You should go to my co-authors publication were he's doing research on these ideas to see how to present them more like a science textbook. Google search medium Light Orbits and read his wonderful chapter called Validations. There he explains that we are not arguing with the facts, we are arguing with the interpretation of the facts.
When they claim that they cannot understand 95% of the universe they're trying to suggest that they have some things right. The facts for all theories are right and don't count as part of the percentage. Either you have the theory of everything and you are explaining everything and are 100% correct or you are 100% wrong. Guess which one we are?
I'm trying to find an audience and I was hoping that I could work with you somehow because this is the biggest moment in civilization's history when we finally get scientific evidence of God. Try reading my article titled: have the monks given us scientific proof of God.
I'm trying to save Civilization by drawing attention to an extraordinary moment that's trying to happen. The monks Theory of Everything is explaining mystery after mystery after mystery while our scientists are saying crazy things and admitting that they can't make sense of any of the crazy things they are saying and now cannot understand 95% of the universe.
We need to quickly start solving our problems which this allows us to do otherwise we will resort to violence to solve our problems. I was hoping that you would help me avoid that by letting me somehow talk to your audience or maybe write an article with you to your audience about this exciting moment and get some attention that it deserves?
Excellent book. Serious page turner, and page returner. The references alone are invaluable. I wish this history and perspective had been part of the Course 6-1 curriculum when I was at The 'Tute, but you were probably still in grade school back then. Please publish books two and three before I step on a rainbow.
Quantum theory and relativity are delusional and ignore the methods of their "proof".
In the double slit experiment, they wrongly assume that the detector didn't influence the light. Truth is that ANY detector uses energy, however small to "measure" the observed object.
The particle theory of light as a "photon" is a huge stretch where wave theory explains everything already. But in the world of math based physics, they love quantizing things to fit formulas.
Here's Heinz von Foerester explaining that math leads to inventing particles etc....
I haven’t figured out how or whether to distribute it. The entire contents are already available on my Substack. I may go ahead and make the pdf available to paid subscribers or something like that.
I have just tried to use the "fund my comic" website to order (be a backer) a hard back copy of "Fields and Energy" Book 1. Unfortunately when it comes to designating the required delivery address (Northern Ireland) the website pops up a refusal-to-deliver message for my region. Thus my purchase is automatically rejected.
"As a theoretical physicist turned antenna engineer, I would not have been able to write this book on electromagnetism if I didn’t have extensive hands-on experience in subjects like ultrawideband antennas and near-field wireless systems."
This is excellent. Mechanical, hands-on engineering. Well done indeed.
No. That's exactly the problem in the common model or understanding: assuming that energy is associated with a particular field instead of being guided by the field. And you have my program backwards. I started with trying to understand how EM works. It turns out to look like the pilot wave theory. The importation is from classical EM into QM, not the other way around.
You’ll find some of the preliminary technical foundation for Fields & Energy in the papers, “Energy Velocity and Reactive Fields,” in my paper, “On Energy Flow in Standing Waves,” and in my paper “Energy Flow for Reflecting & Interacting Beams.” Links are in my intro post, if you'd like to dig into it in more detail.
It’s a bit ironic that the book that you mentioned (Electromagnetic Theory) has the following passage:
The author (JULIUS ADAMS STRATTON) is firmly convinced that the transition must be made from quantum electrodynamics toward classical theory, rather than in the reverse direction. Whatever form the equations of quantum electrodynamics ultimately assume, their statistical average over large numbers of atoms must lead to Maxwell's equations.
Hmm. Pilot-waves might (arguably) provide some assistance when it comes to intuition or philosophical interpretations of QM, but they are nevertheless essentially redundant and do not assist in calculations or predictions. Perhaps I misunderstand your point, but why would one want to clutter up their understanding of EM with (in practical terms) such a spurious feature as pilot waves?
Because if you study electromagnetism, you'll find it working on a macroscopic scale in almost exactly the same way that the pilot wave model envisions on an atomic scale. Fields guide the flow of energy. That's the point of my book. Having a simple physical model around which one can organize one's understanding simplifies understanding complex systems.
The EM fields do not "guide" the flow of (EM) energy, they /specify/ it: you use the fields to construct whatever components of the stress-energy tensor you happen to find interesting (perhaps with Poynting-theorem expression, if you prefer).
I remain unconvinced that importing a discredited (ie QM "pilot wave") language into EM is likely to help even slightly, not only on (a) the "fields guide" grounds you mention, but also regarding (b) achieving wider acceptance of the benefits you claim.
No. That's exactly the problem in the common model or understanding: assuming that energy is associated with a particular field instead of being guided by the field. And you have my program backwards. I started with trying to understand how EM works. It turns out to look like the pilot wave theory. The importation is from classical EM into QM, not the other way around.
You’ll find some of the preliminary technical foundation for Fields & Energy in the papers, “Energy Velocity and Reactive Fields,” in my paper, “On Energy Flow in Standing Waves,” and in my paper “Energy Flow for Reflecting & Interacting Beams.” Links are in my intro post, if you'd like to dig into it in more detail.
I’ve been looking forward to this book ever since you told me this summer you were working on it. I didn’t expect to have the opportunity to read it in pre-publication this way, though! It’s been a dozen years since I put my physicist hat on the shelf, and this will be a welcome opportunity to dust it off.
You should go to my co-authors publication were he's doing research on these ideas to see how to present them more like a science textbook. Google search medium Light Orbits and read his wonderful chapter called Validations. There he explains that we are not arguing with the facts, we are arguing with the interpretation of the facts.
When they claim that they cannot understand 95% of the universe they're trying to suggest that they have some things right. The facts for all theories are right and don't count as part of the percentage. Either you have the theory of everything and you are explaining everything and are 100% correct or you are 100% wrong. Guess which one we are?
I'm trying to find an audience and I was hoping that I could work with you somehow because this is the biggest moment in civilization's history when we finally get scientific evidence of God. Try reading my article titled: have the monks given us scientific proof of God.
I'm trying to save Civilization by drawing attention to an extraordinary moment that's trying to happen. The monks Theory of Everything is explaining mystery after mystery after mystery while our scientists are saying crazy things and admitting that they can't make sense of any of the crazy things they are saying and now cannot understand 95% of the universe.
We need to quickly start solving our problems which this allows us to do otherwise we will resort to violence to solve our problems. I was hoping that you would help me avoid that by letting me somehow talk to your audience or maybe write an article with you to your audience about this exciting moment and get some attention that it deserves?
Excellent book. Serious page turner, and page returner. The references alone are invaluable. I wish this history and perspective had been part of the Course 6-1 curriculum when I was at The 'Tute, but you were probably still in grade school back then. Please publish books two and three before I step on a rainbow.
Writing as fast as I can! Most of Book II is already posted. Thanks for the kind words.
Quantum theory and relativity are delusional and ignore the methods of their "proof".
In the double slit experiment, they wrongly assume that the detector didn't influence the light. Truth is that ANY detector uses energy, however small to "measure" the observed object.
The particle theory of light as a "photon" is a huge stretch where wave theory explains everything already. But in the world of math based physics, they love quantizing things to fit formulas.
Here's Heinz von Foerester explaining that math leads to inventing particles etc....
https://youtube.com/watch?v=ev7e9sfWIJo
There's a good playlist here on the issues of QM/relativity. I'm interested what you think about the points made.
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLkdAkAC4ItcFyNFBywN0wiZ45pCnMr-Ay
I just discovered your innovative research, but funding is closed for “Fields & Energy”.
Is there a way for me to preorder the PDF and the printed version (I am in the US)?
Thanks for your interest. I’ll be releasing it on Amazon in a couple of months.
Will the PDF (not their proprietary device version) be available on Amazon?
I haven’t figured out how or whether to distribute it. The entire contents are already available on my Substack. I may go ahead and make the pdf available to paid subscribers or something like that.
I have just tried to use the "fund my comic" website to order (be a backer) a hard back copy of "Fields and Energy" Book 1. Unfortunately when it comes to designating the required delivery address (Northern Ireland) the website pops up a refusal-to-deliver message for my region. Thus my purchase is automatically rejected.
Is there a work-around for this problem?
Will this page be updated to reflect the parts of chapters 4 and 5 that have been released?
I do need to do that, but I'll be getting Book I ready for release first. Thanks.
How do i get in on your book my man!
I'll launch a crowdfund soon.
Where's Nikola Tesla in this story, Hans?
He shows up a bit, but his contributions were more in AC electricity which isn’t a primary focus of my Fields & Energy narrative. https://aetherczar.substack.com/p/461-how-does-radiation-work
Thanks Hans. Very prolific and interesting.
"As a theoretical physicist turned antenna engineer, I would not have been able to write this book on electromagnetism if I didn’t have extensive hands-on experience in subjects like ultrawideband antennas and near-field wireless systems."
This is excellent. Mechanical, hands-on engineering. Well done indeed.
Interesting topic.
I guess to get the full picture you should research gases and their properties.
According to unconventional theories, gasses are the glue of our cosmos, all electro and magnetic phenomenas are happening because of them.
Electrochemistry is an other “since long” hidden branch of physics which should get more attention.
Thank you for sharing.
No. That's exactly the problem in the common model or understanding: assuming that energy is associated with a particular field instead of being guided by the field. And you have my program backwards. I started with trying to understand how EM works. It turns out to look like the pilot wave theory. The importation is from classical EM into QM, not the other way around.
You’ll find some of the preliminary technical foundation for Fields & Energy in the papers, “Energy Velocity and Reactive Fields,” in my paper, “On Energy Flow in Standing Waves,” and in my paper “Energy Flow for Reflecting & Interacting Beams.” Links are in my intro post, if you'd like to dig into it in more detail.
https://aetherczar.substack.com/p/fields-and-energy
It’s a bit ironic that the book that you mentioned (Electromagnetic Theory) has the following passage:
The author (JULIUS ADAMS STRATTON) is firmly convinced that the transition must be made from quantum electrodynamics toward classical theory, rather than in the reverse direction. Whatever form the equations of quantum electrodynamics ultimately assume, their statistical average over large numbers of atoms must lead to Maxwell's equations.
I missed that. What page is that on?
Vii of the preface. At the bottom of the second paragraph on the page.
Re: "This perspective leads directly to the "pilot-wave" interpretation of quantum mechanics. "
.. you say that as if such a connection is an advantage... :-)
Adding a smiley face to your attempt to mick someone fools absolutely nobody.
Yes, I do.
Hmm. Pilot-waves might (arguably) provide some assistance when it comes to intuition or philosophical interpretations of QM, but they are nevertheless essentially redundant and do not assist in calculations or predictions. Perhaps I misunderstand your point, but why would one want to clutter up their understanding of EM with (in practical terms) such a spurious feature as pilot waves?
Because if you study electromagnetism, you'll find it working on a macroscopic scale in almost exactly the same way that the pilot wave model envisions on an atomic scale. Fields guide the flow of energy. That's the point of my book. Having a simple physical model around which one can organize one's understanding simplifies understanding complex systems.
The EM fields do not "guide" the flow of (EM) energy, they /specify/ it: you use the fields to construct whatever components of the stress-energy tensor you happen to find interesting (perhaps with Poynting-theorem expression, if you prefer).
I remain unconvinced that importing a discredited (ie QM "pilot wave") language into EM is likely to help even slightly, not only on (a) the "fields guide" grounds you mention, but also regarding (b) achieving wider acceptance of the benefits you claim.
No. That's exactly the problem in the common model or understanding: assuming that energy is associated with a particular field instead of being guided by the field. And you have my program backwards. I started with trying to understand how EM works. It turns out to look like the pilot wave theory. The importation is from classical EM into QM, not the other way around.
You’ll find some of the preliminary technical foundation for Fields & Energy in the papers, “Energy Velocity and Reactive Fields,” in my paper, “On Energy Flow in Standing Waves,” and in my paper “Energy Flow for Reflecting & Interacting Beams.” Links are in my intro post, if you'd like to dig into it in more detail.
I’ve been looking forward to this book ever since you told me this summer you were working on it. I didn’t expect to have the opportunity to read it in pre-publication this way, though! It’s been a dozen years since I put my physicist hat on the shelf, and this will be a welcome opportunity to dust it off.
Hope you enjoy it!
When signed copy offered?!
Subscribers to the Substack will be the first to know!
I love the william Gilbert quote, I also noted that to me at least Gilbert looks like you!
I suppose that might be... from my mom's side.