Re: Scalars
Bill McMurtry ( weber@powerup.com.au )
Wed, 11 Feb 1998 14:14:37 +1000
At 22:51 10/02/98 GMT, you wrote:
>I'm glad this thread has come up; maybe now we can agree on a
>common definition that is somewhere approaching correct.
>This argument has raged before on freenrg-l@eskimo.com without
>in my opinion, reaching a satisfactory resolution. At least
>*I'm* still confused <grin>.
>
>On the face of it a "scalar wave" *does* seem to be a
>contradiction in terms, doesn't it.
>
>On Mon, 9 Feb 1998 23:18:05 -0800 (PST), Hexslinger
><hexslngr@internet-frontier.net> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 10 Feb 1998, Jerry W. Decker wrote:
>
>>> I'm glad you didn't say 'scalar waves' because scalar literally means
>>> 'without vector'...so IMHO it's basically a bubble floating in space but
>>> in the form of a 'stress' or depression in the space fabric.
>
>>Uhm, I think a better way of describing this would be a "omnidirectional
>>stress". A scalar is, to my knowledge, simply a difference in the charge
>>of the aether itself - right? It is without direction (hence why it's
>>coined a scalar - duh). :)
>
>And if the magnitude of this "stress" is modulated, any
>hypothetical "ether" could be reasonably expected to
>transmit a longitudinal wave in sympathy with this
>modulation. Is this what is meant by the term "scalar wave"?
>
>
>>> I once saw an excellent description of transverse waves as opposed to
>>> longitudinal waves.....don't recall the details, but I think it was
>>> transverse waves go up and down like ripples in water, longitudinal waves
>>> move sideways like a snake crawling along.
>
>>Uh - better look up those details again, Jerry. :) Longitudinal waves are
>>waves of compression and rarefaction - like sound. The way I look at it is
>>this: longitudinal waves compress/rarefact along the vector in which they
>>travel - while transverse waves compress/rarefact at an ANGLE (90 degrees,
>>in the case of magnetic fields) to the vector of travel.
>
>Agreed.
>
>>This still
>>doesn't explain the difference between what Tesla's longitudinal waves
>>were and Bearden's scalars (since supposably longitudinal waves can be
>>detected using conventional equipment - while Bearden's scalars cannot).
>
>Can we take it for granted that they are different? You say
>"*supposedly* longitudinal waves can be detected using
>conventional equipment". Has this experiment actually been
>done? Do you have details of the equipment and the results?
>What was Tesla using to generate his alleged longitudinal
>waves?
>Is it possible in this context that Tesla's longitudinal waves
>were not pure and had a parasitic transverse component which
>was what was actually being detected?
>
>Cheers,
>Alan
Hi Alan and all,
My understanding of Teala's comments about the idea of herzian waves being
a "conceptual abberation" is that he was talking about RADIO WAVES and HIS
preferred definition - not a different entity, but a different concept of
that entity.
I really don't think Tesla was creating "Longitudinal" waves while
everybody else was creating "Herzian" waves. Both definitions attempt to
describe "Radio waves". Tesla preferred the longitudinal wave concept
because it fitted better with his understanding of electromagnetic wave
propagation through vacuum, also because the concept of a longitudinal wave
opened up new directions for his research.
Bill.