[lamare]

Hi all,

I am investigating whether or not I could use OpenFoam to simulate an aether based model for Electromagnetics, whereby I model the aether as an ideal compressible fluid, whereby the Laplacian is used to define a scalar electric potential Phi, a vector magnetic potential A, a vector field E for the electric field and a vector field B for the magnetic field.

You see, historically, Maxwell started out with a very simple model: the aether is like a fluid. He used that analogy to describe the magnetic and electric fields, but the connection to the underlying model was lost and with it the terms which describe the compressibility of the aether.

When you re-start from scratch and model the aether as an ideal compressible fluid and use the Laplace operator, you can re-define both fields in a simple and straightforward manner. I will use [] to denote a vector. Sorry for not using Tex, I can't find how to do this on the forum.

Field definition:

The basic continuous fluid model uses the velocity within the fluid for describing waves, vortices, etc. The Laplace operator gives you the 2nd derivative of the velocity field with respect to position [x]:

Nabla^2 = grad div [v] + rot rot [v].

Notice there are two terms, both computed in two steps, so we get 4 in between variables, when implemented in software, or "fields" in math language. We just give these the familiar names, and that's it:

Electric potential:
Phi = div [v]. [/s] or [Hz].

Magnetic potential:
[A] = rot[v]. [radians/s]

Since rot div[v]=0 and grad rot[v]=0 as well, we now have a divergence free component in the magnetic potential and a rotation free component in the electric potential.

The next step is to take the gradient of the electric potential, which gives you the electric field [E]:

[E] = grad(Phi) = grad div [v]. [/(ms)] or [Hz/m]

And to take the rotation of the magnetic potential, which gives you the magnetic field [B]:

[ B ] = rot[A] = rot rot [v].

This *must* also have a unit of measurement of [/(ms)] or [Hz/m], otherwise the two components of the Laplacian wouldn't add up.

Added together, we get the Laplacian, of course:
Nabla^2 = [E] + [ B ] = grad div [v] + rot rot [v].

----

So, that's my field definition. Just an ideal compressible fluid, whereby only the parameters (density, etc..) have different values as they would be when modelling acoustics or hydrodynamic flows and/or waves within an ideal compressible fluid.

So, my question comes down to:

Can I simulate both the vorticity c.q. rotational flows of the compressible fluid (magnetic field, rot rot[v]) as well as the compressible flow (electric field, grad div [v]) at the same time to study, for example, the radiation pattern of an antenna,? In this model, this would involve the radiation of vortex rings as well as longitudinal compression waves....

If yes, can you give me any directions on how/where to start?

Thanks,

Arend Lammertink.

[Michel_sharp]

Perhaps you should contact Sabine and let her review your work

https://aeon.co/ideas/what-i-learned...act-physicists

[lamare]

@Michel_sharp : Thanks a lot!

Mailed her this:

Dear Sabine,

Let me first introduce myself briefly. I hold a Masters degree in Electrical Engineering from the University of Twente and have done quite some research into aether physics the past couple of years.

I have now been able to formulate an aether theory, which can be simulated using CFD, using an aether model consisting out of nothing but an ideal, compressible inviscid fluid.

To my own surprise all one needs to to is apply the Lapliacian operator on the velocity field of such a fluid model, and give the different terms in the Laplacian operator their familiar names:

http://www.cfd-online.com/Forums/ele...-openfoam.html

Then it ALL drops into place....
(I got the tip of contacting you from there, btw)

In additon to the above definition for the EM fields, Paul Stowe suggests:

Gravity G = grad(E).

I haven't worked that all out yet, but I think Stowe is definitely on to something, although his paper is a bit hard to read and confusing here and there:

http://vixra.org/abs/1310.0237

I am working on an article, in a number of parts, to explain the whole theory from a historical perspective, of which the first part is pretty much finished:

http://www.tuks.nl/wiki/index.php/Ma...FabricOfNature

Finally, I have read your page here:

https://aeon.co/ideas/what-i-learned...act-physicists
"I still get the occasional joke from colleagues about my ‘crackpot consultant business’, but I’ve stopped thinking of our clients that way. They are driven by the same desire to understand nature and make a contribution to science as we are. They just weren’t lucky enough to get the required education early in life, and now they have a hard time figuring out where to even begin. At the same time, the physicists on my team like to help others understand more about science and appreciate the opportunity to apply their knowledge outside academia. In connecting both sides, everybody wins."

So, here you have a "crackpot" with an education who claims to offer you yet another "theory of everything". Is this one different?

Of course, I think: Yes.

So, I challenge you for an open public debate on this matter on the above thread at the cfd forum.

I bet you for one crate of Grolsch you will loose the debate.

And no. it's not about the beer. It's about creating a win-win situation.

Looking forward to the debate.

Kindest regards,

Arend Lammertink, MScEE,
<adres>

And now we wait...