FIRST PRODUCED ON 7/6/2010
A distinguished university professor a dear friend and colleague, though, not a claimer or a responder by himself, but being called by us, made the following irrelevant and unsuccessful remark: the passing electron through the our main capacitor C1 will change its capacitance and will rearrange its charge. Our answer is: so what?
However, we may connect additional capacitors C2....,Cv to it to increase the total capacitance of the C1 capacitor, so that the total capacitance, to any desired degree, will not be changed to any degree, we want. Secondly, rearrangement of charges may occur in the practically constant
potential main capacitor C1. The force field in the main capacitor will remain unchanged to any desired degree. Additionally rearrangement of charges will dissipate energy, if the material of the capacitors are not super conducting or near enough superconducting This dissipative energy of rearrangement was unaccounted. It will be additional free generated energy, taking into account this unaccounted energy will not oppose the passing electron for this a pure electrostatic case and the opposing rule of Lenz is not applicable, which is a fact enhancing our thesis here.
Similarly, three other Professors from the three main universities in Greece were called by us with the same unsuccessful remarks and answers.
At the remark why we do not publish the above at a main stream peer review Journal, our answer was the subject is too revolutionary to be accepted in to a main stream Journal. The fact that so far no one may answer the subject is more than needed to be published in a such Journal, dominated by the conservative establishment equivalent to a dictatorship, by an anonymous and unsigned report of presumed objective referee. one should be more than naive to believe this process. The best domain for publication is the public domain of the internet for some one, not needing any more credentials. Such conventional qualifications are not the point, but the truth at the end of some one's Professional Career which tights him into conformism and dictatorship of modern science.
NEW 14/7/2010
Finally, another friend professor replied after our individual invitation.
His reply was that the closed line integral of work is zero ! Because the
potential of point charges
is q/r, which is known to make the closed path line zero. Our answer is: in q/r
both numerator is a function and the denominator is a function so the this
is case of a point charge with the q a constant, but a function. For the
above closed path, first going through the capacitor and returning from far
out of this capacitor where the electric field is zero, but guided via
magnetic fields which are known to produce no work. The line integral of work for the return path is zero. For the
first going path is non zero as it has been shown here Therefore, the forth and
back closed line integral is not zero indicating the overall charge
distribution on the capacitor does not produce a conservative field, contrary to
a discrete finite and constant point charges. The superposition principle for infinite
charges (with the power of continuum) does not hold true One has to carry two
integration. First of all source charge functions, secondly over the path integral along
the route of the trajectory of the passing test electron. This should be done in
this strict order- the natural order, and not in the opposite than the natural
order, considering q always as function not a constant. If some one thinks the opposite from
what we claimed here, is invited to point our mistake and prove the opposite FOR A
REWARD AGAIN OF 100000 EUROS for the first correct claimer.
Even the potential of a point non constant charge is not q/r, though irrelevant
here. Also the stationary
charge has to rely on a small material body. On the material small body, induced charges will
emerge in the presence of another charge disturbing the point like potential of
the first charge. For example neutral small objects are always attracted by
electrified bodies with + or - charge.
MAIN POINT: q IS NOT A CONSTANT POINT CHARGE BUT A FUNCTION OF SPACE AND PARTICULAR OF r
PTP 14/7/ 2010
Professional Mathematician
Professional Phycist
THE STRONG SCIENTIFIC DICTATORSHIP OF 400 IS OVER
Notice 0, The left or entering electron end effect is always accelerating, favouring our conclusions and results for the creation or excess energy.
Notice 1, the above answer of ours is applicable to my youngest son (also
Phycist) remarks.
Notice 2, my older son (also Phycist) remains silent.
Notice 3, "the power of continuum" implies the principle of "perfect induction
is not applicable for an uncountable set as the continuum charges that q is a
function itself"
Notice 4. Common mistakes carried by Phycists in calculating the above work on
the moving electron, as q beeing a constant
THE MOST COMMON MISTAKE
The most common mistake done by physists and physical books is to consider q a constant and not a function as really it is in this case. Also to reverse the natural order of the two integration. First the integration of distributed source charges with the integration of the closed line integral. By doing so the line integral of the force of a distributed on the capacitor single (CONSTANT, WRONG) charges on the moving charge, is known to provide zero.- Constant point charge to constant point charge interaction along a closed path is known for the total work to be zero. Then integrating of a zero function over all the capacitor points, one gets a result -the line integral of a zero function is zero - in other words, the wished result. The arbitrary error was to consider the charge as a non function and to reverse the natural order of integration. In Mathematics this can be done provided certain mathematical conditions for the integral are fulfilled which are usually ignored by most Physists, which have a gross knowledge of Professional Mathematics.
THE PAPPAS THEOREM OF FIELDS FOR ELECTRIC CHARGES
THEOREM
From the above we conclude obviously the following theorem. The electric field of an isolated point charge is proven to be conservative and to posses a potential function q/r. How ever, the electric field of continuous distribution of point electric charges (functions) may not be conservative and not to posses a potential function.
BASIC KNOWLEDGE FOR FIELDS
A field is called conservative when any closed line integral of work is zero. A conservative field is characterized by a potential. A non conservative is not associated by potential function
MAGNETISM
Similar and more complicated is the situation in magnetism or actual y in
interaction between two arbitrary currents or more precisely interactions
between moving charges. The author has experience of forty years on these
interaction and the relevant conservation of energy will be presented shortly here...
Here we are. This presentation will be posted gradually as it will be developed as time permits for short periods of times each occasion. The electromagnetic force widely accepted physics, is described by the Lorentz force law F=e(E+Bxu/c2) where it is composed of an electrostatic E part and one pure magnetic part B exterior product with the the velocity u. Due to the magnetic part. action and reaction is not equal and opposite. This is the most strange part which is very well known and accepted in conventional physics by the most but not all (like me, for example).. What is is not well known is that B should be due to a closed circuit and only that. Many tricks are incorporated to overcome this, the biggest trick is that of exchanged virtual photons in microscopic physics. But nothing is done for macroscopic physics. For all these reasons I will suggest instead of Lorentz force law the equivalent and unknown today force law of Ampere
or taking into account the coulomb interaction and the equivalence Ids = qv
Forming the following circuit we notice that the lamp is brighter when the arcing device is arcing compared when the arcing
The materialization of circuit of diagram 1. is due to the late Phycist Leon Dragone. Its explanation is due to Professor Pappas
device is arcing. This can be explained only by the ampere law. The velocity of the charge carriers in the copper wires is of the order of mm/s, though the velocity of charge carriers in the arcing the velocity there is much much bigger. The explanation by the Ampere law is as follows. This law exhibits a longitudinal force compressing the carriers. As the current interrupts due to arcing, the slow moving charges in the metallic conductors stops relative sooner with the fast moving charges in the arc. So, there is short period of time that there still an isolated current in the arc without arespective current in the rest metallic circuit. This causes short length of current in the arc to decompress, providing an excess energy with a noise. This phenomenon is analogous to lightning in the sky from the clouds with a strong noise which is called thunder. This phenomenon occurs where the Geological electric field is lowered than the normal Geolectrical field of good weather. Falling several lightings from the sky, the Geophysical raises back to normal at the end. This results that lightning is not discharge process, as commonly believed, a charging process which gives energy to the Geological field! A phenomenon of generation of energy from energy, This also explains why PAPIMI is over unity as a sparking device. Q.E.D
REFERENCES:
1. The Cardinal Law of Electrodynamics, the principle of Conservation of Energy, and the Tesla Magnifying effect. Proceedings of the 1988 International Tesla Symposium. Published by the International Tesla Society Inc. ISBN 0-9620394-2-X
2. LIGHTNING by Martin A. Ulman 1969 - Dover ISBN : 0-489-64575-4
3. LIGHTNING Εdited by R. H. Golde Vol. 1, Vol. 2 - Academic Press 1977 ISBN : 0-12-287801-9
4. EARLY ELECTRODYNAMICS - by R.A.R Tricker - ed Pergamon Press 1965
5. A Treatise On Electricity And Magnetism by James Clerk Maxwell - Vol. 1, Vol. 2 - ed DOVER
6. Κεραυνικά Φαινόμενα : Παναγιώτου
Θ. Παππά - Εκδ. ΧΡΥΣΗ ΣΕΙΡΑ - Αθήνα 1987
-
- LIGHTNING PHENOMENA Panos T. Pappas ed.
GOLDEN SERIES Athens 1987
ASSUMED DISADVANTAGE OF THE
AMPERE LAW INCORPORATING THE COULOMBIC INTERACTION OVER THE RELATIVISTIC LAW OF
LORENTZ.
Confusion with the inertial reference frames.
It is true that the law of Ampere incorporating the corresponding Coulombic interaction and the corresponding to the Lorentz electromagnetic force law, is not relativistic invariant, though the Lorentz force law is invariant to the Lorentz transformations for the Relativity theory of Einstein Our answer is: Who cares?. Who cares that the motion of Earth around the Sun is not Relativistic invariant ? Who can claim that according to Relativity theory, it is the same to say it is equivalent to say that the sun and the rest of the stars move around the Earth without laughing ? We offer again 100000 Euros to any one who can point us two inertial frames of Relativity, e.i. which move with constant relative velocity u. The relativity theory has never being experimentally confirmed ! What has been confirmed is the confirmation of nature's laws with the non inertialy moving Earth and the rest of free falling space objects. It will be interesting to make a test of the Amperian force law to see to which velocity corresponds on the Earth. It will be non surprising to discover like this the absolute velocity of the Earth around the Sun and the absolute velocity of the Sun in the Galaxy etc, which classical Astronomy unambiguously determines accurately, instead of dealing with non physical theories like the Relativity Theory not corresponding to reality. Results observed from an accelerated Earthly located reference frame are wrongly attributed to Relativity theory. Similarly, results reduced to a solar reference frame attached to the sun and having nothing to do with an earth observer, as observed by an Earth observer are attributed wrongly to Relativity theory, though there is i no connection between observer's frame and the actual reference frame of observation. (typical example is the Hafale and Keating experiment which confuses the actual accelerating frame of reference on the position of the observer with that of the sun's, allegedly confirming Relativity Theory.)
Convenience and easiness, instead of doing real and hard calculations
Instead of doing real hard from first principles calculations, it is far easier to claim conservation of energy and to present a ready existing result equal to to an existing and known amount of energy. Thus deterring, for example, the final velocity. This laziness or intellectual impotence developed into an effective dictatorship of the principle of conservation of energy. In order to show our proof above, we had to rely on prototype and brain storming arguments, not an easy that average normal scientist can not event. It would be much easier but wrong to claim from the beginning the principle of conservation of energy and to claim again wrongly and ad hoc that the kinetic energy entering our capacitor on the left was the same kinetic energy exiting the capacitor on the right, since the capacitor had spend no energy, and to conclude that the final velocity would be equal to the initial velocity. It would had been a standard procedure but giving the wrong answer for a less sophisticated scientist.
A newer claim comes from an invited University
Professor of a Northern University for sections (4) and (4a).
Our answer to (4a) is include in the Final Report and conclusion of this
(4a)
section. Our answer to (4) is as follows. The rigorous proof of non conservation
is in the proof using variation techniques in section (4). In the objection that the electron
entering the entrance of the capacitor is already to a potential for
compensating for balancing the gained energy. Thi is wrong for the
returning electron follows a path that is free of forces and no where has spent
a work. Then it can be considered to have spent a work to have gained any
potential energy. Q.E.D. to our favour.
SCIENCE IS SELF LOCKED IN TO A STRONG DICTATORSHIP FOR 400 YEARS
I DO NOT WANT MORE CREDENTIALS AND
POSITIONS. I WILL NOT TAKE,
THANK YOU.
PROFESSOR P.T. PAPPAS, Ph.D.
References :
How 21st Century Physicists Are Censored, Suppressed www.rense.com/general77/21.htm
Addressing the Need for Freedom in Scientific Research http://archivefreedom.org/casehistories.htm
Orwell's Thought Police are all too real www.uri-geller.com/as10.htm
Cognitive Processes and the Suppression of Sound Scientific Ideas http://amasci.com/supress1.html
Peer review as scholarly conformity www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/dissent/documents/ss/ss5.html
TESLA ERASED AT THE SMITHSONIAN... click here.
Bias in the Scientific Literature http://d1002391.mydomainwebhost.com/JOT/Links/links-bias.htm