A NEW PARADIGM, Part I of II. 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. THE ENERGY MACHINE OF JOSEPH NEWMAN 11445 East Via Linda, No. 416 Scottsdale, Arizona 85259 (480) 657-3722 www.josephnewman.com End of A NEW PARADIGM, Part I of II.
