ABOUT LIGHTNING AND THE FATE OF CLASSICAL ELECTROMAGNETISM
If you have already read this newsletter, please disregard this email. There is an active advertisement campaign which is going to be explained in another newsletter and this campaign has as purpose to resend the last important newsletters to the people who haven’t opened the email.
As far the advertisement unfolds simultaneously from multiple domains, there is a delay in the actualization of unsubscribed people from various lists. Sometime it is possible to receive another email after you unsubscribed from this delivery.
Do not worry though! It is important to highlight that anyone wish has to be respected, but on the other hand there are going to be clear rules and consequences for such cases. Those who have chosen to unsubscribe, are not allowed to come back and work for this new theory for at least a decade. The rules are going to be even harsher for those who declared this new theory spam or took other actions against it.
The study of lightning symbolizes the beginning of electricity as science, but the topic is far from being elucidated after centuries of research.
There is a fundamental difference between electric discharges in air or gases at low pressure and at normal pressure:
- any electrical discharge in air at normal pressure is going to generate an entire spectrum of radio wave, microwave and possible teraherz waves besides the emitted light in infrared, visible, UV, X ray and possible gamma ray.
- any electrical discharge in air (or gases) at low pressure is going to generate a discrete spectrum composed only by a few lines in visible, ultraviolet or infrared.
Another fundamental difference regards the regime of temperature in case of these discharges:
- any electrical discharge in air at normal pressure is going to generate a very high temperature up to 50000 °C and even 60000 °C after some researchers;
- any electrical discharge in air (or gases) at low pressure is going to generate barely a bit of heat, up to few hundred °C or less.
Although the facts have been known from more than a century, mainstream science failed to take into account these fundamental differences and therefore the entire theoretical framework for these topics is a mess and sometimes ridiculous.
There is no theory able to explain why the air at normal pressure becomes like an antenna for radio, microwave and teraherz domain during an electrical discharge; supplementary the thermal effects of electric discharges in gases at low and normal pressures are difficult and even impossible to be explained by the kinetic molecular theory of matter.
A new conceptual framework for lightning is proposed and supported with some new proposed experiments.
A detailed discussion about the effects of lightning on common appliances or human body is provided too….
Last but not least, by observing lightning on other planets of our Solar system, it is possible to rule out the special theory of relativity.
The experimental part exemplifies the new postulate of magneticity already formulated in a previous newsletter: States of matter and their chemical bonds condition the observed effects of a so called electric current.
According to classical electromagnetism any time a lightning strikes, a magnetic compass placed in its immediate vicinity, has to jump from its N-S alignment.
The first section demonstrates that an electric discharge through air does not imply an magnetic effect, although the discharge current is huge (100000 and even 200000 A).
The second section demonstrates in an elegant manner the absurdity of the displacement current concept ...
If the concept of displacement current is true, any time when weather changes and before having a lightning, due to the change in the electric flux an magnetic compass has to deviate from its N-S position too.
The third section analyses the variation of magnetic field with distance and what are the consequences for the so called electromagnetic waves ….
The well known icon of an electromagnetic wave seen as a orthogonal electric and magnetic field to the direction of propagation is a complete faked idea and the reason can be understood by neophytes in science.
The key is a simple formula B= E/c which is presently part of the curriculum for students.
A theoretician cannot come and preach the existence of intertwined electric and magnetic fields and in the same time assume that such formula is valid.
The discussion does not stop here and it is necessary to come back to some simple experimental and theoretical facts and see what mess theoreticians have created in this field of science too!
It is often assumed that the strength of a magnetic field obeys the inverse square law. In classical electromagnetism, the magnetic effects are only a byproduct of charge motion so one would expect that the same inverse square law applies too.
Researching the Internet produces many complex equations; most are suggesting that magnetic field varies inversely with the third power of distance, in other words an inverse cube law.
Introductory courses in physics present another law when such topic is presented. The intensity of magnetic field around a long straight wire decreases with distance from the wire after a 1/r law. Instead of the field being proportional to the inverse square of the distance, as is the electric field from a point charge, the magnetic field is inversely proportional to the distance from the wire.
If I am going to choose more complicate situations, none of these laws are going to be respected, but this is not the idea I want to underline here ….
What is the consequence of this erratic variation of magnetic field with distance for an electromagnetic wave?
Well it depends how one wants to tackle with this problem!
An antenna has to be considered a dipole source of both electric and magnetic fields and in this case the intensity of the signal emitted has to decrease with inverse cube law; this is in direct contradiction with experimental reality where a variation with inverse square distance is observed.
One has to suppose in this case that an antenna has not a dipole comportment and electrons have to be considered punctual source of electric fields emitting an electric field which decreases according to inverse square law.
The problem is who generates and how the corresponding magnetic field is generated!? The very existence of an electromagnetic wave supposes a precise variation of magnetic field similar to the corresponding electric field.
If one supposes that for electromagnetic wave, electric field varies with inverse square law and magnetic field varies with inverse cube law, then even children will laugh at this enormity.
If one supposes that for electromagnetic wave, both electric field and magnetic field vary with inverse square law, then the magnetic monopole is at work and one should have discovered it in more than a century.
I give a homework to actual theoreticians to choose the least absurd explanation for the variation of magnetic field in an electromagnetic wave.
In the frame of new proposed theory electromagnetic waves, electric currents and magnetic fields are different physical concepts and each of them have to be studied starting from scratch again…
The explanations for these new paradoxes are going to be made based on the non equivalence postulate already presented in a previous newsletter:
What we presently call electric and magnetic fields are completely different physical phenomena. They are somehow related to the same cause - magnels arrangement, oscillation or possible movement, but they cannot be considered equivalent and they cannot convert one into another.
Have you ever heard about the ball bearing motor?
The fourth section is going to demonstrate that classical electromagnetism is not able to explain the working principle of such a simple electric motor manufactured at home. The cost to replicate such experiment is only a few euro….
The idea of such motor is quite simple: there is no need for a magnet at all and the rotor rotates by itself when is traveled by an intense electric current.
It is impossible to explain in the classical electromagnetism how a conductor traveled by an electric current produces a magnetic field which acts back onto itself in order to generate a rotational motion.
With some elaborate language, the explanation provided by a paper from Princeton University follow the same line and in fact, is trying to advance the idea that the same unique electric current generates different effects in the roller and the axle. For any common sense mind this explanation is pure imbecility.
In the new proposed theory, the explanation comes at hand as a simple application of a new principle of magneticity: States of matter and their chemical bonds condition the observed effects of a so called electric current.
In order to see the large palette of variations offered by this postulate, it is necessary to refine the up presented experiment using other materials and various states of aggregation described in the newsletter.
Section 5 makes a retrospective of principal information published on https://www.pleistoros.com related to Maxwell equations.
The Maxwell equations should have been revised or ruled out immediately after the discovery of electron spin, i.e. quite a century ago.
In the newsletter about magnetism this situation was analyzed shortly and found completely absurd. Classical electromagnetism admits that a moving electron generates a magnetic field due to its accelerated motion, and this magnetic field does not influence or does not overlap to the intrinsic (spin) magnetic field of electron.
In fact, the principle of superposition, which in case of magnetic fields specifies that magnetic fields created by different sources add together as vectors, is completely neglected.
For avoiding other errors a postulate was formulated at that moment as follows: In itself, a moving electric charge cannot generate a magnetic effect. The only magnetic effect generated by a moving charge is due to what is presently called intrinsic (spin) magnetic moment.
There is an entire series of newsletters or articles which rule out the accepted definition of an electric current and of course proposes another conceptual frame in absence of any electric charge movement.
If the conceptual frame for the electric current is changed, then all Maxwell equations have to be discarded.
In the frame of new proposed theory electric currents, electromagnetic waves and magnetism are different physical phenomenon; they are linked somehow and sometimes they can generate the same effects in certain conditions, but nevertheless they cannot be described by a single theory.
It is important to highlight that some of the experimental laws already known in classical electromagnetism remain valid in the frame of new proposed theory but only in a restricted area.
No one is going to contest the Faraday’s law of induction and Lenz’s law as a simple example, but in the frame of new theory this laws remain valid only in case of action of a magnet on a conductor having a metallic bound between atoms.
The new theory goes even further and by explaining all the arbitrary rules (left hand rule, right hand rule, Lenz law, etc) accepted as status quo in classical electromagnetism creates a real foundation for the science of so called ,,electricity, magnetism and electromagnetic waves”. Photonics (starting from IR up to gamma ray) is not part of the electromagnetic spectrum and this has to be considered another branch of physics. A book about light was already published in 2008 and further newsletters are going to expand the conceptual frame for photonics taking into consideration facts from IR up to gamma ray domain.
The last section is dedicated to the adventure of a ,,third world” person to the European courts…
If you think this section is not important for you think again!
Although it seems like a personal experience the topic has to present interest for any person in the world.
As simple citizen, not as scientist, you have to know that under the umbrella of European Commission there is an organized robbery from any European citizen pocket and this is not all: new costly and absurd measures are going to be implemented in order to avoid significant climate change and environmental pollution. The same things happen outside EU too!
The technology to produce cheap and environmental friendly energy is at hand, but there is no interest from EU Commission to implement it on large scale.
Why? The answer is very simple: why to produce cheap and clean energy and get a low profit when you can still produce expensive and dirty energy with a higher profit and still ask for public money to counteract the negative effects of your business.
The link to this newsletter:
https://www.pleistoros.com/en/newsletters
Sincerely
Sorin Cosofret
