Please read and study
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauss's_law
and
http://www.iit.edu/~smile/guests/gsmxsec1.htm
carefully.
Your equations are essentially incorrect.
E.dA= q/eo------------------(1)
would be more appropriate where A is the surface enclosing the charge.
Assuming that the point charge of q1 is located at D1, at a distance of d1 from the object D3. The point object D3 and the charge q1 are located at space having permittivity of eo. Then, the electric field, E, exerts by the charge on D3 is
E= q1/(4eo*pi*d1*d1)-------(2)
Now a point charge of q2 is located at D2, at a distance of d2 from object D3. D1, D2 and D3 form a straight line. Assuming the charge q2 is located at a medium of different permittivity e1. The change of permittivity occur at a distance x from D3 where x1<d2.
Then, the electric field exerts on D3 by q2 is still
E= q2/(4eo*pi*d2*d2)-------(3)
Note it is because D3 is located at space of permittivity eo.
The effect of eo and e1 on electric field is either concentrating or rarifying the strength of the electric field. The electric field in e1 medium is lower (assuming e1<eo) than eo. When the electric field "moves" from e1 to eo, the strength of it increases. However, the electric displacement, D, remains the same as
D=eo*er.E ---------------------(4)
where er is the dielectric constant of the medium. For free space er=1
Here, we make
e1=eo*er----------------------(5)
The electric field at a distance x2 exerted by q2 (where x2<x1) is
E= q2/(4e1*pi*x2*x2)-------(6)
because the electric field is still in medium of space having e1.
Hence, the resultant electric displacement on point object D3 is
D=eo[q1/(4eo*pi*d1*d1)- q2/(4eo*pi*d2*d2)]-----------(7)
D=0 when d1=d2 and q1=q2.
The same arguement can be extended to two dimentional objects. Mathematically, it would involve extentive intergration.
About Ampere's law, please read
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hb ... q2.html#c4
Your Ampere's equation is something that falls from the sky.
There is no presence of current flow and there is no fluctuation of electric field with respect with time by charge q1 and q2, then according to Ampere's law
B=0.
A Thiaoouba Inspired Website
Moderator: Moderators
Dude, this is the third time you've kindly responded to my ideas with your own added interpretation of them. I'll try and be as clear as possible this time so we don't have to go through this again.
(1)
Agreed E.dA= q/eo would be more appropriate.
(2)
There is no object or space D3 as the diagram shows, it is merely the value of d2 - d1. The three spaces were originally there just to demonstrate the thermodynamic possibility of energy creation/destruction (and I'm kicking myself for not clarifying that better now). The pyramided light cones diagram may provide better conceptualisation in figure 3.
(3)
There are no point charges in d2 - all we can know about this space is taken from the charge in e1 (e2 = q1 / e0 .x-----d2 = e2 * e0 .x). The purpose being to show a superluminal build-up of energy in d2 through a Kirlian like method.
The rest of your criticisms don't factor due to these missed points.
I can see by the problems your having that the paper wasn't written as well as I hoped it was. Your the first to respond to my critique request so I guess you've been playing guinea pig on this one.
Edward.
http://www.ejaos.net
(1)
Agreed E.dA= q/eo would be more appropriate.
(2)
There is no object or space D3 as the diagram shows, it is merely the value of d2 - d1. The three spaces were originally there just to demonstrate the thermodynamic possibility of energy creation/destruction (and I'm kicking myself for not clarifying that better now). The pyramided light cones diagram may provide better conceptualisation in figure 3.
(3)
There are no point charges in d2 - all we can know about this space is taken from the charge in e1 (e2 = q1 / e0 .x-----d2 = e2 * e0 .x). The purpose being to show a superluminal build-up of energy in d2 through a Kirlian like method.
The rest of your criticisms don't factor due to these missed points.
I can see by the problems your having that the paper wasn't written as well as I hoped it was. Your the first to respond to my critique request so I guess you've been playing guinea pig on this one.
Edward.
http://www.ejaos.net
You are using Gauss's law and yet there is no point charge. How can you use the equation?There are no point charges in d2 - all we can know about this space is taken from the charge in e1 (e2 = q1 / e0 .x-----d2 = e2 * e0 .x). The purpose being to show a superluminal build-up of energy in d2 through a Kirlian like method.
Your equation (e2 = q1 / e0 .x-----d2 = e2 * e0 .x) is mathematically incorrect, I dont know how to you get it. Electric displacement has only a meaning when there is an electric field. The presence of electric field is established by the presence of charge. If there is no charge in D2, then the electric displacement, (herein in your paper denotes as D, D1 and D2), as the result of the presence of D2 is zero.
I undertstand the light cone. The consequent equations to desmostrate what you want to demostrate is like mixing an apple with an egg. In short, you have used misunderstood mathematical and conceptually incorrect equations to demostrate your idea.There is no object or space D3 as the diagram shows, it is merely the value of d2 - d1. The three spaces were originally there just to demonstrate the thermodynamic possibility of energy creation/destruction (and I'm kicking myself for not clarifying that better now). The pyramided light cones diagram may provide better conceptualisation in figure 3.
You need to start with the four maxwell equations. Do you think you are able to solve problems of quantum electrodynamic without learning how to solve some quantum physics questions?
I am physicist by training and I have seen paper written by people without a physics/science-related degree. They are trying to solve some "exotic" problems without really having a good foundation of physics. It is very unfortunate that despite their efforts, they get so many equations wrong.You are lucky as you are the first one which I feel the urge to give you some feedback. I dont think I will be doing this again in future.
D1 and D2 use the same charge and D2 is normally equal to D1 from that otherwise we would have felt it's presence before.You are using Gauss's law and yet there is no point charge. How can you use the equation?
Your equation (e2 = q1 / e0 .x-----d2 = e2 * e0 .x) is mathematically incorrect, I dont know how to you get it. Electric displacement has only a meaning when there is an electric field. The presence of electric field is established by the presence of charge. If there is no charge in D2, then the electric displacement, (herein in your paper denotes as D, D1 and D2), as the result of the presence of D2 is zero.
As far as I can see none of the gauge methods allow for faster than light interactions in the way I've described apart from the way above. Sorry I don't have a degree for you but I could say equally I've seen a physicist with a degree not grasp the presented idea four times now. Thanks for trying.You need to start with the four maxwell equations. Do you think you are able to solve problems of quantum electrodynamic without learning how to solve some quantum physics questions?
I am physicist by training and I have seen paper written by people without a physics/science-related degree. They are trying to solve some "exotic" problems without really having a good foundation of physics. It is very unfortunate that despite their efforts, they get so many equations wrong.You are lucky as you are the first one which I feel the urge to give you some feedback. I dont think I will be doing this again in future.
Edward.
http://www.ejaos.net
A general lapace wave equation doesn't impose any limitation on the group velocity. Only special relativity imposes the limitation. I have worked and dealed with extensive Maxwell equations as my PhD is based on it. That's why I made a comment on your paper.As far as I can see none of the gauge methods allow for faster than light interactions in the way I've described apart from the way above. Sorry I don't have a degree for you but I could say equally I've seen a physicist with a degree not grasp the presented idea four times now. Thanks for trying.
I am not discouraging you from exploring the new physics, I simply emphasize the NEED to lay a good foundation of physics before exploring further. In order to work aand prove the existence of "faster than light" interaction, you need to come up with new equations that not only agree with the old observations but it also explain the new observations. To start with, your "modified Gauss's law" has failed to explain the old observations. The resultant electric displacement felt at D3 doesn't distinguish whether there is a permittivty lower/higher than eo at its right/left.
"The faster than light interaction" is laid down by Richard Feynman on his quantum electrodynamic book. Feynman diagrams allow "faster than light interaction". However such interaction is as a result of virtual particles.
Check
http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/theory/feynman.html
Bomohwiki I have no wish to antagonise you which I feel this debate may have been doing so I am totally cool with it if you wish stop at any time. I was only making an announcement here to generate interest.You are lucky as you are the first one which I feel the urge to give you some feedback. I dont think I will be doing this again in future.
D2 is imbedded in D1 (the diagram in figure 4 is conceptually wrong for what your trying to use it for - use figure 3's) and d3 interacts instantaniously within the modified amperes law equation. I am modifying these only very slightly to include these faster than light layers so any other question can be dealt with classically.I am not discouraging you from exploring the new physics, I simply emphasize the NEED to lay a good foundation of physics before exploring further . In order to work aand prove the existence of "faster than light" interaction, you need to come up with new equations that not only agree with the old observations but it also explain the new observations. To start with, your "modified Gauss's law" has failed to explain the old observations. The resultant electric displacement felt at D3 doesn't distinguish whether there is a permittivty lower/higher than eo at its right/left.
I take your point about laying good foundations before exploring further (and I may yet find myself taking the QED route) but the equations presented are the most direct solution to the problem.
Edward.
http://www.ejaos.net