted by movement that creates precisely the same force we expect and get 
magnetically.
Quite a co-incidence.

If you choose to ignore the simple logical truth that makes sense then it is 
likely you are really
just practicing mysticism, and IMO there are plenty of real mysteries to work 
out, no need to create
them where none exists.

Electrons spin and orbit, Nucleus's spin, and distort their electric fields 
doing so and should
create the forces that we experience with permanent magnets.
Wires attract and repel in theory as experienced.

 

On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 1:26 AM, Mauro Lacy  wrote:


On 05/27/2011 07:50 PM, Charles Hope wrote:


I suppose we are all somewhere on the conservative/crank spectrum. I think 
physics is a difficult
place for novel thought because the current models are so excellent. Yet 
mysteries do remain.
However I didn't know that Cooper pairs was one of them.


But I see the difficulty in our communication. I take epistemic issue with the 
idea that there can
be a mathematical model without true understanding. If we have a model, it 
behooves us to twist our
minds into understanding that! There is no understanding but the use of a valid 
model.
  



Exactly. And once you understood it, you stick with it because "it just works". 
You almost never
question it at the philosophical or epistemological level. During most of the 
last century, there
was a lot of confusion, introduced by Relativity theory, about the concept of 
time, by example.

The case of the aether is also paradigmatic: when the results of some 
experiments were not the
expected ones, the aether was disregarded, and relativity theories appeared. 
Nobody, or almost
nobody, took the time to reflect at the philosophical level on what had 
happened, and as a
consequence, a lot of confusion ensued. What had happened was that the 
mechanical model of the
aether was found to be false by experiment. As a replacement, purely 
mathematical models were
quickly introduced, which agreed with the experiments. But those models were 
now devoid of physical
meaning. Just the general idea of "relativity", and of "all is relative" popped 
up, and stuck like a
grand revelation. That happened during most of the last century, and is still 
happening.
That philosophical thinking is still lacking, and it's coming from outsiders 
like me, because "real
scientists" are so busy trying to understand the math first, and to apply for 
grants and publish
later, that they don't have time to really reflect and think.

Philosophy was disregarded(a big mistake) in the name of results and predictive 
power. The other
consequence of the increasing complexity and the quest for results was 
super-specialization. You
have to be an expert to be able to talk with authority and understanding about 
something. And when
you finally study to be an expert in one field, you cannot talk about anything 
else! Moreover: you
mostly 

RE: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?

[Mark Iverson]

John:
I think you will find that many regular contributors on this list are of the 
same mind, in that they
consider as a real possibility the existence of some kind of aether.  There are 
numerous alternative
aether-based hypotheses, but the mainstream scientific community doesn't have 
much interest in
them... I have subscribed to a journal called 'Galilean Electrodynamics' for 
over 15 years, and they
have published numerous such articles.  Perhaps you should consider submitting 
an article to them
for publication... they focus on experimental papers that contradict relativity 
theory, but are
happy to publish theoretical papers as well.
 
Part of my motivation for posting the original question as to the 
perpendicularity of E & M fields,
is to stimulate a little out of the box thinking, as the vast majority of 
postings since Jan 14 have
been Rossi-related or debating a pathological skeptic who speaks in 
generalities and doesn't have
the guts to use his real name...
 
-Mark

  _  

From: John Berry [mailto:aethe...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, May 29, 2011 3:00 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?


Ok, as you might guess from my email address I very much disagree that the 
aether was proven false,
nothing of the sort.  Only a static Aether was found to have evidence against 
it.



Secondly if you still want to know why Electric and Magnetic fields are 
perpendicular in an EM wave
etc... then you are ignoring the fact that I have already essentially proven 
that magnetic fields
are non-existant and only a convenient was to understand how relativistically 
distorted electric
fields manifest.

So it is like asking why I am perpendicular to that dark guy lying on the floor 
where I am standing
by a light at night, how come we are always perpendicular when I am standing on 
the floor.

If I have told you that it just looks like a man but it is just my shadow do 
you really need to keep
on being curious when you now understand precisely how it comes to be that way?

I can show you every example where magnetic forces arise are due to electric 
fields/forces that are
distorted by movement that creates precisely the same force we expect and get 
magnetically.
Quite a co-incidence.

If you choose to ignore the simple logical truth that makes sense then it is 
likely you are really
just practicing mysticism, and IMO there are plenty of real mysteries to work 
out, no need to create
them where none exists.

Electrons spin and orbit, Nucleus's spin, and distort their electric fields 
doing so and should
create the forces that we experience with permanent magnets.
Wires attract and repel in theory as experienced.

RE: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?

[Mark Iverson]

Jones said:
   "Maybe I can make this clearer with a bit more contemplation ..."

Contemplation and a Brain Enhancing ElixiR should do the trick!
Or is it too early...
:-)

-Mark

<>

RE: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?

[Jones Beene]

Very thoughtful answer ...

... in fact the part about shear strain density seems to have relevance to
what I was trying to verbalize wrt the interplay between temperature,
electrical conductivity and mechanical strain in a few alloys: especially
constantan and similar strain gauge alloys. 

Hope this is not reading too much into your comments but the net effect of
electrothermal dynamics in a few alloys seems to be what can be called
"ghost current" in the sense of the anomalous energy across the alloy being
a function of Ohm's law: for instance where (E = .045 volt / R= 5 x 10-6)
and the resultant current I = 9,000 amps, yet without the expected physical
effects. This is an actual measurement, according to Dotto's patent.

IOW - as surprising as it may seem, this exact subject area has relevance to
a possible mechanism for enthalpy in a metal hydride devices (perhaps
including the Rossi device) when the active material has a negative
temperature coefficient of resistance. That is, when one assumes that to
avoid conservation of energy problems, there is access to a hidden source of
energy (ZPE) based on the precise physical dynamic of the hydride materials
at the correct nano-geometry.

Maybe I can make this clearer with a bit more contemplation ...

Jones


From: jwin...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au 
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?

Mark Iverson wrote: Just wanted to throw out a question to the Vort
Collective... 
In an EM wave, why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular to
each other? 

The answer to the question is really quite simple and it comes from our
definition of what these fields are - which is in turn dictated by what we
can measure with instruments.  The most fundamental quantity related to
these fields that nature seems to possess is a 3 dimensional time varying
charge displacement field whose dynamic characteristics are excellently
described by Maxwell's equations and whose definition seems most completely
given by the two components which are conventionally called the vector and
scalar potentials.  However to date we are unable measure either of these
components directly, but can only measure their differentials - eg the rate
of change of scalar potential with distance (= electric field) and the
integral around a loop (ie "curl") of the vector potential (= magnetic
field).  It turns out that when this charge displacement field is
propagating in a vacuum, these  two components are naturally perpendicular
because they are orthogonal components (in a mathematical sense) of the one
entity.  One might just as well ask "why is length always perpendicular to
breadth?".  The answer would be simply that it is a convenient way to
measure and define two independent components of a useful quantity called
"area"!

To provide an intuitive illustration of an EM wave one might imagine a long
steel rod, one end of which is suddenly given a sharp torsional jerk or
twist.  This torsional displacement wave is a pure shear wave as there is no
compression or rarefaction associated with it, and it will propagate along
the rod from one end to the other as a coherent entity and at at
characteristic speed determined only by the density of the material and its
shear modulus (spring coefficient).  If the mass displacement in the
material is equated to the charge displacement in the vacuum then (I think!)
this becomes a very good analogy of an EM wave propagating in a vacuum.  The
reason I have chosen torsional waves is because as far as we know the vacuum
only supports charge based shear waves (ie displacement perpendicular to
propagation.  Experiments seem to prove that the vacuum does not support
charge based pressure waves - ie displacement parallel to propagation as in
sound waves  - which is very surprising and remarkable I think!)

If we now consider a small volume of the steel rod at its surface and
analyze the stresses and strains in that volume, then we can always identify
two conjugate quantities that between them support an oscillation and due to
their distributed nature support the wave propagation.  An analogous
quantity to the vector potential (charge proximity times its velocity per
unit volume) I think would be the linear momentum density (mass times
velocity per unit volume).  So the analogous quantity to the magnetic field
is the mathematical "curl" of this - which is how much rotational component
is present in this momentum.  This is very closely related to (and possibly
exactly equal to) the *angular* momentum density.  The direction of angular
momentum is always specified by the axis about which the quantity is
revolving - and so in the case of this small volume at the surface of the
rod, this axis is perpendicular to the surface of the rod.

The analogous quantity to the electric field (or electric displacement) I
think would be the shear strain density (ie how much the material i

Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?

[jwinter]

On 5/25/2011 1:12 AM, Mark Iverson wrote:

Just wanted to throw out a question to the Vort Collective...
In an EM wave, why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular 
to each other?
The answer to the question is really quite simple and it comes from our 
definition of what these fields are - which is in turn dictated by what 
we can measure with instruments.  The most fundamental quantity related 
to these fields that nature seems to possess is a 3 dimensional time 
varying charge displacement field whose dynamic characteristics are 
excellently described by Maxwell's equations and whose definition seems 
most completely given by the two components which are conventionally 
called the vector and scalar potentials.  However to date we are unable 
measure either of these components directly, but can only measure their 
differentials - eg the rate of change of scalar potential with distance 
(= electric field) and the integral around a loop (ie "curl") of the 
vector potential (= magnetic field).  It turns out that when this charge 
displacement field is propagating in a vacuum, these  two components are 
naturally perpendicular because they are orthogonal components (in a 
mathematical sense) of the one entity.  One might just as well ask "why 
is length always perpendicular to breadth?".  The answer would be simply 
that it is a convenient way to measure and define two independent 
components of a useful quantity called "area"!


To provide an intuitive illustration of an EM wave one might imagine a 
long steel rod, one end of which is suddenly given a sharp torsional 
jerk or twist.  This torsional displacement wave is a pure shear wave as 
there is no compression or rarefaction associated with it, and it will 
propagate along the rod from one end to the other as a coherent entity 
and at at characteristic speed determined only by the density of the 
material and its shear modulus (spring coefficient).  If the mass 
displacement in the material is equated to the charge displacement in 
the vacuum then (I think!) this becomes a very good analogy of an EM 
wave propagating in a vacuum.  The reason I have chosen torsional waves 
is because as far as we know the vacuum only supports charge based shear 
waves (ie displacement perpendicular to propagation.  Experiments seem 
to prove that the vacuum does not support charge based pressure waves - 
ie displacement parallel to propagation as in sound waves  - which is 
very surprising and remarkable I think!)


If we now consider a small volume of the steel rod at its surface and 
analyze the stresses and strains in that volume, then we can always 
identify two conjugate quantities that between them support an 
oscillation and due to their distributed nature support the wave 
propagation.  An analogous quantity to the vector potential (charge 
proximity times its velocity per unit volume) I think would be the 
linear momentum density (mass times velocity per unit volume).  So the 
analogous quantity to the magnetic field is the mathematical "curl" of 
this - which is how much rotational component is present in this 
momentum.  This is very closely related to (and possibly exactly equal 
to) the *angular* momentum density.  The direction of angular momentum 
is always specified by the axis about which the quantity is revolving - 
and so in the case of this small volume at the surface of the rod, this 
axis is perpendicular to the surface of the rod.


The analogous quantity to the electric field (or electric displacement) 
I think would be the shear strain density (ie how much the material is 
displaced in shear per unit distance along the rod and per unit 
volume).  This shear displacement of course occurs in a direction which 
is tangential to the surface of the rod and about its axis - that being 
the direction that we applied the initial jerk.


So here we have the magnetic field (angular momentum density) which is 
perpendicular to the surface of the rod, and the electric field (shear 
strain density) which is tangential to the surface of the rod, and both 
of these two are perpendicular to the direction of propagation of the 
wave along the axis of the rod.  Now you can see that these two fields 
are simply mathematically orthogonal energy components of the single 
entity which is the wave motion.  They are perpendicular only because of 
the interacting components and their definitions that we have chosen to 
describe the wave in terms of - in this case "angular momentum" (kinetic 
energy) and "shear strain" (potential energy) components.


If we chose instead to describe an EM wave in terms of its vector 
potential (*linear* momentum density) and its electric field (shear 
strain density) then these components would still be mathematically 
orthogonal but they would be *parallel* in space.  (They must always 
however be perpendicular to the direction of propagation because EM 
radiation supports axes of polarization.)  So the conjugate fields of an 

Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?

[John Berry]

Ok, as you might guess from my email address I very much disagree that the
aether was proven false, nothing of the sort.  Only a static Aether was
found to have evidence against it.

Secondly if you still want to know why Electric and Magnetic fields are
perpendicular in an EM wave etc... then you are ignoring the fact that I
have already essentially proven that magnetic fields are non-existant and
only a convenient was to understand how relativistically distorted electric
fields manifest.

So it is like asking why I am perpendicular to that dark guy lying on the
floor where I am standing by a light at night, how come we are always
perpendicular when I am standing on the floor.
If I have told you that it just looks like a man but it is just my shadow do
you really need to keep on being curious when you now understand precisely
how it comes to be that way?

I can show you every example where magnetic forces arise are due to electric
fields/forces that are distorted by movement that creates precisely the same
force we expect and get magnetically.
Quite a co-incidence.

If you choose to ignore the simple logical truth that makes sense then it is
likely you are really just practicing mysticism, and IMO there are plenty of
real mysteries to work out, no need to create them where none exists.

Electrons spin and orbit, Nucleus's spin, and distort their electric fields
doing so and should create the forces that we experience with permanent
magnets.
Wires attract and repel in theory as experienced.



On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 1:26 AM, Mauro Lacy  wrote:

> On 05/27/2011 07:50 PM, Charles Hope wrote:
>
>> I suppose we are all somewhere on the conservative/crank spectrum. I think
>> physics is a difficult place for novel thought because the current models
>> are so excellent. Yet mysteries do remain. However I didn't know that Cooper
>> pairs was one of them.
>>
>>
>> But I see the difficulty in our communication. I take epistemic issue with
>> the idea that there can be a mathematical model without true understanding.
>> If we have a model, it behooves us to twist our minds into understanding
>> that! There is no understanding but the use of a valid model.
>>
>>
>
> Exactly. And once you understood it, you stick with it because "it just
> works". You almost never question it at the philosophical or epistemological
> level. During most of the last century, there was a lot of confusion,
> introduced by Relativity theory, about the concept of time, by example.
>
> The case of the aether is also paradigmatic: when the results of some
> experiments were not the expected ones, the aether was disregarded, and
> relativity theories appeared. Nobody, or almost nobody, took the time to
> reflect at the philosophical level on what had happened, and as a
> consequence, a lot of confusion ensued. What had happened was that the
> mechanical model of the aether was found to be false by experiment. As a
> replacement, purely mathematical models were quickly introduced, which
> agreed with the experiments. But those models were now devoid of physical
> meaning. Just the general idea of "relativity", and of "all is relative"
> popped up, and stuck like a grand revelation. That happened during most of
> the last century, and is still happening.
> That philosophical thinking is still lacking, and it's coming from
> outsiders like me, because "real scientists" are so busy trying to
> understand the math first, and to apply for grants and publish later, that
> they don't have time to really reflect and think.
>
> Philosophy was disregarded(a big mistake) in the name of results and
> predictive power. The other consequence of the increasing complexity and the
> quest for results was super-specialization. You have to be an expert to be
> able to talk with authority and understanding about something. And when you
> finally study to be an expert in one field, you cannot talk about anything
> else! Moreover: you mostly lost the ability to relate and correlate
> knowledge from different fields of knowledge.
>
> That is an unfortunate state of affairs, and we can say that a great part
> of the decadence of the western culture we experience today is related to
> our urge for control only from the mechanistic perspective.
>
> Regards,
> Mauro
>
>

Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?

[Joshua Cude]

On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 2:53 AM, Mark Iverson  wrote:

>Don't you get any enjoyment from creative, out-of-the-box thinking?

You're right. I shouldn't have weighed in on this subject, but I couldn't
resist when you said:


"With all the sophistication and accuracy to umpteen decimal places in
atomic physics/QM, how come we

can't explain WHY they're perpendicular! "


because the people who make calculations to the umpteenth decimal place use
mathematics, and they would argue that they can explain why the fields are
perpendicular using the same mathematics, based on some very fundamental
principles. So the fact that *they* make accurate calculations, and that
there is no explanation for perpendicular fields that satisfies *you* is not
really a conundrum.

Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?

[Joshua Cude]

On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 10:09 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
wrote:

Lomax>The world is so complex that math can be useless, unless simplifying
assumptions are made. It is certain simplifying assumptions that led to the
conclusion that QM predicts that LENR is impossible. This was already a
problematic assumption, because we already knew of a three-body example
where fusion is known to take place, muon-catalyzed fusion, so the question
then naturally arises if there might be other "exceptions."


What? Muons are exceptional in nature, and muonic atoms are exotic, but
muon-catalyzed fusion in no way represents an exception to standard QM. In
fact, the phenomenon was predicted theoretically before it was observed. The
reaction rates fit the calculations perfectly. The fusion reactions follow
expected branches. The production of muons for the purpose is understood.
Everything makes sense. This was all understood in the 1950s. The only way
this can be bootstrapped to explain CF is if you claim electrolysis, or
deuterium absorption in Pd, or hydrogen absorption in Ni produces exotic
nuclear particles, a process just as unlikely as any other proposed
mechanism for nuclear reactions producing useful heat.


> Physics only uses math in the interpretation of results, in the
development of theories, and some of these theories, applied in simplified
situations -- such as plasma conditions -- are extraordinarily successful,
amazingly accurate. As long as you stay away from messy situations, like the
stuff that we live with all the time.


Physics is also extraordinarily successful at describing mathematically the
properties of materials, crystals, and lattices, just the sort of
environment cold fusion is supposed to take place in.


> Fleischmann and Pons were quite aware of this, and they agreed, but they
also knew that it was possible, even probable, that there was *some
deviation* from expected fusion cross-section in condensed matter.
Fleischmann has written that he expected this to be below measurement
accuracy, that he and Pons expected failure to find anything.


That's revisionist balderdash. They were clueless about nuclear physics, and
expected to find fusion, and said as much in interviews after the fact.


> So what now? I'm willing to bet a significant chunk of my net worth on
Rossi being real,


That's what he's counting on.

RE: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?

[Mark Iverson]

I explicitly stated my point in the last paragraph... and there were only 2 
paragraphs, so I'm at a
loss as to how you could have missed it.
Here it is again...
 
"Mathematics is an extremely diverse field, and much of it is abstract and/or 
has absolutely NO
relation to any real physical manifestations.  It is my contention that some 
critical aspects of
mainstream physical theories contain such abstract mathematical constructs... I 
think it would be
quite fruitful to re-examine theoretical concepts with a fresh approach based 
on rational physical
constructs."
 
In addition, a subsequenct post goes into much more detail...
 
I don't reject current theories, I just think that much better ones could be 
found...

-Mark

 
  _  

From: Charles Hope [mailto:lookslikeiwasri...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, May 27, 2011 3:26 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc: 
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?


Not to be troublesome, but if you're looking for a mathematical answer, but you 
don't want the one
based on our best understanding (relativity and electrostatics) then I'm even 
more confused about
what your question meant. 


At least if you were asking for a philosophical metaphysical answer, your 
rejection of Cude's essay
would make sense. 



Sent from my iPhone. 

On May 27, 2011, at 1:58, "Mark Iverson"  wrote:



With all the interaction that JC has had on this discussion group, he should be 
well aware that most
contributors on this list are probably at least as knowledgeable as he, and 
probably much more so.
His statement about "the language of physics is math" is obvious. And CH's 
suspicions are wrong...
"I suspect that the sort of answer that Mark seeks could not be written 
mathematically." 
Of course it could be written mathematically!
 
Mathematics is an extremely diverse field, and much of it is abstract and/or 
has absolutely NO
relation to any real physical manifestations.  It is my contention that some 
critical aspects of
mainstream physical theories contain such abstract mathematical constructs... I 
think it would be
quite fruitful to re-examine theoretical concepts with a fresh approach based 
on rational physical
constructs.

-Mark



  _  

From: Charles Hope [mailto:lookslikeiwasri...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 7:54 AM
To:  <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?



On May 26, 2011, at 4:09, Joshua Cude < <mailto:joshua.c...@gmail.com> 
joshua.c...@gmail.com> wrote:



 The language of physics is math. 






This is a deep statement, worth unpacking. It means that if an idea can't be 
written mathematically,
it is not physics. I suspect that the sort of answer that Mark seeks could not 
be written
mathematically. 

Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?

[Mauro Lacy]

On 05/27/2011 07:50 PM, Charles Hope wrote:

I suppose we are all somewhere on the conservative/crank spectrum. I think 
physics is a difficult place for novel thought because the current models are 
so excellent. Yet mysteries do remain. However I didn't know that Cooper pairs 
was one of them.


But I see the difficulty in our communication. I take epistemic issue with the 
idea that there can be a mathematical model without true understanding. If we 
have a model, it behooves us to twist our minds into understanding that! There 
is no understanding but the use of a valid model.
   


Exactly. And once you understood it, you stick with it because "it just 
works". You almost never question it at the philosophical or 
epistemological level. During most of the last century, there was a lot 
of confusion, introduced by Relativity theory, about the concept of 
time, by example.


The case of the aether is also paradigmatic: when the results of some 
experiments were not the expected ones, the aether was disregarded, and 
relativity theories appeared. Nobody, or almost nobody, took the time to 
reflect at the philosophical level on what had happened, and as a 
consequence, a lot of confusion ensued. What had happened was that the 
mechanical model of the aether was found to be false by experiment. As a 
replacement, purely mathematical models were quickly introduced, which 
agreed with the experiments. But those models were now devoid of 
physical meaning. Just the general idea of "relativity", and of "all is 
relative" popped up, and stuck like a grand revelation. That happened 
during most of the last century, and is still happening.
That philosophical thinking is still lacking, and it's coming from 
outsiders like me, because "real scientists" are so busy trying to 
understand the math first, and to apply for grants and publish later, 
that they don't have time to really reflect and think.


Philosophy was disregarded(a big mistake) in the name of results and 
predictive power. The other consequence of the increasing complexity and 
the quest for results was super-specialization. You have to be an expert 
to be able to talk with authority and understanding about something. And 
when you finally study to be an expert in one field, you cannot talk 
about anything else! Moreover: you mostly lost the ability to relate and 
correlate knowledge from different fields of knowledge.


That is an unfortunate state of affairs, and we can say that a great 
part of the decadence of the western culture we experience today is 
related to our urge for control only from the mechanistic perspective.


Regards,
Mauro

Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?

[Terry Blanton]

On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 2:36 PM, Terry Blanton  wrote:
> You are not going to like my answer:  "Because it is their nature."



> Now Brian Greene would have me say "Because it is their nature in this
> universe."

Do you know Brian and why he would have me say that?  If so, you would
understand my answer to your question.

T

Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?

[Charles Hope]

Doesn't take a genius to
> see that these two entities would just want to couple together naturally! 
> Cooper-pair.  
> 
> The Point being...
> The behavior in this case is simply a result of the makeup of the physical 
> structures.
> 
> Is there any doubt that one could find a mathematical model for this physical 
> model???  No doubt at
> all... And it would probably be a whole lot simpler and easily extensible 
> compared to what we have
> now.
> 
> What is missing from much of physical theory is a physical model first... 
> Before the mathematics.
> After relativity and QM came along, the mathematical physicists began to 
> dominate theoretical
> physics and the importance of having a foundation of a physical model 
> disappeared.
> 
> -Mark
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Charles Hope [mailto:lookslikeiwasri...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2011 5:48 PM
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Cc: 
> Subject: Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?
> 
> How about giving a few examples of the sort of answer you'd find satisfactory?
> 
> 

Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?

[Charles Hope]

Not to be troublesome, but if you're looking for a mathematical answer, but you 
don't want the one based on our best understanding (relativity and 
electrostatics) then I'm even more confused about what your question meant. 

At least if you were asking for a philosophical metaphysical answer, your 
rejection of Cude's essay would make sense. 



Sent from my iPhone. 

On May 27, 2011, at 1:58, "Mark Iverson"  wrote:

> With all the interaction that JC has had on this discussion group, he should 
> be well aware that most contributors on this list are probably at least as 
> knowledgeable as he, and probably much more so.  His statement about "the 
> language of physics is math" is obvious. And CH's suspicions are wrong...
> "I suspect that the sort of answer that Mark seeks could not be written 
> mathematically." 
> Of course it could be written mathematically!
>  
> Mathematics is an extremely diverse field, and much of it is abstract and/or 
> has absolutely NO relation to any real physical manifestations.  It is my 
> contention that some critical aspects of mainstream physical theories contain 
> such abstract mathematical constructs... I think it would be quite fruitful 
> to re-examine theoretical concepts with a fresh approach based on rational 
> physical constructs.
> -Mark
> 
> 
> From: Charles Hope [mailto:lookslikeiwasri...@gmail.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 7:54 AM
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Subject: Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?
> 
> 
> On May 26, 2011, at 4:09, Joshua Cude  wrote:
> 
>>  The language of physics is math. 
>> 
> 
> This is a deep statement, worth unpacking. It means that if an idea can't be 
> written mathematically, it is not physics. I suspect that the sort of answer 
> that Mark seeks could not be written mathematically. 

Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 04:21 AM 5/27/2011, Josef Karthauser wrote:

I also suspect that not all the necessary maths needed to describe 
all possible physical phenomena has not been invented yet.


It's worse than that. In my lifetime, chaos theory developed, it was 
realized that there are situations where there may be infinite 
dependence upon initial conditions, where, between two sets of 
initial conditions with a similar outcome, there is another initial 
condition with very different outcome. In other words, to predict 
outcome, you would have to have perfect measurement of initial conditions.


If initial conditions are quantized, i.e., if there is only a finite 
set of initial conditions, then, maybe, this problem disappears. 
However, even if that's the case, the quantization would be very, 
very small, and the hope of realizing measurement to this accuracy in 
systems beyond the very small could be vain. 

Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 10:53 AM 5/26/2011, Charles Hope wrote:

On May 26, 2011, at 4:09, Joshua Cude 
<joshua.c...@gmail.com> wrote:



 The language of physics is math.


This is a deep statement, worth unpacking. It means that if an idea 
can't be written mathematically, it is not physics. I suspect that 
the sort of answer that Mark seeks could not be written mathematically.


Cude is representing the hold-over of the deterministic model of the 
world that has actually been largely rejected, the clockwork concept. 
Yes, most physics went to "math," however, there is a problem. The 
world is so complex that math can be useless, unless simplifying 
assumptions are made. It is certain simplifying assumptions that led 
to the conclusion that QM predicts that LENR is impossible. This was 
already a problematic assumption, because we already knew of a 
three-body example where fusion is known to take place, 
muon-catalyzed fusion, so the question then naturally arises if there 
might be other "exceptions."


In the case of MCF, the reaction behaves similarly to how normal hot 
fusion, overcoming the Coulomb barrier by brute force, behaves, such 
as branching ratio and ash composition. (He-3, tritium, and various 
radiations).


But would an "unknown mechanism" also produce the same branching? 
What if it goes through a Be-8 intermediary, for example, what if it 
is not 3 body but is 4 body or more complex? The math gets horrific, 
quickly, with 3-body problems and higher.


Chemistry also uses math, but the foundation of chemistry is not 
math, it is observation. Physics only uses math in the interpretation 
of results, in the development of theories, and some of these 
theories, applied in simplified situations -- such as plasma 
conditions -- are extraordinarily successful, amazingly accurate. As 
long as you stay away from messy situations, like the stuff that we 
live with all the time.


In theory, physics should be able to predict chemistry, entirely. 
Feynman taught me not to hold my breath waiting for this!


But 1989 physicists were quite confident that physics predicted CF, 
in the complex condensed matter environment, was impossible. 
Fleischmann and Pons were quite aware of this, and they agreed, but 
they also knew that it was possible, even probable, that there was 
*some deviation* from expected fusion cross-section in condensed 
matter. Fleischmann has written that he expected this to be below 
measurement accuracy, that he and Pons expected failure to find 
anything. But they decided to test this.


Then the damn thing melted down. They never again saw that level of 
heat, but, then again, they didn't try. Having your experiment melt 
down, burning a hole not only through the lab bench but also a few 
inches into the concrete floor may seem exciting, but what if they 
had gotten even more heat? They scaled down, and so has everone else 
working on this, plus they may have been -- probably were -- 
extremely lucky, that result was outside the normal envelope. There 
have been a few explosions, and one fatality, from smaller 
experiments. The fatality was apparently not due to the F-P effect, 
it was a recombination explosion in a closed cell, always a hazard. 
There have been, I think, two other explosions, that may not have 
been due to recombination, but this is all speculation at this point.


Rossi cells, reportedly, have exploded. They should not explode, from 
the chemistry. However, a runaway heat reaction might create some 
spectacular effects. Skillful design should avoid this, and what 
would be needed for this is not public knowledge. What would be 
needed would be, for example, the behavior of the cell, precisely 
measured, at a controlled range of internal temperatures. Rossi is 
not about to release this information until he has full patent 
protection. He's certainly not going to release it because of the 
cries of pseudoskeptics that this isn't "science."


It isn't science. Get over it! It's engineering and business. We 
can't do much physics on this, not as to the reaction, there isn't 
anywhere near enough information to do more than blather (in any 
direction, skeptical or "gullible.")


I'm sitting here trying to figure out how to make money on this. I 
may lose money on my investment in Pd-D, though probably not much 
(those materials won't collapse in value, they have appreciated 
already for reasons completely unrelated to the success of cold 
fusion). In 1989, seeing the announcement, and being quite aware that 
it might be a flop, I bought $10,000 worth of palladium, held in a 
metals account at Credit Suisse. Later, I sold it, approximately 
breaking even, when it appeared that, indeed, it was a flop. Had I 
held the palladium and sold it at the peak, I'd have made a 900% 
return on my investment, by the way. If I held it beyond that point, 
it would have become, say now, only vrey roughly 200%, off the top of 
my head. Not bad. Better than the stock mark

Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?

[Josef Karthauser]

On 26 May 2011, at 15:53, Charles Hope  wrote:

> On May 26, 2011, at 4:09, Joshua Cude  wrote:
> 
>>  The language of physics is math. 
>> 
> 
> This is a deep statement, worth unpacking. It means that if an idea can't be 
> written mathematically, it is not physics. I suspect that the sort of answer 
> that Mark seeks could not be written mathematically. 

I also suspect that not all the necessary maths needed to describe all possible 
physical phenomena has not been invented yet.

Joe

RE: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?

[Mark Iverson]

Don't you get any enjoyment from creative, out-of-the-box thinking?
Do you simply accept hook line and sinker what establishment teaches you?
If that's the case, then what are you doing on vortex?  :-)

Most here are quite familiar with 'textbook' physics, and that it is quite a 
useful set of rules...
It has put men on the moon and millions of transistors on a very small slab of 
sand!!  However, most
here also realize that there are significant problems with it, and the whole 
purpose is to explore
those problems... If you haven't figured it out yet, this isn't a mutual 
admiration society for
establishment thinking. ;-) 

Now to get to your question:
   "How about giving a few examples of the sort of answer you'd find 
satisfactory?"

I know this is going to really stretch your brain cells, and will likely cause 
undue stress, but you
asked...

We were all taught that the fundamental particles that make up an atom are 
electrons, protons and
neutrons... and that there was this concept of electrical 'charge'... And that 
electrons had a
negative charge and protons a positive charge... And that like charges repel, 
unlike attract.  So
far, pretty basic stuff.

Then we discover Cooper pairs... two electrons bound together! WTF  The 
fundamental RULE says
that like charges repel!!!  Gee, I guess that RULE isn't quite reflective of 
ALL electron
interactions!  My contention is that the lack of a physical model has resulted 
in an incomplete
mathematical model; a mathematical model that eventually is violated by some 
new observation... So
then the theorists work feverishly, perhaps for decades, trying to manipulate 
and modify and
'renormalize' their equations in order to explain the new observation.  Well, 
chances are good they
will succeed, NOT because they are right, but because mathematics is such a 
diverse field that they
eventually succeed in shoving a square peg into a round hole.  But, it may or 
may not result in true
understanding!  If that was the case, then we would have been able to explain 
superconductivity by
now... And yet it has been studied intensively for many decades and they still 
don't know WTF is
going on... Why?  Because they are starting with a flawed, abstract model for 
the electron!

Back to the example of what I'd find satisfactory...
Here's a simple physical (not mathematical) model which would allow for the 
existence of two like
charges being attracted/bound to one another...
Assume that the vacuum of space is a medium which is under tremendous pressure 
and has extremely low
viscosity when it comes to movement within that 'medium'.  Set up an 
oscillation in this medium, and
you could see a very fast, periodic oscillation between a higher-pressure area 
and a lower-pressure
area... Not unlike the compressional waves in air or water, but with a twist 
that there is a form of
surface tension that restricts the higher/lower pressure areas to a small 
spherical area.  Another
image that comes to mind, although not entirely accurate, is the oscillations 
of a water droplet in
zero-G. Now visualize the electron as a kind of dumb-bell shaped structure, or 
dipole shaped if that
sounds more sophisticated, one end being the higher pressure area and the other 
the lower pressure
area... The higher and lower pressure areas are NOT static, but are oscillating 
in a linear fashion,
and its happening so fast that we cannot possibly discern their true physical 
manifestation.  Now
imagine two of these coming near each other but their high/low pressure areas 
are 180 degrees out of
phase... One's HP area is next to the others LP area and vice-a-versa... 
Doesn't take a genius to
see that these two entities would just want to couple together naturally! 
Cooper-pair.  

The Point being...
The behavior in this case is simply a result of the makeup of the physical 
structures.

Is there any doubt that one could find a mathematical model for this physical 
model???  No doubt at
all... And it would probably be a whole lot simpler and easily extensible 
compared to what we have
now.

What is missing from much of physical theory is a physical model first... 
Before the mathematics.
After relativity and QM came along, the mathematical physicists began to 
dominate theoretical
physics and the importance of having a foundation of a physical model 
disappeared.

-Mark


-Original Message-
From: Charles Hope [mailto:lookslikeiwasri...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2011 5:48 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc: 
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?

How about giving a few examples of the sort of answer you'd find satisfactory?

RE: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?

[Mark Iverson]

With all the interaction that JC has had on this discussion group, he should be 
well aware that most
contributors on this list are probably at least as knowledgeable as he, and 
probably much more so.
His statement about "the language of physics is math" is obvious. And CH's 
suspicions are wrong...
"I suspect that the sort of answer that Mark seeks could not be written 
mathematically." 
Of course it could be written mathematically!
 
Mathematics is an extremely diverse field, and much of it is abstract and/or 
has absolutely NO
relation to any real physical manifestations.  It is my contention that some 
critical aspects of
mainstream physical theories contain such abstract mathematical constructs... I 
think it would be
quite fruitful to re-examine theoretical concepts with a fresh approach based 
on rational physical
constructs.

-Mark

  _  

From: Charles Hope [mailto:lookslikeiwasri...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 7:54 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?



On May 26, 2011, at 4:09, Joshua Cude  wrote:



 The language of physics is math. 






This is a deep statement, worth unpacking. It means that if an idea can't be 
written mathematically,
it is not physics. I suspect that the sort of answer that Mark seeks could not 
be written
mathematically. 

RE: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?

[Harvey Norris]

Pioneering the Applications of Interphasal Resonances 
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/

--- On Wed, 5/25/11, Mark Iverson  wrote:

From: Mark Iverson 
Subject: RE: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Date: Wednesday, May 25, 2011, 8:34 PM



 
 
 
John:
 
Let me ask a few questions so I can better understand what 
you're proposing...
 
What is your interpretation of the magnetic moment 
present in all elementary particles 
where electrical currents don't even 
come into play?
 
Of course atoms can be affected by a magnetic field... 
this is the basis upon which NMR works!!!
 

There is no electrical current in a permanent magnet, yet, 
they generate a magnetic field..
Found a spot here to make comment. A permanent magnet probably has by theory 
cohered axis of unpaired electron spins in one direction. Similarly the 
ferromagnetic field pole faces of a car alternator will have a collection of 
random directions of unpaired electron spins,(it is not magnetized); but during 
the process of macroscopic spin some of those random  electron spins in 3D 
space will be tilted by application of gyroscopic principles, with the net 
result that many spins in one orientation will occur and the ferromagnetic 
material appears to be magnetized to a weaker degree then what can ordinarily 
achieved when the associated field windings are employed to make the second 
primary influence of obtaining a rotating electromagnet as the primary input of 
an alternator. In the following video a neon requiring over 500 volts for 
ignition is obtained from rotation of an unmagnetized field.
http://youtu.be/FAc3jQziicc
Video Records from 10/21/10;  Again unbeknowst to me, at this point in 
time I was unaware that the 9 coil system providing 3 phases of resonant
 voltage rise, was in fact mistuned. I only discovered this later when 
attempting to film the reactance test. It is in this mistuned state that
 apparently because of the mutual induction wiring inherent in the 666 
configuration, one of the three interphasal voltages will be literally 
in excess of 180 degrees phase angle difference in time, whereby the 
resultant voltage is greater then the summation of its component 
voltages which is certainly a paradox.  Because of this imbalance, two 
of the phases will gain more resonant voltage rise seemingly at the 
expense of the remaining phase 2. Irregardless of the fact that the 
system is mistuned, these four videos investigate the addition of not 
only three high induction coil resonances to the three interphasal 
voltage rises, but also a fourth one connected in a one wire manner from
 the third resonance. The sequence can be properly termed a magnifier 
principle as it can be demonstrated that the free vibration established 
on the fourth coil in the unloaded state is greater than the source of 
its vibrations. When the neon is added as a load between the third and 
fourth reaction vibrations, where the fourth vibration is presumably 
made both by the loose magnetic coupling with the dual adjacent 70 lb 
larger coil of 68.5 H; which in turn has its water capacity enclosed in 
the core volume of the 60.5 H coil using a plexiglass capacity for its 
resonance. It is this reaction vibration connected by one wire means 
that then in turn is reduced below the source of its vibrations after 
powering the neon load between them.  All of these effects are made from
 rotational magnetism alone where the field of the alternator is not yet
 enpowered.  In the video the water capacity value used for the third 
vibration on the 68.5 H coil is diminished by raising its central 
electrode out of the dielectric but paradoxically its resonance is not 
disabled. The sequence of coil placements as interphasal loadings is 
covered in further videos.

This video in itself seems to open a can of worms. I had noticed in the making 
of these alternator resonant circuits several peculiarities. For example 
identical values of measured capacity may be constructed, one a plexiglass flat 
plate capacity and the other the mentioned axial water capacity. Now when that 
required capacity is tested for resonance by adding a equally opposite 
inductive reactance,( the high induction coils) each C value gives different 
performance as q factor voltage rise. It was noticed that for induction ending 
circuits where the coil is used as an air core secondary that the flat plate 
capacity was inferior to the axial one, but if wafers of styrofoam were placed 
atop the capacity, this increased its performance. How can this be when that 
dielectric is not in the area between the plates? In the video Mr. Kitical is 
able to take the circuit out of resonance by sitting on the top plate of a 
plexiglass capacity, but when I go in there
 and start altering the C value by removing the rod of the cylindrical water 
capacity, no results are seen until the rod is entirely removed? Here are some  

RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?

[Roarty, Francis X]

Frank,
The math exceeds my skill set but I agree matter is real from a 
WSM or standing wave perspective and I even understand your posit that SR pops 
out of varying this phase angle. My only comment is regarding the semantic 
issues that always accompany this topic. One could argue that the phase angle 
ALWAYS remains precisely 90 degrees in the frame of the local observer or the 
frame of the observed and the phase of which you speak is by definition a 
relative measure  between the different  frames of the observer and observed - 
unable to exist in a local measurement between objects in the same frame.
Regards
Fran

From: fznidar...@aol.com [mailto:fznidar...@aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 10:11 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields 
perpendicular?


They are not.  If you vary the phase angle all of Special Relativity pops out.

http://www.wbabin.net/science/znidarsic.pdf


Frank Znidarsic

Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?

[Charles Hope]

On May 26, 2011, at 4:09, Joshua Cude  wrote:

>  The language of physics is math. 
> 

This is a deep statement, worth unpacking. It means that if an idea can't be 
written mathematically, it is not physics. I suspect that the sort of answer 
that Mark seeks could not be written mathematically. 

Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?

[fznidarsic]

They are not.  If you vary the phase angle all of Special Relativity pops out.


http://www.wbabin.net/science/znidarsic.pdf




Frank Znidarsic





 

Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?

[Mauro Lacy]

On 05/26/2011 05:09 AM, Joshua Cude wrote:

On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 7:33 PM, Mark Iverson  wrote:

   

Robin hits the nail on the head... Anything mathematical is the MODEL, and
 

is supposed to reflect physical reality.  My question was about the physical
world -- what I was asking got was a rational, qualitative, cause and effect
sort of explanation.


Nothing is more rational than a mathematical description of reality, and it
provides cause and effect. I'll grant that it is not a qualitative
explanation, and doesn't give the answer to the ultimate question of life,
the universe, and everything (42), but science starts from observation, and
uses that to predict consequences. For any explanation, you can always keep
asking, as a child does, "but why?". Why gravity? Why Newton's law? Why
general relativity? The best we can do is find the most fundamental
observation, and until more fundamental ones come along, try to explain what
we see based on those. So, I took it back to Coulomb's law and special
relativity. All of the laws of electromagnetism can be derived from those
two concepts, including the reason for the perpendicular fields in an em
wave. But it is a mathematical development. The language of physics is
math.
   


Thanks for your detailed explanation. I suppose it's as good as it can 
be, based on classical existing theory, and without using math.
Can you provide some reference for the above derivation, namely, the 
derivation of Maxwell's laws from Coulomb's law and special relativity?


I was thinking last night about  the radiative component that appears 
when an electrostatic charge is accelerated. That radiative component 
is  proportional and perpendicular to the acceleration vector. Do you 
think that it can be related to the perpendicular nature of the magnetic 
field, or it has nothing to do at all?

...


Now, if you want to know why Coulomb's law, and why relativity, you're on
your own.
   


Maye "we" can attempt that later :-)

Regards,
Mauro

Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?

[Joshua Cude]

On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 7:33 PM, Mark Iverson  wrote:

> Robin hits the nail on the head... Anything mathematical is the MODEL, and
is supposed to reflect physical reality.  My question was about the physical
world -- what I was asking got was a rational, qualitative, cause and effect
sort of explanation.


Nothing is more rational than a mathematical description of reality, and it
provides cause and effect. I'll grant that it is not a qualitative
explanation, and doesn't give the answer to the ultimate question of life,
the universe, and everything (42), but science starts from observation, and
uses that to predict consequences. For any explanation, you can always keep
asking, as a child does, "but why?". Why gravity? Why Newton's law? Why
general relativity? The best we can do is find the most fundamental
observation, and until more fundamental ones come along, try to explain what
we see based on those. So, I took it back to Coulomb's law and special
relativity. All of the laws of electromagnetism can be derived from those
two concepts, including the reason for the perpendicular fields in an em
wave. But it is a mathematical development. The language of physics is
math.



> The perpendicular nature of E and B fields existed PRIOR to Maxwell, or
even cavemen, or even life on this planet!


Obviously. I certainly didn't say anything different. I said Maxwell's
equations were developed from laboratory experiments, and they predict that
the fields in electromagnetic waves are perpendicular. (Not that E and B
field are always perpendicular, because they aren't.)



> I'm afraid that this reflects very poorly on JC's understanding of what is
more fundamental, the experiment (physical reality, facts) or model
(theory).


I'm sorry you misunderstood what I wrote. I was not suggesting that reality
was a consequence of theory. But when you ask why something is so, without
specifying what can be taken as understood, then it is a little difficult to
answer.


For example, one can ask why are planetary orbits elliptical. And another
might answer because of the inverse-square law of gravity, and proceed to
prove the connection mathematically. Some questioners, who are satisfied
with Newton's law as fundamental, might be happy with the explanation.
Others, like you, might object that that is putting theory before reality:
"Sure, I know that, but I want a qualitative explanation for why Newton's
law exists." That's a very different question, and asking about elliptical
orbits is perhaps not the most direct way to get at fundamental origin of
gravity.



> JC has shown a great ability to regurgitate what he has read in his
textbooks, in great detail, but his responses to this simple question seems
to indicate that he hasn't any idea of the difference between physical
reality and the mathematical models that attempt to explain what is
observed.


First, if this is a simple question, what is your answer?


Second, I regret that I gave the impression that Maxwell's equations are
anything but a mathematical description of what we observe. They were
developed using certain observations, but then they were used to predict (or
explain) other observable phenomena, like the perpendicular nature of the
fields in waves. As I said before, the perpendicular nature *in waves* was
not known or observed before Maxwell. And fields are not necessarily
perpendicular; only induced fields are.


Coming back to the elliptical orbits, they were in fact observed and known
before Newton, and expressed empirically in Kepler's laws. Before Newton, if
someone asked why elliptical, one could cite Kepler's laws, but in this
case, the law does little more than state what is observed: orbits are
elliptical, so it would really be case of begging the question. There was a
mad race to find a more fundamental reason for Kepler's laws, and Newton won
that race. More fundamental explanations for gravity would take centuries.


As for your question, I started with the superficial answer. Electromagnetic
fields can sustain themselves in the absence of sources because of
reciprocal induction (changing E induces B, changing B induces E), and in
laboratory experiments induction is observed to  produce perpendicular
fields.


But I also went further and said that the existence of those laws of
induction stems from Coulomb's inverse-square law and special relativity,
but I made no attempt to connect them. And I also made no attempt to explain
why Coulomb's law, or why relativity.


Evidently, what you wanted was the reason for the laws of induction, for
Faraday's law, and for the generalized form of Ampere's law.


So let me try a little gedanken experiment that gives some sense of the
perpendicular nature of the fields from Coulomb's law and relativity. It
kind of explains the origin of magnetism, but is not a perfect explanation
for induction. That would be more difficult.


Consider two positive charges moving parallel in the laboratory. In the
reference frame 

Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?

[Joshua Cude]

On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 6:35 PM,  wrote:


>>Maxwell's equations were developed to describe laboratory electricity and

>magnetism experiments.


>...from which the peculiar perpendicular nature of the phenomenon was
already

evident.



Not really. Electric and magnetic fields in the laboratory do not need to be
perpendicular. The question was about em waves, and why they are
perpendicular in waves. The reason was only partly evident pre-Maxwell in
Faraday's law which indicates that induced electric fields are perpendicular
to the changing magnetic field.


The understanding that electromagnetic waves are possible required Maxwell's
generalization of Ampere's law (his displacement current) which postulated
that a changing electric field would also induce a perpendicular magnetic
field. This was not observed directly, but only postulated based on the
symmetry of the two fields and the ambiguity in Ampere's law as it stood.


With this addition, the back-and-forth induction between electric and
magnetic fields was recognized, and the displacement current was verified
only by the observation of electromagnetic waves.


So, the reason the fields in a wave are perpendicular is because the wave is
sustained by induced fields, and induced fields are perpendicular to the
inducing field.


Of course I know, and wrote in the first post, that this merely pushes the
question back to why are induced fields perpendicular. Why Faraday's law?
Faraday's law (and all of Maxwell's equations) exist because of Coulomb's
law and relativity, but unfortunately, the connection is not a simple one to
visualize. Then, why Coulomb's law and relativity…



>>The equations also require that the field are perpendicular.


> I think that was already evident from the experiments, and the maths was

designed specifically to encompass this fact (otherwise it would have
yielded

incorrect results).


Again, this is only partly true. The fields don't have to be perpendicular.
Only induced fields do, and a wave consists of induced fields, since they
can exist in the absence of sources. Since the question was specifically
about waves, the explanation comes from Faraday's and the generalized
Ampere's laws. If he wanted to know why induced fields must be
perpendicular, i.e. why those laws exist, he could have asked that.



> Note that Maxwell actually brought together the work done by a number of
others

and created an encompassing mathematical treatment of their work, but the

perpendicular aspect was already in that work.



And I said as much in the first post. You must have missed it, which is
understandable, since it was pretty dry, and perhaps not explicit enough.
Here's what I said, with a small clarification bracketed:


"Now, you can ask why induced fields are perpendicular, or what is the
reason for Faraday's law. Historically, of course, these laws [like
Faraday's law, discovered by others] (Maxwell's laws collectively) were
discovered empirically in the laboratory (except for Maxwell's displacement
current, which was his stroke of genius)."


But as I said above, Maxwell added a critical component, essential to
understanding electromagnetic waves, and therefore also why the fields are
perpendicular in a wave.

Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?

[John Berry]

On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 12:34 PM, Mark Iverson wrote:

>  John:
>
> Let me ask a few questions so I can better understand what you're
> proposing...
>
> What is your interpretation of the magnetic moment present in all elementary
> particles where electrical currents don't even come into play?
>

> Of course atoms can be affected by a magnetic field... this is the basis
> upon which NMR works!!!
>
>
Ok, so are these effected atoms composed of charges?
Are these charges moving? (spinning, orbiting or flying through a cloud
chamber?


>  There is no electrical current in a permanent magnet, yet, they generate
> a magnetic field
>

Are you saying they generate the magnetic field without movement of the
charges that make up the atom?


> ... and other things (ferrous metals and other magnets) definitely are
> affected (i.e., have a force exerted upon them) by that mag-field. So I
> guess I'm at a loss to see how you can say that there is no such thing as a
> real physical magnetic field -- that's its only an illusion.
>

I think I have covered it above, these things work just like the electrons
moving in the wire, electrons orbit, they may spin, the nucleus can spin
too.

 -Mark
>  --
> *From:* John Berry [mailto:aethe...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 25, 2011 3:50 PM
>
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields
> perpendicular?
>
> Ok, you need to consider my answer if you want to understand this.
>
> You are assuming that a thing called a magnetic field really exists and
> this is the reason for your problem.
>
> Consider first how to interact with or detect magnetic fields, first take
> the Neutron, what reaction does it have to a magnetic field?
>
> As far as I am aware, essentially none.
>
> Ok so what else is matter made up of, ok Protons and electrons, so how do
> these particles with electrical potential react to a magnetic field?
>
> By default they don't!
>
> Ok, so if you are moving the charges relatively to the magnetic field then
> what happens?  Well if cutting across the so called magnetic field they feel
> a force perpendicular to the magnetic field and in a direction based on
> their electrical sign.
> So in an EM wave we have electrons and protons feel a force at right angles
> to the so called magnetic component, in other words they feel the electric
> component.
>
> So what can be detected on the magnetic axis? NOTHING.
>
> Of course a magnet will align it's self to the magnetic axis, but why is
> this?
>
> Well if you consider an air core electromagnet turned off it shows no
> reaction to the magnetic field, now if you put DC through it, it will
> respond by aligning with the external magnetic field, however if we look at
> each element of this coil we find that the force is placed on moving
> electrons because they are cutting through the magnetic field, the force on
> the electrons is perpendicular to the magnetic field.
>
> Ok, so an electromagnet feeling any "magnetic" force is really just an
> illusion.
>
> And the same is true of ferrous materials where the magnetic field is again
> created by moving charges.
>
> Ok, so how come magnetic fields exist only to establish an electric
> component at 90 degrees?
>
> Well consider what makes magnetic fields is: moving charges, and what feels
> magnetic fields is: moving charges.
> And what they feel is perpendicular and dependent on the sign of the moving
> charge.
>
> So if we look at moving charges, can we understand how these forces can
> arise?
>
> Actually YES!
>
> If you look at every source of a magnetic field you can calculate the
> expected force by looking solely at how motion is distorting the electric
> field.
>
> Ok, so in a piece of wire the protons and electrons are in about the same
> number and their electric fields sum to zero outside the wire (the electric
> field from every particle in your body stretches out to infinity), then if
> you apply a time varying electric field to the wire the mobile electrons
> wiggle back and fourth.
> This movement effects their field in much the same way that wiggling a hose
> makes the stream bend.
>
> The protons aren't wiggling so you can now look at what would happen from
> having electric fields from the electrons in a wire bent as it carries out
> into space:  /\/\/\/\/\/\/\|/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
> This clearly shows how the electric component comes about.
>
> Ok, so how about a DC electromagnet with an air core?
>
> Well what happens when matter moves? Well since Einstein and before the
> answer is that contraction of length takes place.
> So if we have a w

Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?

[Charles Hope]

How about giving a few examples of the sort of answer you'd find satisfactory?


Sent from my iPhone. 

On May 25, 2011, at 20:33, "Mark Iverson"  wrote:

> Robin beat me to the punch... I was changing spark-plugs and serpentine belts 
> on my car!
> 
> Robin hits the nail on the head... Anything mathematical is the MODEL, and is 
> supposed to reflect
> physical reality.  My question was about the physical world -- what I was 
> asking got was a rational,
> qualitative, cause and effect sort of explanation.
> 
> As Robin stated, twice now, and I'll state it a third time, 
> "The perpendicular nature of E and B fields existed PRIOR to Maxwell, or even 
> cavemen, or even life
> on this planet!"
> 
> I'm afraid that this reflects very poorly on JC's understanding of what is 
> more fundamental, the
> experiment (physical reality, facts) or model (theory).  JC has shown a great 
> ability to regurgitate
> what he has read in his textbooks, in great detail, but his responses to this 
> simple question seems
> to indicate that he hasn't any idea of the difference between physical 
> reality and the mathematical
> models that attempt to explain what is observed.
> 
> Care to put your horse before the cart this time and give it another stab, 
> Joshua?  
> And you'd better not have any mathematical jargon in your answer...
> 
> PS: I mean, stab at explaining perpendicularity of E and B fields, not stab 
> your horse!
> :-)
> 
> -Mark 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mix...@bigpond.com [mailto:mix...@bigpond.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2011 4:35 PM
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Subject: Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?
> 
> In reply to  Joshua Cude's message of Wed, 25 May 2011 17:54:32 -0500:
> Hi,
> [snip]
>> Maxwell's equations were developed to describe laboratory electricity 
>> and magnetism experiments.
> 
> ...from which the peculiar perpendicular nature of the phenomenon was already 
> evident.
> 
>> The resulting equations then predicted the existence of electromagnetic 
>> waves with the correct speed. As Maxwell put it: "The conclusion was 
>> inescapable: light is "an electromagnetic disturbance in the form of 
>> waves" propogated in the ether."
> 
> True.
> 
>> The equations also require that the
>> field are perpendicular.
> 
> I think that was already evident from the experiments, and the maths was 
> designed specifically to
> encompass this fact (otherwise it would have yielded incorrect results).
> 
> Note that Maxwell actually brought together the work done by a number of 
> others and created an
> encompassing mathematical treatment of their work, but the perpendicular 
> aspect was already in that
> work.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Robin van Spaandonk
> 
> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
> 

RE: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?

[Mark Iverson]

John:
 
Let me ask a few questions so I can better understand what you're proposing...
 
What is your interpretation of the magnetic moment present in all elementary 
particles where
electrical currents don't even come into play?
 
Of course atoms can be affected by a magnetic field... this is the basis upon 
which NMR works!!!
 
There is no electrical current in a permanent magnet, yet, they generate a 
magnetic field... and
other things (ferrous metals and other magnets) definitely are affected (i.e., 
have a force exerted
upon them) by that mag-field. So I guess I'm at a loss to see how you can say 
that there is no such
thing as a real physical magnetic field -- that's its only an illusion.

-Mark

  _  

From: John Berry [mailto:aethe...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2011 3:50 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?


Ok, you need to consider my answer if you want to understand this. 

You are assuming that a thing called a magnetic field really exists and this is 
the reason for your
problem.

Consider first how to interact with or detect magnetic fields, first take the 
Neutron, what reaction
does it have to a magnetic field?


As far as I am aware, essentially none.

Ok so what else is matter made up of, ok Protons and electrons, so how do these 
particles with
electrical potential react to a magnetic field?

By default they don't!

Ok, so if you are moving the charges relatively to the magnetic field then what 
happens?  Well if
cutting across the so called magnetic field they feel a force perpendicular to 
the magnetic field
and in a direction based on their electrical sign.
So in an EM wave we have electrons and protons feel a force at right angles to 
the so called
magnetic component, in other words they feel the electric component.

So what can be detected on the magnetic axis? NOTHING.

Of course a magnet will align it's self to the magnetic axis, but why is this?

Well if you consider an air core electromagnet turned off it shows no reaction 
to the magnetic
field, now if you put DC through it, it will respond by aligning with the 
external magnetic field,
however if we look at each element of this coil we find that the force is 
placed on moving electrons
because they are cutting through the magnetic field, the force on the electrons 
is perpendicular to
the magnetic field.

Ok, so an electromagnet feeling any "magnetic" force is really just an illusion.

And the same is true of ferrous materials where the magnetic field is again 
created by moving
charges.

Ok, so how come magnetic fields exist only to establish an electric component 
at 90 degrees?

Well consider what makes magnetic fields is: moving charges, and what feels 
magnetic fields is:
moving charges.
And what they feel is perpendicular and dependent on the sign of the moving 
charge.

So if we look at moving charges, can we understand how these forces can arise?

Actually YES!

If you look at every source of a magnetic field you can calculate the expected 
force by looking
solely at how motion is distorting the electric field.

Ok, so in a piece of wire the protons and electrons are in about the same 
number and their electric
fields sum to zero outside the wire (the electric field from every particle in 
your body stretches
out to infinity), then if you apply a time varying electric field to the wire 
the mobile electrons
wiggle back and fourth.
This movement effects their field in much the same way that wiggling a hose 
makes the stream bend.

The protons aren't wiggling so you can now look at what would happen from 
having electric fields
from the electrons in a wire bent as it carries out into space:  
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\|/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ 
This clearly shows how the electric component comes about.

Ok, so how about a DC electromagnet with an air core?

Well what happens when matter moves? Well since Einstein and before the answer 
is that contraction
of length takes place.
So if we have a wire and move the electrons but not the protons, what should 
happen to the electrons
field?
It should be squashed, so consider the spherical field around an electron, 
imagine now lots of
electrons in a row like peals on a necklace, look at the vectors of force from 
that electric field.

Look at how any field lines not perpendicular to this train of electrons is 
cancelled by the other
electrons fields, now if you were to pancake these electric fields a bit less 
field at the sides
would be wasted and cancelled between them, and more in the perpendicular 
direction.

I hope you are able to visualize this, this would create an unmasked electric 
field of sorts, this
electric field also should exist and has been experimentally measured to exist 
as the Hooper
Motional E field and it should exist even if you look on magnetic fields as 
real.

Now I can hear you asking how this creates any illusion of a magnetic field, 
well let&#

RE: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?

[Mark Iverson]

Robin beat me to the punch... I was changing spark-plugs and serpentine belts 
on my car!

Robin hits the nail on the head... Anything mathematical is the MODEL, and is 
supposed to reflect
physical reality.  My question was about the physical world -- what I was 
asking got was a rational,
qualitative, cause and effect sort of explanation.

As Robin stated, twice now, and I'll state it a third time, 
"The perpendicular nature of E and B fields existed PRIOR to Maxwell, or even 
cavemen, or even life
on this planet!"

I'm afraid that this reflects very poorly on JC's understanding of what is more 
fundamental, the
experiment (physical reality, facts) or model (theory).  JC has shown a great 
ability to regurgitate
what he has read in his textbooks, in great detail, but his responses to this 
simple question seems
to indicate that he hasn't any idea of the difference between physical reality 
and the mathematical
models that attempt to explain what is observed.

Care to put your horse before the cart this time and give it another stab, 
Joshua?  
And you'd better not have any mathematical jargon in your answer...

PS: I mean, stab at explaining perpendicularity of E and B fields, not stab 
your horse!
:-)

-Mark 


-Original Message-
From: mix...@bigpond.com [mailto:mix...@bigpond.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2011 4:35 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?

In reply to  Joshua Cude's message of Wed, 25 May 2011 17:54:32 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
>Maxwell's equations were developed to describe laboratory electricity 
>and magnetism experiments.

...from which the peculiar perpendicular nature of the phenomenon was already 
evident.

>The resulting equations then predicted the existence of electromagnetic 
>waves with the correct speed. As Maxwell put it: "The conclusion was 
>inescapable: light is "an electromagnetic disturbance in the form of 
>waves" propogated in the ether."

True.

>The equations also require that the
>field are perpendicular.

I think that was already evident from the experiments, and the maths was 
designed specifically to
encompass this fact (otherwise it would have yielded incorrect results).

Note that Maxwell actually brought together the work done by a number of others 
and created an
encompassing mathematical treatment of their work, but the perpendicular aspect 
was already in that
work.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?

[mixent]

In reply to  Joshua Cude's message of Wed, 25 May 2011 17:54:32 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
>Maxwell's equations were developed to describe laboratory electricity and
>magnetism experiments. 

...from which the peculiar perpendicular nature of the phenomenon was already
evident.

>The resulting equations then predicted the existence
>of electromagnetic waves with the correct speed. As Maxwell put it: "The
>conclusion was inescapable: light is “an electromagnetic disturbance in the
>form of waves” propogated in the ether." 

True.

>The equations also require that the
>field are perpendicular.

I think that was already evident from the experiments, and the maths was
designed specifically to encompass this fact (otherwise it would have yielded
incorrect results).

Note that Maxwell actually brought together the work done by a number of others
and created an encompassing mathematical treatment of their work, but the
perpendicular aspect was already in that work.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?

[Joshua Cude]

On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 4:50 PM,  wrote:

> In reply to  Joshua Cude's message of Wed, 25 May 2011 16:08:10 -0500:
> Hi,
> [snip]
> >What do mean by "we"? It's not from observing e-m waves that we know the
> >fields are perpendicular. It follows from Maxwell's equations, which
> predict
> >the waves. So, certainly some people can explain in arbitrary detail why
> >they are perpendicular, given what we know about the properties of the
> >fields as described by Maxwell's equations.
>
> I think you  have this backwards. The mathematical models were developed to
> describe the facts on the ground, not the other way around.
>


Maxwell's equations were developed to describe laboratory electricity and
magnetism experiments. The resulting equations then predicted the existence
of electromagnetic waves with the correct speed. As Maxwell put it: "The
conclusion was inescapable: light is “an electromagnetic disturbance in the
form of waves” propogated in the ether." The equations also require that the
field are perpendicular.



> Regards,
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>
>

Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?

[John Berry]

27;t be
bothered :)

On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 6:36 AM, Mark Iverson  wrote:

> You're right Terry, I don't like your answer!
>
> And I don't think any of the other explanations answered the question
> adequately...
>
> From my purely physical model, it would be a natural cause-effect
> relationship due to a polarizable
> vacuum... i.e., the electric and magnetic fields of mainstream physics are
> simply a result of the
> polarization of the local vacuum, and how particles respond to that
> polarization.
>
> With all the sophistication and accuracy to umpteen decimal places in
> atomic physics/QM, how come we
> can't explain WHY they're perpendicular!  I think any theory should have to
> explain the simple
> observations first before delving down into more difficult and esoteric
> aspects of physics.
>
> -Mark
>
>
> -Original Message-----
> From: Terry Blanton [mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2011 11:37 AM
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Subject: Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?
>
> You are not going to like my answer:  "Because it is their nature."
>
> Yeah.  Told you.
>
> It is best understood by studying the Lorentz Force and working your way
> from there.  I like this
> site:
>
> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hph.html  (click on the bubble
> to expand)
>
> but, there's always Wikipedia.
>
> Now Brian Greene would have me say "Because it is their nature in this
> universe."
>
> T
>
>

Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?

[mixent]

In reply to  Joshua Cude's message of Wed, 25 May 2011 16:08:10 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
>What do mean by "we"? It's not from observing e-m waves that we know the
>fields are perpendicular. It follows from Maxwell's equations, which predict
>the waves. So, certainly some people can explain in arbitrary detail why
>they are perpendicular, given what we know about the properties of the
>fields as described by Maxwell's equations.

I think you  have this backwards. The mathematical models were developed to
describe the facts on the ground, not the other way around.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

RE: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?

[Mark Iverson]

RE: sounding like a philosopher...
Yep, since I'm an INTP personality type, I tend to focus on the forest... 

RE: our models...
I guess what prompted my intial question to the Collective (re; perpendicular E 
and B fields) was
that, although we do have some good models, they were done over hundreds of 
years and lack
universality... And they fail to explain some of the simplest observations 
which we just take for
granted.  I think a much better theoretical foundation could be developed 
nowadays if we were to
trash all theories and start over from basic observational facts. 

If you have time, please explain a bit more about your insights into 
(nonexistent) torque...

-Mark


-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton [mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2011 12:37 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?

On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 2:36 PM, Mark Iverson  wrote:
> I think any theory should have to explain the simple observations 
> first before delving down into more difficult and esoteric aspects of physics.

You sound more like a philosopher now.  I know it's cliché but, the more I 
learn, the more I see how
little I know.  It took me two years to grasp the meaning of mechanical torque 
only to find out that
it really does not exist.

All of our explanations are based on models and our models are not perfect.  
Can you imagine a body
that must go through 720 degrees of rotation to return to its starting 
orientation?  I'm beginning
to come close.

The real answer to your questions is "We don't really know."  But, we have 
useful tools with our
models!

Terry

Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?

[Joshua Cude]

On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 1:36 PM, Mark Iverson  wrote:

>
> With all the sophistication and accuracy to umpteen decimal places in
> atomic physics/QM, how come we
> can't explain WHY they're perpendicular!  I think any theory should have to
> explain the simple
> observations first before delving down into more difficult and esoteric
> aspects of physics.
>
>
What do mean by "we"? It's not from observing e-m waves that we know the
fields are perpendicular. It follows from Maxwell's equations, which predict
the waves. So, certainly some people can explain in arbitrary detail why
they are perpendicular, given what we know about the properties of the
fields as described by Maxwell's equations.

It's basically Faraday's law and the extended Ampere's law that require them
to be perpendicular in the absence of sources (i.e. in self-propogating
waves). The curl of one field is proportional to the other, and since the
curl of a vector is perpendicular to the vector, the fields must be
perpendicular.

Faraday's law is probably the simplest to imagine. Remember in a solenoidal
transformer, a changing magnetic field along the axis produces an electric
field that circulates the axis; i.e. it is perpendicular to it.

An electromagnetic wave sustains itself because a changing electric field
induces a magnetic field, and a changing magnetic field induces an electric
field, and so they sustain each other as they oscillate, and according to
the induction laws the induced fields are perpendicular.

Now, you can ask why induced fields are perpendicular, or what is the reason
for Faraday's law. Historically, of course, these laws (Maxwell's laws
collectively) were discovered empirically in the laboratory (except for
Maxwell's displacement current, which was his stroke of genius). But now we
know that magnetism is just a relativistic transformation of the electric
field. Maxwell's equations can be derived entirely from Coulomb's law and
relativity, as many textbooks demonstrate. That's not an explanation that's
easy to visualize, but that's where it all stems from. Now, if you ask why
Coulomb's law, or why relativity, the answers become more philosophical,
although there are certainly field theories that give a more fundamental
basis for these things than just treating them axiomatically.

Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?

[Terry Blanton]

On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 2:36 PM, Mark Iverson  wrote:
> I think any theory should have to explain the simple
> observations first before delving down into more difficult and esoteric 
> aspects of physics.

You sound more like a philosopher now.  I know it's cliché but, the
more I learn, the more I see how little I know.  It took me two years
to grasp the meaning of mechanical torque only to find out that it
really does not exist.

All of our explanations are based on models and our models are not
perfect.  Can you imagine a body that must go through 720 degrees of
rotation to return to its starting orientation?  I'm beginning to come
close.

The real answer to your questions is "We don't really know."  But, we
have useful tools with our models!

Terry

RE: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?

[Mark Iverson]

You're right Terry, I don't like your answer!

And I don't think any of the other explanations answered the question 
adequately...

>From my purely physical model, it would be a natural cause-effect relationship 
>due to a polarizable
vacuum... i.e., the electric and magnetic fields of mainstream physics are 
simply a result of the
polarization of the local vacuum, and how particles respond to that 
polarization.

With all the sophistication and accuracy to umpteen decimal places in atomic 
physics/QM, how come we
can't explain WHY they're perpendicular!  I think any theory should have to 
explain the simple
observations first before delving down into more difficult and esoteric aspects 
of physics.

-Mark


-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton [mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2011 11:37 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?

You are not going to like my answer:  "Because it is their nature."

Yeah.  Told you.

It is best understood by studying the Lorentz Force and working your way from 
there.  I like this
site:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hph.html  (click on the bubble to 
expand)

but, there's always Wikipedia.

Now Brian Greene would have me say "Because it is their nature in this 
universe."

T

Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?

[Mauro Lacy]

> Just wanted to throw out a question to the Vort Collective...
>
> In an EM wave, why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular to
each other?

Because the electric and magnetic *effects* manifest perpendicularly?
The fields are an abstract(mental) construction.
In reality, there isn't an electric and a magnetic field. There is just
"something" )which in principle cannot be known directly), that manifests
electrically (inducing eddy currents) and magnetically (producing magnetic
fields).
In short: electricity and magnetism are both sides of the same coin, and
those sides are perpendicular to each other. Instead to opposite, like the
faces of a real coin :-)

Now, if you are asking for a more fundamental(topological?) reason those
effects act and manifest perpendicularly to each other, I would very much
like to hear it too.

Regards,
Mauro

Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?

[John Berry]

I have a different answer...

Who says that they are a different field?
In fact the magnetic field is really a fiction.

Tell me what particle sees a magnetic field?
What is effected by the magnetic component of an EM wave?

Charges moving through a magnetic field actually see an electric force not a
magnetic one, nothing responds to the magnetic axis and the response depends
on the sign of the charge, they see the electric component.

The magnetic field is just a persistent illusion of electric fields
distorted through motion.

I'd say prove me wrong, but this is actually conventional.

John


On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 6:36 AM, Terry Blanton  wrote:

> You are not going to like my answer:  "Because it is their nature."
>
> Yeah.  Told you.
>
> It is best understood by studying the Lorentz Force and working your
> way from there.  I like this site:
>
> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hph.html  (click on the
> bubble to expand)
>
> but, there's always Wikipedia.
>
> Now Brian Greene would have me say "Because it is their nature in this
> universe."
>
> T
>
>

Re: [Vo]: Why are the electric and magnetic fields perpendicular?

[Terry Blanton]

You are not going to like my answer:  "Because it is their nature."

Yeah.  Told you.

It is best understood by studying the Lorentz Force and working your
way from there.  I like this site:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hph.html  (click on the
bubble to expand)

but, there's always Wikipedia.

Now Brian Greene would have me say "Because it is their nature in this
universe."

T