Leave a comment on paragraph 1 0
Proposition: Technology is NOT applied Science.
Sci/Tech are sibling disciplines. That Tech uses empirical evidence, research, and math – doesn’t make them sciences. Science’s objectives and contexts are comprehensions. Tech’s objectives are designing/creating real systems. Science uses instrumentation from Tech. Tech uses Science’s formulations of processes. One person can be both scientist and technologist (engineer). Smil’s article is primarily a History of Tech, which did get its start from Maxwell.
¶ 2 Leave a comment on paragraph 2 0 James Clerk Maxwell was surely a genius, of whom I know almost nothing – need to read this Wikipedia biography. Yet, for me, Maxwell’s Equations are the Mona Lisa of Science, far superior in beauty than Einstein’s (in my opinion).
¶ 3 Leave a comment on paragraph 3 0 I learned Maxwell in two graduate courses at the University of Chicago, 1957-58, taught by Nobel winner & genius Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar, which I have written about elsewhere. These were the two best classes in my whole educational career. I have completely forgotten this physics/math.
¶ 6 Leave a comment on paragraph 6 0 “Maxwell expressed electromagnetism in the algebra of quaternions and made the electromagnetic potential the centrepiece of his theory.. In 1881 Oliver Heaviside replaced Maxwell’s electromagnetic potential field by ‘force fields’ as the centrepiece of electromagnetic theory. Heaviside reduced the complexity of Maxwell’s theory down to four differential equations, known now collectively as Maxwell’s Laws or Maxwell’s equations. According to Heaviside, the electromagnetic potential field was arbitrary and needed to be “murdered”.. The use of scalar and vector potentials is now standard in the solution of Maxwell’s equations.
¶ 7 Leave a comment on paragraph 7 0 Somewhere, long ago, I read that Heaviside, in reducing the equations from quaternions to vectors, eliminated an important and very real type of force/interaction from the field. These had to do with the direct interaction of rotating bodies, such as Jupiter and its moons – which was claimed to result in the specific latitude location of the Great Spot.
¶ 8 Leave a comment on paragraph 8 0 Is this Fake Science, or a neglected phenomenon; seen today as just local/temporary specifics of a real system, not resulting from a deeper system of interactions? The great internet provides: I Googled “quaternions Jupiter Great Spot“, which led to HYPERDIMENSIONAL PHYSICS: http://geomagnetics.org/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/onphysicsandmore-finished.pdf Now I have more to read, with less and less time! I just had to read – ignore the politics – I report below.
¶ 9 Leave a comment on paragraph 9 0 I don’t BELIEVE that any of the physics is valid. HyperDimensional Reality may be mathematical poetry. Not all of the phenomena reported need be true, while some might be. Scientists are known to have hobby interests as well as those we know about. Newton had a strong interest in Astrology.
[part of the “27-line”…]
(which have collective masses
during the course of their complex orbital
time-altered behavior in a variety of well-known Jovian phenomena–
of HyperDimensional physics operating within Jupiter?
of Jupiter’s own moons,
are clearly NOT the result of conventional
“gravitational” or “tidal” interactions —
in view of the relatively insignificant masses of the moons
compared to Jupiter itself;
but, following Maxwell and Whittaker,
the hyperdimensional effects of these same moons
on the constantly changing, vorticular scalar stress
¶ 14 Leave a comment on paragraph 14 0 1) The energy from the sun doesn’t come from nuclear fusion at the core, but from the angular momentum in hyperdimensional space. This accounts for the missing neutrinos from the sun that are expected from the nuclear fusion, but which are not observed as predicted.
¶ 18 Leave a comment on paragraph 18 0 The author of HD makes claims about secret government inventions using this technology, which makes one wonder – but not enough to not give some consideration to the possible reality of these claims. The history of basic physics described shows centuries of alternative perspectives. There is reference to an experiment by Bohm, and many other anomalous experimental results.