Inconsistency Solution of Maxwell's Equations

[Solik]

A new solution of Maxwell equations for a vacuum, for wire with constant and alternating current, for the capacitor, for the sphere, etc. is presented. First it must be noted that the proof of the solution's uniqueness is based on the Law of energy conservation which is not observed (for instantaneous values) in the known solution.

 

The resulting solution describes the electromagnetic wave

• in vacuum,
• in wire with alternating and constant current,
• in magnetic circuit of alternating current,
• in charging and charged capacitor – flat and spherical,
• in ball lightning,
• in the vicinity of solitary electrical charge.

The resulting solution allows us to explain

• twisted light,
• single-wire transmission of energy,
• nature of the Earth's magnetism,
• nature of energy stored in a charged capacitor,
• nature of the energy stored in ball lightning, and some of its properties,
• functioning Milroy engine.

The work offers some technical applications of the solution obtained. A detailed proof is given for interested readers.

Here is an Prospect

 

attachment with advertising removed by mod

[studiot]

This is advertising claptrap (advertising your book) quite out of keeping with the rules here.

 

Potential buyers beware the PDF show as couple of graphs, one of which is stated to be the graph of a 'wave', but has no time axis.

 

The second has no labels on the axis but shows a helix 'harmonically pulsing in time'.

[Solik]

So, you do not understand pictures. And the words are understandable?

[Strange]

 

“To date, whatsoever effect that would request a modification of Maxwell’s equations escaped detection” [36].

 

You do not have a reference 36. So where is this quotation from?

 

 

Nevertheless, recently criticism of validity of Maxwell equations is heard from all sides.

 

You don't have a reference for these "criticisms", so where are they coming from?

 

In fact, you don't have any references. So it is hard to take this seriously.

 

 

Above shows another solution of Maxwell's equations.

 

No it doesn't. You talk about a "solution of Maxwell's equations" but there isn't one. So the document seems to be content free apart from some incomprehensible pictures.

 

So, why not show your solution here and then people can comment on it.

Edited September 16, 2016 by Strange

[Solik]

Thank you for your questions.

It shows part of the introduction of the book.

The book is in the public domain.

Regarding the "solution", and not "solutions": I propose that the general principle and consider special cases.

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

Advertising is prohibited. If you want to discuss this, do so without an offer to sell anything in your attachment.

[Strange]

 

Thank you for your questions.

 

You are welcome. Now please answer them.

The book is in the public domain.

 

No it isn't. It says "Copyright ... All rights reserved."

[Solik]

I can shorten the message and only refer directly to PDF

[studiot]

Maxwell's equations (I presume you meant his electromagnetic ones as he had many others?) are seriously mathematical.

 

Yet I do not see any mathematics at all in your post or pdf.

 

Further the electromagnetic equations do not have a 'solution' as they are not a set of simultaneous equations as for instance the equations of force equilibrium.

In fact at least some of them are partial differential equations.

I assume you know that whilst ordinary differential equations have one or more arbitrary constants, partial differential equations have arbitrary functions in their solution.

Perhaps you have found one of these?

 

I look forward to your detailed explanation of your claim.

Edited September 16, 2016 by studiot

[Strange]

Thank you for your questions.

 

Now please answer them.

I can shorten the message and only refer directly to PDF

 

No, just discuss it here.

[swansont]

If and when you do start posting material here and answer questions, you could address the bogus claim

it does not satisfy the law of conservation of energy, because the electromagnetic energy flux density pulsating harmonically

 

This implies you think the EM wave is a section of the sine wave depicted, less than a wavelength, which is wrong. For a single-frequency sine to be a solution to the equations, for example, it actually has to be infinitely long. If you're trying to impose energy conservation on only part of the wave, then you are placing an artificial constraint on the situation. Conservation of energy must be applied to the whole of the wave, not just part of it.

[Solik]

Conservation of energy to be applied to any part of the wave, and not only to the entire wave.

[swansont]

Conservation of energy to be applied to any part of the wave, and not only to the entire wave.

That's not how it works.