Willie Johnson recently wrote lengthy in response to this post by
exnihiloest, posted below:
refering to: http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=265.0;attach=1536
To justify the need of a theory using the electron precession, the paper is begining with a lie: "The results of this experiment [Faraday disk] have never been satisfactorily explained".
This is false.
The Faraday disk is perfectly explained by the Lorentz force and relativity. There is a paradox only for those who don't understand what is going on. The idea of a relative speed between the magnetic field and the disk is a non-sense. No reference frame can be attached to a field, a field is just a local condition specified by scalars or vectors, therefore it has no speed.
Once again, the speed vector V in the Lorentz force F=q*VxB is only relative to the observer. If you are rotating with the disk, you see no voltage between the center and the rim of the disk because V=0. If you are an external observer, which is the case of a voltmeter at rest connected through sliding contacts, V is not nul, then the Lorentz force applies and forces the electrons to flow in the external circuit.
The conventional theory of electromagnetism perfectly explains the functionning of the Faraday disk, both qualitatively and quantitatively. Okkham's razor rules out any exotic and uselessly complicated theories such electron precession.
Willie Johnson Jr.
06/07/2014 18:38
Michael
I ran across the following while browsing the web:
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=265.msg16160#msg16160“To justify the need of a theory using the electron precession, the paper is begining with a lie: "The results of this experiment [Faraday disk] have never been satisfactorily explained".
This is false. The Faraday disk is perfectly explained by the Lorentz force and relativity. There is a paradox only for those who don't understand what is going on. The idea of a relative speed between the magnetic field and the disk is a non-sense. No reference frame can be attached to a field, a field is just a local condition specified by scalars or vectors, therefore it has no speed.
Once again, the speed vector V in the Lorentz force F=q*VxB is only relative to the observer. If you are rotating with the disk, you see no voltage between the center and the rim of the disk because V=0. If you are an external observer, which is the case of a voltmeter at rest connected through sliding contacts, V is not nul, then the Lorentz force applies and forces the electrons to flow in the external circuit. The conventional theory of electromagnetism perfectly explains the functionning of the Faraday disk, both qualitatively and quantitatively. Okkham's razor rules out any exotic and uselessly complicated theories such electron precession.”
Dear Michael.
I just happened to run across this blog Over Unity Research and from there Just Thinking Aloud TPU. The above quote was in response to a poster named Grumpy. I wasn’t certain how or if I could register to rebut but it’s a moot point. I’d like you to understand my approach and then I will dismantle the above quote.
Make no mistake that my work will be marginalized and dismissed. This is important to those who rely on the group rather than independent thinking. Everyone reading my work should of course be skeptical. I state that forthrightly in the book. But to base any dismissal of the work on the so called experts saying I can’t know what I’m talking about because of my academic degree is not true science. It’s gossip. It’s fealty to dogma.
I always ask those who are critiquing my work to first observe two things.
a. Is it algebraically correct? Is the math correct? Point out to me where the math is wrong. In a book this broad there will be some mistakes. I accept that and will correct the errors but I’m confident the final outcome will be the same. If not I will admit my error and hopefully learn from it.
b. Show me where I have violated the laws of classical physics. Note I said classical and not quantum mechanical. Again, this is a classical theory and I must obey all the classical laws of physics.
If they cannot demonstrate the violation of these two parameters then I am on firm ground physically. The debate then can only concern my interpretation of the physics that result from that math. This puts both me and the skeptic at a common point of departure from which to discuss the work and avoids the “mind virus” as Dollard so affectionately calls it. Again, this is not to say there are no mistakes in this theory but to say it is wrong based on group think is just pointless to try and debate.
Now for the above quote:
“To justify the need of a theory using the electron precession, the paper is beginning with a lie: "The results of this experiment [Faraday disk] have never been satisfactorily explained".
This is false. What I have written is neither a lie nor false. Saying that it’s a lie to justify a theory of electron dynamics being based upon electron precession is like saying that any theory of water based upon it being wet is a lie. This is a completely absurd proposition. Electron precession is an inherent trait of any and every electron. It’s obvious the poster is ignorant of this fact.
The Faraday disk is perfectly explained by the Lorentz force and relativity. There is a paradox only for those who don't understand what is going on.
Certain aspects of the Faraday disc are certainly explicable via the tenets of the Lorentz force and Relativity. Spinning the conductor disc between two magnets is perfectly explicable via the Lorentz force and Relativity, and Faraday’s law of induction. However it is obvious that the poster is completely oblivious as to why the homopolar generator /Faraday disc has caused such a controversy. These explanations seemingly fail when the disc is both the conductor and the magnet. Spin the conductor between the two magnets and Faraday’s law of induction and Relativity explain it quite well. Spin the magnets and keep the disk stationary and Faraday’s law of induction seemingly fails. This would seem to be an ostensible violation. The most puzzling aspect of the disc is manifest when instead of having two magnets and a single conductor we spin a single conducting magnetic. This yields a current confounding both Faraday’s law of induction and Relativity.
“The idea of a relative speed between the magnetic field and the disk is a non-sense. “
Seemingly nonsense, and only in the third case where the magnet is magnet, rotor, and conductor. But there is indeed relative speed between the two magnets and conductor in the 1st two cases.
“No reference frame can be attached to a field, a field is just a local condition specified by scalars or vectors, therefore it has no speed.”
This is complete and utter nonsense. Of course we may ascribe to the field any velocity we choose including zero velocity as long as we ascribe to those elements moving within it their analogous velocities. Again the poster demonstrates an almost complete lack of knowledge regarding the principles being applied and expressed.
“Once again, the speed vector V in the Lorentz force F=q*VxB is only relative to the observer. “
Nonsense. The novelty and wonder of Faraday’s law of induction is predicated upon the magnet moving relative to coil or coil moving relative to magnet. Even if one were completely ignorant of the physics of the situation one can plainly see, just by the algebra, that the very fact that it is represented as a cross product and thus is dependent upon orientation or direction completely nullifies the poster’s argument. The cross product imposes and demands that we MUST view the velocity of q relative to B .
“If you are rotating with the disk, you see no voltage between the center and the rim of the disk because V=0. If you are an external observer, which is the case of a voltmeter at rest connected through sliding contacts, V is not nul, then the Lorentz force applies and forces the electrons to flow in the external circuit.”
Again. This is false though not as outlandish as some of the above statements. One has to describe just what one is using to measure the voltage. Is it a voltmeter powered by batteries or is it a voltmeter powered by another type of homopolar generator? If it’s the former then the statement is absolutely false. If it is the latter then this requires a much more in depth analysis. In any case it is moot. The Sagnac effect proves whether the measuring device moves or is stationary it will detect the movement of electromagnetic waves.
“The conventional theory of electromagnetism perfectly explains the functioning of the Faraday disk, both qualitatively and quantitatively.”
This statement is almost correct although you back into while all the time, making false claims to justify it. The behavior is based upon first generating a change in the electric field which generates a magnetic field which induces magnetic precession which is equivalent to the induction of an electric current. Conventional theory misses that initial change in the electrostatic field. . Remember the charge has to first be moving before one can apply F=qv*B. Conventional theory concentrates more upon the effects of changing the magnetic field or cutting the lines of magnetic flux. This approach isn’t wrong but it is incomplete.
One must realize that according to my Law of Dimensions the Lorentz force may be expressed as
a. F=q*vxB
b. F=qv*B
c. F=qr*B/t
d. F=q*(Br)/t
e. F=ir*B
f. F=i*rB
g. F=qvB
All seven of these equations are algebraically equivalent and all seven, via the tenets of the law of Dimensions must find physical expression. (I’m pretty sure there are actually even more algebraic expressions of this law.) Suppose we start with equation g. Note the absence of the asterisk thus denoting the absence of a cross product thus a scalar or electrostatic product. This denotes we impart a velocity to charge even though the B field and the velocity vector are parallel. However in such a rotating disk every v vector represents a radius and therefore every v vector will have an orthogonal counterpart. Thus for every g equation there is and MUST BE a corresponding b equation. Note equation b is induced in the sense it exists primarily because the quantity qv, the change, (v), of the electrostatic field, (q), of equation g was generated first. One may be quick to assert that if F=qvB is electrostatic then it has to be the Coulomb force and equation g clearly does not present algebraically as the Coulomb force. But I prove quite conclusively that the Lorentz force and the Coulomb force are indeed equivalent. I can derive one from the other quite easily. It’s listed in the book. Indeed there is and must be an equivalent expression of the Lorentz force or Coulomb’s law along all three axes, x,y and z. Indeed that 3rd force is Newton’s gravitational force law and once again I demonstrate in the book how Newton’s gravitational force constant, G, can be expressed in terms of Coulomb’s law.
Now one may indeed take issue with my interpretation of the algebra. But what one cannot do is say that the algebra is incorrect or that I have violated any laws of classical physics.
“Okkham's razor rules out any exotic and uselessly complicated theories such electron precession”.
Herein lie the true tragedy of the poster’s argument. Electron precession IS Occam’s razor! No electron can and does exist without it. Indeed, the GFT posits the electron is a fundamental unit of precession. Doesn’t get any simpler than that.
Michael. If you are so inclined please pass this on to the posters on the mentioned site. I'd really appreciate it. For some reason the my site was having problems allowing me to post thus all the multiple postings. Just disregard those belong I will delete the multiple posts later. Again thanks for the support and follow the science and not the scientists.
Author
Topic: PERMEABILTY and PERMITTIVITY (Read 31447 times)
