[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Poynting Vector Vortex Experiment



Original poster: "Darren Freeman by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <free0076-at-flinders.edu.au>

At 08:54 AM 09/03/2002, you wrote:
>Original poster: "Wall Richard Wayne by way of Terry Fritz 
><twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <rwall-at-ix-dot-netcom-dot-com>
>
>3/7/02
>
>Hello list,
>
>Are we trying to dismantle Maxwell's equations and EM theory in general?  No.
>We are merely trying to point out their shortcomings and establish the fact
>that they are but a subclass of a much larger and more inclusive electrical
>theory.  Has anyone tried to apply them to electrostatics?  They fail
>miserably.

You got an example for me? I would find it hard to believe that a subset of 
electrodynamics
couldn't be modeled using Maxwell's equations, unless you have a valid example.

>   This is not to say they are not useful, which they are.  Both EM
>and electrostatics are both used enormously by man every day.  They will
>continue to be useful.  A similar example is "Rocket Scientist" use centuries
>old Newtonian mechanics to launch and land spacecraft all the time.  They
>ignore Einstein's relativity, QED, Standard Theory, Quantum Mechanics, et
>cetera.  So too, everyday EM theory will survive because it's useful.

Another reason I find it hard to believe that such a simple example defies 
classical
EM theory.

>But, there is a much more advanced Electrical Theory out there.  It does not
>supplant, but enhances EM theory which is a subclass of this greater 
>Electrical
>Theory.  We did not invent this theory for it was devised over a century ago.
>It's only being rediscovered.  Now even the thought of it is forbidden in
>Electrical Engineering schools.  They will not be able to suppress this
>knowledge forever.  The spread of this information especially over the 
>Internet
>is unstoppable and will eventually consume them.

Sounds kind of religious to me.

>What I simply propose is take a look at EM as a three dimensional entity 
>rather
>than in two dimensions.  Instead of just E and B there is always an attached S
>vector.  All three oriented at right angles.  Just like the 3D space we live

Classical electrodynamics works surprisingly well with special relativity, 
and that's expected since
that's where relativity came from.

If you are right, then your theory must provide something new. Just 
defining a vector to be
the cross product of E and B isn't all that helpful as it is fully 
determined by E and B. Unless
the behaviour of E and B is modified in some way by the presence of S, then 
I see no grounds
for the physical existence of S.


>Regards,
>
>RWW


Have fun,
Darren