Wednesday, January 27, 2010

A New Theory Of Electrodynamics

I have just sent this out to a group of physicists and scientists to see if it has any merit.

Here is the cover letter I sent:
George Miley of U Illinois, Champaign is involved.

I am passing this on after a cursory review. It was published yesterday. Please give it 5 minutes before you give up. The speed of light bit in the beginning was off putting for me. But it gets explained better later. The equations at first glance are compelling. They are better covered in the second 5 minutes. I'm going to review it more carefully with multiple stops to get a better feel. This is rapid fire and not typical lecture speed.

I'm more at home with engineering but I am at least conversant with all the material presented. I have also introduced the video to Lubos Motl to see what he thinks.
It will be interesting if anything comes of it.

Here are some of the documents in the video:

Evidence of Cold Fusion?

Impulse Gravity Generator?

Gravitomagnetic Field of a Rotating Superconductor
and of a Rotating Superfluid [pdf]

Researchers now able to stop, restart light

The Control of the Natural Forces by Frank Znidarsic [pdf]

BBC News - Boeing tries to defy gravity

Quantum Chemistry - McQuarrie

Tapping the Zero Point Energy

H/T jlumartinez at Talk Polywell


wtanksley said...

FYI: SPAWAR is a Navy group; the name is pronounced as in "SPAce WARfare", SpayWar, not "Spwar" as in the video.

M. Simon said...

When I dealt with them we always called them Spa Wars.

But yeah. The presenters information is third hand on some bits.

K said...

Glad to see "nut science" making a comeback. Seems to correlate with the solar cycle. As in most nutscience, most of that was just gobbity goop technical jargon linked together with words like "remarkably" and "astonding" and liberally sprinkled with unverifiable information about who did what with whom.

Get back to me when someone is wizzing their flying saucer about.

M. Simon said...


Trying to figure out what causes Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR) and an effort to prove/disprove the Mach-Einstein Conjecture is nut science?

Hundreds of papers on LENR.

And you would be surprised. The US Navy which is funding Polywell is also funding LENR experiments.

The explanation offered may or may not have merit. That says nothing about whether the work itself is of any interest.

So IMO you should limit your remarks to "nut" explanations. The science is not nuts.

And you might wish to recall that Fermi's paper on Beta Decay was at first turned down as too fantastic to merit publication in a real science journal.

In fact I just did a post on Junk Science Which Turned Out To Be Correct.