Re: Physics of Wireless Transmission

["Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Original poster: Mark Fergerson <mfergerson1@xxxxxxx>

<delurk>

Tesla list wrote:
> Original poster: "Bob (R.A.) Jones" <a1accounting@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

> If magnetic fields are just relativistic effects of electrostatic fields,
> what are the equivalent relativistic effects of gravity,

  Look up "Lense-Thirring Effect". It's hard to observe because the 
gravitational coupling constant is so very small, and we'd need to 
accumulate and wave around extremely dense masses really quickly in 
order to do tabletop observations. OTOH if you have enough mass and 
relatively undisturbed spacetime to work with, it's measurable:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/279/5359/2100

>  the weak and strong forces fields.

  There may not be any Relativistic-equivalent effects _to_ observe 
for those forces. The gravitational and EM forces are long-range 
whereas the other two are short-range; I've seen "unofficial" 
speculation that there simply may not be room for Relativity to 
assert itself in the tiny volumes these forces operate over.

  Note also there are other apparent "logical disconnects" that 
prevent us from finding a "simple" TOE; the charges of three of the 
forces are easily quantizable whereas mass is not. There is a strong 
possibility that what we call "mass" and "gravitation" are not 
fundamental properties of "stuff" but are rather emergent from any 
accumulation of "stuff" fitting the math of the 
stress-energy-momentum tensor equations. This would be roughly 
analogous to the EM force being emergent from the short-range weak 
force, which is usually stated as the two forces being different 
aspects of a single force we now know to call the "Electroweak 
force". IOW anything that elevates a patch of vacuum from its ground 
state (energy passing through it, particles sitting within it) 
produces a deformation of spacetime we call "gravitation".

  Also there's wave-particle "duality" to deal with; massive 
particles have been demonstrated to exhibit wave behavior. And not 
just single electrons a la the two-slit experiment which with 
electrons and whole C60 molecules is old news; have you ever heard of 
the "atom laser"?

http://cua.mit.edu/ketterle_group/Projects_1997/atomlaser_97/atomlaser_comm.html

  In another post you wrote:

>   When people are ready to investigate my
> theory to see if it is of any use, I'll be glad to present it.

  And it was pointed out to you that first it must address all other 
known effects before going on to "new" explanations.

  Does your theory address predictively any aspect of quantization 
or either of the Relativities? The Lense-Thirring effect? Matter 
waves? Neutrino oscillations?

  If not, start over. If so, please just put it on a webpage for 
everyone's perusal. This is about the _science_, not personal aggrandizement.

  Now, physics this fundamental may be seen as off-topic for the 
Tesla group, but I'd like to point out that there are many 
"mysterious" aspects of coiling; the fact that coil forms can store 
charge was seen as a mystery until recently, the "racing sparks" 
phenomenon that hasn't really been explained to everyone's 
satisfaction, and so on (BTW, I think the two phenomena may be 
related; has anyone looked to see what the charge distribution is on 
"charged" coilforms? Do these regions correspond at all to the sites 
where racing sparks preferentially strike?). There well may be more 
fairly well-known problems in coiling that can be solved by a deeper 
understanding of How The Universe Works, like detailed particle 
physics telling us how to build better spark gaps.

</relurk>


  Mark L. Fergerson