So far as I know, Mr. Newman has invented only his Newman energy machine, on
which I previously sent a summary I wrote myself. I wonder if Mr. Newman has
other inventions he is working on based on his new paradigm.
Comments of my own on Newman's New Paradigm:
When I was in electrical engineering school in Madison, Wisconsin, I don't
remember anything specifically said about electromagnetic energy itself
being mechanical energy. My interpretation of eV equals kinetic energy
(one-half times mass times velocity squared) or gravitational potential
energy (mass times gravitational acceleration times height) or relativistic
energy (mass times the speed of light squared), etc. is that energy can be
transformed into different manifestations. Yet the so-called law of
conservation of energy says that while electrical energy can be transformed
into mass or other forms of energy, energy can neither be created nor
destroyed.
Physics and engineering professors have been presenting, and fiercely
defending, a tidy package of physical laws for most of the 20th century. My
understanding of the underground science network is that there are too many
experimental anomalies being discovered, and awkard theoretical questions
being raised, to not justify taking a fresh look at physics. Just reading a
book like the "The Secret Life of Plants", like I did earlier this fall, can
raise all kinds of questions begging for answers not to be found in
academia.
Hal Fox has been publicly stating that ONE GOOD START (my emphasis) at
revamping our understanding of physics would be to make two simple changes:
First, assume that the speed of light is not constant. Second, assume the
existence of the ether.
It is my understanding that Newman's new paradigm (of physics) is unique.
Whether or not it will hold up to scrutiny by others as is or with
modifications, simply because his ideas are different, they deserve close
examination.
Gary Vesperman
vman@skylink.net
NEWMAN'S NEW PARADIGM
As a young man, Joseph Newman _did_ question "certain things (that) have
unequivocally been observed to be so" --- after all, this is one of the
principal ways in which new scientific understandings of the universe can
occur, by questioning "the accepted explanations" of a given paradigm.
I will pose the following three questions:
1) Why is it that one can move a conductor in one hand physically through
the magnetic field of Faraday's Generator, and the (electro)magnetic field
'propagates along the conductor' somewhat faster than the original movement
of the conductor (held in your hand) through the magnetic field?
2) How would you mechanically and fundamentally explain Fleming's Rule?
3) How would you mechanically and fundamentally explain Magnetic Attraction
and Repulsion?
Question No. 1:
Joseph Newman was raised as a "hard-nosed country boy" (to employ the
colloquialism) --- as such, he did _NOT_ believe in getting "something for
nothing" ..... sometimes referred to as "perpetual motion." His mind
instinctively rebelled against such a notion.
Yet, when he observed that one's motion (slow) of one's hand holding a
conductor wire and moving it through a magnetic field (in a particular
orientation) produces an electric field (very fast) along the same
conductor, this superficially appeared to him to be a case of one obtaining
"something (very fast) for nothing (slow)." He refused to believe this
could be the case since he did not believe in "perpetual motion." He chose
to investigate further.
Through his studies it became obvious that "something" was ALREADY moving
(very fast) in that (electro)magnetic field, and this (very fast)
"something" was simply being DEFLECTED onto the conductor as it moved
(slowly) through the magnetic field.
This conclusion answered his first question. If he has the attitude of
some conventionally-educated scientists he would just leave it at that and
be satisfied.
He opted to question further.
What was the precise nature of this "something"?
Also, this question: does this "something" have a MECHANICAL nature?
Well two of the greatest minds of the last 200 years believed that it DID.
Their names:
Michael Faraday (the mechanical genius) and
James Clerk Maxwell (the mathematical genius)
I believe I can say that Joseph Newman would prefer to "stand on the
shoulders" of these two great men rather than operationally accept the
status quo and "lounge on the postulations of some conventionally-educated,
present-day scientists."
[I should add that there are certainly those in the teaching profession who
are indeed exceptions to the above -- such teachers who are truly curious,
rational, and intellectually honest.]
And what did these two men state?:
Well, Michael Faraday wrote:
"I cannot conceive curved lines of force without the conditions of a
PHYSICAL existence in that intermediate space." --- MICHAEL FARADAY
and
"How few understand the PHYSICAL lines of force! They will not see them,
yet all the researches on the subject tend to confirm the views I put forth
many years since. Thompson of Glasgow seems almost the only one who
acknowledges them. He is perhaps the nearest to understanding what I
meant. I am content to wait convinced as I am of the truth of my views."
--- MICHAEL FARADAY
And what does James Clerk Maxwell have to say on this subject:
"In speaking of the Energy of the field, however, I wish to be understood
LITERALLY. All energy is the same as MECHANICAL ENERGY, whether it exists
in the form of motion or in that of elasticity, or in any other form. The
energy in electromagnetic phenomena is _MECHANICAL_ energy."
--- JAMES CLERK MAXWELL
That's a pretty strong, rather unequivocal statement on the part of James
Clerk Maxwell. And just so, no one might later misinterpret his remarks,
he added, with _EMPHASIS_: "I WISH TO BE UNDERSTOOD _LITERALLY_"
Literally.
Well, literally in my book means _LITERALLY_.
And what is James Clerk Maxwell _literally_ saying about the nature of the
energy of the field: that ALL --- ALL --- ENERGY is the __SAME__ as
*MECHANICAL ENERGY*.......that all such energy in ELECTROMAGNETIC PHENOMENA
is *MECHANICAL* ENERGY.
As physicist Dr. Roger Hastings wrote regarding Maxwell's emphasis on the
*MECHANICAL* nature of energy:
"This is stated in no uncertain terms in Maxwell's book "A Dynamical Theory
of the Electromagnetic Field." In fact, Maxwell used a dynamical model to
derive his famous equations. This fact has all but been lost in current
books on electromagnetic theory. The quantity which Maxwell called
"electromagnetic momentum" is now referred to as the "vector potential."
And in a reference to the work of Richard Feyman, physicist Robert Matherne
wrote:
"While reading my Commemorative Issue of The Feynman Lectures on Physics by
Feynman, Leighton, and Sands, published by the Addison Wesley Publishing
Company, I encountered a passage on relativistic momentum considerations by
Richard Feynman that sounded so similar to what Joseph Newman said in his
Energy Machine book, that I wanted to share it. Here's the operant
quotation from page 10-9 of Volume I:
"One of the propositions of Newton was that interactions at a distance are
instantaneous. It turns out that such is not the case; in situations
involving electrical forces, for instance, if an electrical charge at one
location is suddenly moved, the effects on another charge, at another
place, do not appear instantaneously -- there is a little delay . . . . It
takes time for the influence to cross the intervening distance, which is
does at 186,000 miles a second. In that tiny time the momentum of the
particles is not conserved. Of course, after the second charge has felt
the effect of the first one and all is quieted down, the momentum equation
will check out all right, but during that small interval momentum is not
conserved. We represent this by saying that during this interval there is
another kind of momentum besides that of the particle, mv, and that is
momentum in the electromagnetic field. If we add the field momentum to the
momentum of the particle, then momentum is conserved at any moment all the
time. The fact that the electromagnetic field can possess momentum and
energy MAKES THAT FIELD VERY REAL, and so, for better understanding, the
original idea that there are just the forces between particles has to be
modified to the idea that the particles make a field, and a field acts on
another particle, and THE FIELD ITSELF HAS SUCH FAMILIAR PROPERTIES AS
ENERGY CONTENT AND MOMENTUM, JUST AS PARTICLES CAN HAVE." [Emphasis added.]
>From the First Edition of The Energy Machine of Joseph Newman, page 20, I
>quote:
"The FACTS above clearly indicate that the magnetic field consists of
GYROSCOPIC TYPE MASSERGIES which are the mechanical essence of E=mc(squared)
and represent an orderly flow of kinetic energy." [Emplhasis added.]
Note the similarity between the Feynman and Newman descriptions of the
electromagnetic field: both say the field has energy content and momentum.
Feynman, however, pulls his punches by inserting the scientific
qualification, "just as particles can have" while Newman says directly the
field consists of particles in motion. PARTICLES in motion, by definition,
have momentum, and the electromagnetic field, according to Nobel Laureate
Feynman, in a stretching of the very definition of momentum, has momentum.
Since no one has ever seen either an electric field nor gyroscopic
particles (nor will, presumably, they EVER, since seeing requires the
objects be larger than a wavelength of light, which they definitely are
not), both are legitimate ways of talking about a reality that we cannot
observe directly. Feynman's way of talking used the concept of field in
the accepted scientific say, up until now. Here's a later quote by Feynman
from the same page 10-9:
"To take another example --- an electromagnetic field has waves, which we
call light; it turns out that light also carries momentum with it, so when
light impinges on a object it carries in a certain amount of momentum per
second; this is equivalent to a force, because if the illuminated object is
picking up a certain amount of momentum per second, its momentum is
changing and the situation is exactly the same as if there were a force on
it. Light can exert pressure by bombarding an object; this pressure is
very small, but with sufficiently delicate apparatus it is measurable."
If the momentum of the electromagnetic fields or particles of the sun's
rays can be used, as some scientists have proposed, to build a solar sail
to power future space ships throughout the solar system, perhaps the
momentum of the electromagnetic fields surrounding large coils of wire can
be used to provide an efficient source of electrical power throughout the
same solar system without the use of fossil or radioactive fuels. This is
the promise of Joseph Newman's revolutionary energy machine and its
associated theory.
Robert Joseph Matherne, Physicist
217 Timberlane Road
Gretna, Louisiana 70056"
But Joseph Newman isn't the only one describing such fields as "matter in
motion." James Clerk Maxwell 'beat him to the punch':
Maxell also wrote:
"The Theory I propose may ... be called a Theory of the Electromagnetic
Field because it has to do with the space in the neighborhood of the
electric or magnetic bodies, *AND IT MAY BE CALLED A DYNAMICAL THEORY,
BECAUSE IT ASSUMES THAT IN THAT SPACE THERE IS ****MATTER IN MOTION****, BY
WHICH THE OBSERVED ELECTROMAGNETIC PHENOMENA ARE PRODUCED." --- JAMES
CLERK MAXWELL
(Emphasis added.)
These are pretty strong statements on Maxwell's part....and he did not
intend for the scientific establishment which came after him to ignore his
words.
Operationally speaking, they have.
For the historical record: I should state that Joseph Newman's conclusion
about the fundamental mechanical nature of (electro)magnetic fields was
reached years before he became aware of Maxwell's position on this matter.
For Joseph Newman, Maxwell's strong statements served as corroboration from
a mathematical genius of the rightness of Joseph Newman's paradigm.
All right....
......MATTER IN MOTION.
Joseph Newman took the concept of "MATTER IN MOTION" and integrated it with
his earlier observations regarding Faraday's Generator, i.e., that
"something" was ALREADY moving (very fast) in that magnetic field, and this
(very fast) "something" was simple being DEFLECTED onto the conductor as it
moved (slowly) through the magnetic field.
Next fundamental question.
What is the operational, mechanical nature/behavior of this "something"?
To say that a magnetic field consists of "matter in motion" is an advance
in our fundamental understanding of such a field. But it doesn't tell us
much about the real, physical characteristics of this "matter in motion."
Perhaps if one was to fundamentally and _deeply_ understand the mechanical
behavior of these "matter(s) in motion," then one might be able to even
conceive of a new way of constructing Motors/Generators that would enable
one to more efficiently harness the pre-existing, real, kinetic, physical,
MECHANICAL MOTION of these "somethings."
It was approximately at this point in his studies that Joseph Newman came
across Fleming's Rule.
Now, what does Fleming's Rule state?
Fleming's Rule states: "If the fingers of the right hand are placed around
a current-carrying wire so that the thumb points in the direction of the
conventional current, the fingers will point in the direction of the
magnetic field."
Great. This is a convenient "rule." It is a corroborable-by-observation
"rule." Great. Electrical engineers are aware (presumably) of this Rule.
But accepting the limited paradigm of the Rule does not answer the more
fundamental question: What *MECHANICALLY* causes the Rule to be true?
This is the more fundamental question that occupied Joseph Newman's mind
during the 1960s. He sought an honest answer to this more fundamental
question as to what is the *MECHANICAL* cause of Fleming's Rule. He could
not find an answer to this question in any of the books that he read on
electromagnetics and electrical engineering. Yet he believed it was
absolutely essential to answer this question, if he was to progress in a
deeper understanding of the fundamental *MECHANICAL* nature of
(electro)magnetic fields [per Faraday's and Maxwell's statements above].
It was about this time in his studies that he began studying the GYROSCOPE.
He had heard that the "gyroscope" was a stabilizer, but did not know much
more about its nature. As a hobby, he began mechanically working with
gyroscopes and children's bicycles (he converted the bicycle of a
neighbor's son to a clutch system to better enable it to perform
"wheelies") --- so he began to acquire a first-hand understanding of the
behavior of GYROSCOPES.
At one point in this process, he _instantly_ had an answer to the question
that had "boggled his mind" for so long: he _instantly_ knew that those
"somethings" in that magnetic field surrounding Faraday's Generator
individually behaved as miniature "GYROSCOPES."
Many related concepts then began to "click" in him mind. It was then that
his real insights into the _mechanical_ nature of (electro)magnetic fields
began to generate a new paradigm concerning such fields.
As he explains in detail in Chapter Two of his book:
[Note: I will endeavor to describe only in words what is graphically and
with words depicted step-by-step in the book.]
1-A) If one has North and South ends of magnets facing one another with a
gap between them (as in Faraday's Generator), if one moves a conductor DOWN
at a right angle to the magnetic field, the CURRENT FLOW MOVES LEFT.
(Figure 11-A)
1-B) If one applies a downward force to the axis of a spinning gyroscope,
it will pivot at a right angle to the force (in this case of Figure 11-A1)
it will PIVOT LEFT. Now imagine that this gyroscope has a forward motion
at the speed of light as well as spins at the speed of light.
2-A) If one has North and South ends of magnets facing one another with a
gap between them (as in Faraday's Generator), if one moves a conductor UP
at a right angle to the magnetic field, the CURRENT FLOW MOVES RIGHT.
(Figure 11-B)
2-B) If one applies a upward force to the axis of a spinning gyroscope, it
will pivot at a right angle to the force (in this case of Figure 11-B1) it
will PIVOT RIGHT and opposite to the case of 1-B above. Now imagine that
this gyroscope has a forward motion at the speed of light as well as spins
at the speed of light.
3-A) Now flip the above-described magnets over 180 degrees:
If one has a South and North magnet facing one another with a gap between
them (as in Faraday's Generator), if one moves a conductor DOWN at a right
angle to the magnetic field, the CURRENT FLOW MOVES RIGHT and opposite to
that of case 1-A even though the force direction is the same. (Figure 11-C)
3-B) Now flip the above-described gyroscope over 180 degrees:
If one applies a downward force to the axis of a spinning gyroscope, it
will pivot at a right angle to the force (in this case of Figure 11-C1) it
will PIVOT RIGHT and opposite to the case of 1-B above even though the
force direction is the same. Now imagine that this gyroscope has a forward
motion at the speed of light as well as spins at the speed of light.
4-A) With the magnets in the same position as 3-A,
If one has a South and North magnet facing one another with a gap between
them (as in Faraday's Generator), if one moves a conductor UP at a right
angle to the magnetic field, the CURRENT FLOW MOVES LEFT and opposite to
that of case 2-A even though the force directon is the same. (Figure 11-D)
4-B) With the gyroscope in the same position as 3-B,
If one applies a upward force to the axis of a spinning gyroscope, it will
pivot at a right angle to the force (in this case of Figure 11-D1) it will
PIVOT LEFT and opposite to the case of 2-B above even though the force
direction is the same. Now imagine that this gyroscope has a forward
motion at the speed of light as well as spins at the speed of light.
5-A) With the magnets in the same position as 3-A,
Move the conductor vigorously "up" and "down" through the magnetic field,
MAINTAINING THE CONDUCTOR FORCE PARALLEL TO THE MAGNETIC LINES OF FORCE AND
*NO* CURRENT FLOW IN THE CONDUCTOR WILL RESULT.
5-B) Apply a vigorous "up" and "down" force parallel to the axis of the
spinning gyroscope. Regardless of how energetically the force is applied,
as long as the force remains parallel, the gyroscope will not pivot even
though it has a forward motion at the speed of light.
THE ANALOGY OF THE ABOVE TWO EXAMPLES IS SCIENTIFICALLY EXACT!
Once Joseph Newman began to understand that the "mechanically moving
somethings" in a magnetic field each possessed a GYROSCOPIC SPIN, then many
other insights began to fall into place.
It was at this time that Joseph Newman also began to understand and
mechanically explain:
1) Why, in a mechanical sense, does a magnet attract and repel other
magnets?
2) Why, in a mechanical sense, do electric charges attract and repel?
3) What is the energy in a magnetic field and what is its source?
4) Did the energy used in creating a permanent magnet have any bearing upon
the strength or energy contained within a magnetic field emitted from the
permanent magnet once it was made?
As Joseph Newman writes in Chapter Two of his book,
"In the early part of 1965, I eagerly researched the known facts concerning
the creation of a permanent magnet. Because I instinctively knew that if
the strength of a magnetic field was solely relative to the energy input,
then I would know I was incorrect. But if the strength of the magnetic
field was INDEPENDENT of the energy input, then I would be even more
assured that I was correct.
"Upon examining the known facts concerning permanent magnets, I again knew
that I WAS correct."
It took Joseph Newman over 15 years to develop and refine his Theory and
Technical Process. It was not until these many years passed did he even
construct his first crude, hand-built prototype to demonstrate the
operability of his Technical Process. Ironically, Joseph Newman _knew_
that his invention would work and demonstrate the nature of his Technical
Process. The prototype(s) were needed to convince the rest of the world.
I should add, that Joseph Newman considers his Theory to be far more
important than the application.
This attitude on his part is a bit analogous to Einstein and his Theory of
Relativity. For a number of years earlier in this century there was no
"proof" of Einstein's Theory -- it was just a challenging (and sometimes
upsetting to others) idea in Einstein's head.
It was not until the Ecliptic Expedition of 1919 (Chaired by Arthur
Eddington) that Einstein's Theory was corroborated. During 1919, a
journalist on hand who was following the Expedition cornered Einstein and
asked him, "Dr. Einstein, your entire Theory hangs on the balance of this
Expedition. Arn't you a bit concerned as to its outcome?"
Characteristically, Einstein replied, "Oh no. I'm not worried. I _know_ my
Theory is correct. The Expedition is only needed to convince the rest of
the world."
My introduction to Joseph Newman's work nearly 14 years ago was through an
understanding of his revolutionary explanation for Magnetic Attraction and
Repulsion. It was at that point that I became convinced of the validity of
his Theory.
In essence, a MAGNETIC FIELD mechanically consists of "negative" and
"positive" gyroscopic particles having opposite spins and simultaneously
traveling in OPPOSITE directions, e.g., the concentric "shells of force"
surrounding a bar magnet.
An ELECTRIC CURRENT mechanically consists of "negative" and "positive"
gyroscopic particles having opposite spins and traveling in the SAME
direction down a conductor wire --- as does light traveling in space
through a medium.
Should anyone wish, I thought I would mention that I would also be happy to
forward the gif graphics which depict the interaction of bar magnets in
magnetic Attraction/Repulsion as well as Magnetic Fields/Electric Current
Interaction in considerable detail, plus Oscilloscope Photos, and the
Interaction of Coil & Magnet Systems. These consist of:
6 gif files (66-99K each) and specifically depict:
1) Magnets in Attraction (top view) [83K]
2) Magnets in Attraction (lower view) [99K]
3) Magnets in Attraction (close-up view) [66K]
4) Magnets in Repulsion (top view) [83K]
5) Magnets in Repulsion (lower view) [99K]
6) Magnets in Repulsion (close-up view) [66K]
The 7th gif depicts:
7) Magnetic Field/Electric Current Interaction [33K]
(from an original sketch by physicist Robert J. Matherne)
The 8th - 14th gifs depict:
8) Oscilloscope Photo 1 [33K]
9) Oscilloscope Photo 2 [33K]
10) Oscilloscope Photo 3 [33K]
11) Oscilloscope Photo 4 [33K]
12) Oscilloscope Photo 5 [33K]
13) Oscilloscope Photo 6 [33K]
14) Oscilloscope Photo 7 [33K]
The 15th - 20th gifs depict:
15) Interaction of Coil & Magnet System - 1 [33K]
16) Interaction of Coil & Magnet System - 2 [17K]
17) Interaction of Coil & Magnet System - 3 [17K]
18) Interaction of Coil & Magnet System - 4 [17K]
19) Interaction of Coil & Magnet System - 5 [17K]
20) Interaction of Coil & Magnet System - Full View [33K]
Gifs (1) - (7) and (15) - (20) are depicted in Joe's book.
Gifs (8) - (14) are not.
Gyroscopically yours,
Evan Soule'
Director of Information
NEWMAN ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES CORP.
www.josephnewman.com
"In speaking of the Energy of the field, however, I wish to be understood
literally. All energy is the same as mechanical energy, whether it exists
in the form of motion or in that of elasticity, or in any other form. The
energy in electromagnetic phenomena is _mechanical_ energy."
--- JAMES CLERK MAXWELL
End of Post.