MARINOV TO THE WORLD'S SCIENTIFIC CONSCIENCE

U.SA (by ;ur) $250 Australia $200 New Zealand N Z $ 3.1 4 (INC. G.S.T.) Malays1a $4.90 ISSN 0028 666-4

18 December 1986 No 1539 Weekly £1. 10

PRESSURE ON THE LIVING PL

T

I

I

I

I

'

f

Tropical forest for sale • Radioactive reindeer

ADVERTISEMENT

MARINOV TO THE WORLD'S SCIENTIFIC CONSCIENCE On the back cover of my bookt" I wrote:

The »law of inertia ¢: is valid for any collective creation ofpolitical. moral. artistic or scientific character. Traditions and conservatism are indispensable for the functioning of an.v society, science or religion. However. if one gives no freedom for the communication ofnew ideas and qfthe results ofnew experiences and experiments. the progress in human society and science is impossible. As this book shows. our society is rather the same as in the times of Jesus Christ and Galileo. Ofcourse, the norms ofbehaviour have become more sophisticated but one is noT sure wheTher this »sophistication« is a result of our enlightenment and humanisation or those who maintain 1he power have understood I hat the imprisonment in phychiatric clinics is more effective than a cmcification and the covering with silence is more effective than a denial. I am writing this missive. as I have realized that it is impossible, by normal and generally accepted means.. to make even the smallest break-through in the wall which »established science« erects to protect itself from revolutionary changes. The new experiments may be reliable. cheap and easy for execution, the new theories may be simple, clear and transparent as air, their mathematical background rigorous and understandable for children, nevertheless established science says automatical/_v »no passaran «. Such is reality! I do not intend to discuss the big problem ll'h_r it is so. I say only that it is so. Everybody can persuade themselves that I am right only by perusing the first111 and secondm volumes of my book » The Thorny Way of Truth« . I did experiments and proposed theories which will lead to a drastic change in today's »way of life« of mankind. However, after having tried every conventional path to communicate these experiments and theories to the scientific community. I seem to have been only a boy playing on the sea·shore and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of »established science« lies before me where instead of water I see a tremendous immovable and slavery jelly-fish. Thus I decided to communicate my discoveries by directly addressing the »world's scientific conscience«. The result will probably be again that the big jelly-fish from the scientific journals and institutions will slightly open its senseless eye and close it anew. But what else can I do? Even my threat ofa self-immolation could not persuade Dr. Maddox to publish at least one paper of me in » Nature«m. In the sixties. after having made a critical analysis of the axiomatical basis of physics and the available experimental evidence. I established that Einstein's principle u.f relativity is wrong. I showed this experimentally in the most direct and unassailable way by measuring (for the first time in history) the one-way light velocity which, as I established, is anisotropic. namely c - V along the line of the Earth's absolute motion and c + V in the opposite direction, where c is the two-way light velocity and V the velocity ofthe laboratory in absolute space. My first. not very exact measurements were done in 1973 by the help of the deviative »coupled mirrors« experiment! 41 • Then in 1975/76 by the help of the interferometric »coupled mirrors« experiment" ·6•71, performing measurements during a year, I found for the Sun 's absolute velocity a magnitude V = 303 ± 20 km/sec and equatorial coordinates of the apex S = - 23" ± 4", a = 13h23m + 20m. Later Wilkinson and Corey'81 and Smoot et aJ.! 91, by analyzing the slight anisotropy of the cosmic background radiation, fou nd figures very near to mine, however I measured the Earth's absolute velocity in a closed laboratory, while Wilkinson and Smoot measured the »drift « of the Earth with respect to the frame in which the background radiation is isotropic and which frame, with a high probability, is to be identified with absolute space. My third measurement of the Eanh 's absolute velocity was done in 1984 by the help of the »coupled shutters« experiment121 (p. 68) and I registered in Febmary V = 360 ± 40 km/sec, S = -24• ± 1•. a= 12.5h ± Jh_ I showedu 01 that Einstein's principle ofequivalence is not true. as I was able to make an experimental difference between a kinematic and a gravitational acceleration. Indeed, when performing my interferometric »coupled mirrors« experiment, I established that during the different days of the year the absolute velocity of the laboratory was different, as the Earth moved about the Sun with kinematic acceleration. My apparatus can, however, remain years in a gravitational field, but not the slightest change in its absolute velocity will be observed. According to Einstein's principle ofequivalence, an observer placed

in a laboratory where all masses have the same acceleration can by no means establish whether this acceleration has a kinematic character (i.e. being due to an accelerated motion of the laboratory with respect to distant stars, for example by a rocket thrust) or a gravitational character (i.e. being generated by a gravitational action of nearby masses, for example by the Earth's attraction). Thus 1 restored the » Newtonian« character of space-time and showed that the relativistic adventure was an aberration. My theory and experiments are presented (after a terrible long-years tormenting fight with editors and referees from the jelly-fish ocean) in 50 publications, in my first book.» Eppur si muove«!'ll and in the five volumes of my encyclopaedic »Classic Physic::s«1' 2l. The reader wiU perhaps say that the rejection of the principles of relativity and equivalence has only an academic significance and with or without these principles the life on our planet will remain the same. This is not true. The absolute character of space-time leads to drastic changes in the theory of electromagnetism. According to Einstein, if there is a magnet and a wire, then the electric tension induced in the wire is the same for both cases, whether the wire moves with respect to the magnet or the magnet moves with respect to the wire, as only their relative velocity is of importance. Einstein opens his historic I 905-paper trumpeting forth exactly this categoric assertion, which, however, is a tremendous lie. In the first case (when the wire moves with a velocity v) the induced electric intensity is called by me (and by conventional physics, too) motional, and is given by the formula E.,, = v x rotA,

(I)

where A is the magnetic potential originated by the magnet at the space domain crossed by the wire. In the second case (when the magnet moves with a velocity v) conventional physics writes the same formula (I), taking it with a minus sign. This is wrong. In the second case the induced electric intensity is called by me motionaltransformer, and is given by the formula E mot-tr

= -OA/ot.

(2)

Any child will conclude that when considering the fundamental equation of motion of a unit electric charge in the field of an electromagnetic system originating the electric and magnetic potentials cp and A (commonly called the Lorentz equation) E = -gradcp - SA/St + vxrotA,

(3)

by putting there for both above-considered cases cp = 0, and then for the first case SA/St = 0 and for the second v = 0. Yes, any child will do that, but no single conventional physicist. Until now I supposed that the magnet is permanent or, if it is an electromagnet, the current feeding it is stationary. If the current is not stationary and the wire and the magnet are both at rest, we shall nevertheless have an induced electric intensity which I (and conventional physics, too) call transformer

E.,

SA/ot. (4) In this special (non-stationary) case the magnetic potential A = A(t) originated by the electromagnet at the space domain where the wire is placed is a direct function of time and the calculation is to be done directly according to formula (4). For the case of the motionaltransformer induction, however, the magnetic potental A is a composite function of time through the distances r1between the single »current elements« of the magnet (a current element is a small part of the wire of an electromagnet multiplied by the current flowing through it) originating the elementary magnetic potentials A, = A/r1(t)j and the space domain where the wire is placed. Assuming r, = r, i.e., assuming that the distance »magnet-wire« is substantially bigger than the size of the magnet, we can write formula (2) in the following form E.no..., = - oAfr(t)JJ St = SA or oy SA or + - - - + - ~) Sr oy St Sr Sz St = -

or Emo•-u•(v.grad)A. (5) where v = - Or/Ot is the velocity of the magnet and A = IA; is the magnetic potential originated by the whole magnet. Formula (5) will be written by any child who has heard something about a differentiation of a composite function, but, unfortunately, not by a single conventional physicist. It may sound strange and amazing, but formula (5) is unknown to conventional physics. Ritz has come to understand it a little bit and one can find it somewhere in the mathematical j ungles of O'Rahi1Jy< 131• Meanwhile formula (5) is as trans-parent as a morning dew.

ADVERTISEMENT That's aU. I have presented here the whole theory of the electromagnetic induction. Nothing remains to be added. The problem is understandable for children. Mathematically it is absolutely rigorous. There is only one flaw: conventional physics does not accept this theory. The whole scientific community does not recognize formula (5), affirm ing that the right formula for the case is formula ( I) taken with a minus sign. The reader will say: »My God! The problem can be solved in five minutes. Take a magnet, take a wire. Move first the wire, then the magnet. see whether there is a difference in the induced electric tensions, corresponding to the different formulas (I) and (5).« Humanity has done such experiments biJtions of times, but always with closed wires and never with a non-closed wire. I showedm (p. 124) that for closed wires (loops) the induced motional and motional-transformer tensions are equal. but for non-closed wires they are not (similarly humanity has billions of times measured the two-way light velocity which is constant, but never the one-way velocity which is direction dependent). A unique experiment with a non-closed wire was done only by Kennard 1141 for a rotational motion. In fig. II give a simplified version of Kennard's experiment. A current I flows in the loop consisting of two concentric circular wires. A wire with a length b - bo (bo«b) is placed radially between the concentric circular wires. When moving the open wire an electric tension is induced, however, when rotating the double circular loop no tension is induced. When rotating loop and wire together the same tension as in the first case is induced. The effects can be calculated immediately by the help of formulas (I ) and (5). In no textbook on electromagnetism that I have found one can see a description of Kennard's experiment. One of the rare monographs where this experiment is mentioned is van Bladel's" Sl. A variation of Kennard's experiment for translational motion can be proposed by any child (but not by a single conventional physicist nor by van Bladel). This variation is shown in fig. 2. If the rectangular loop is long enough , then by moving the wire a tension is induced along it. When moving the loop no tension is induced. When moving loop and wire together a tension is induced as .. . As in the first case? - Dear reader, when moving loop and wire together the velocity which one must take in formula (I) to calculate the induced tension is the absolute velocity of motion. Kennard's experiment is an analogue to the Sagnac effect (Sagnac established that the velocity of light on a rotating disk is direction dependent). The translational experiment in fig. 2 is an analogue to the Marinov effect (I established that the velocity of light in a translationally moving laboratory is direction dependent and the relevant velocity is the laboratory's absolute velocity). Any child can immediately calculate by using formula {I) that for v = V = 300 km/sec, I = 100 A, b = 14.8 em, bo = 0.2 em (so that In(2b/b0 ) = In 148 = 5) the induced tension will be 60 V. Thus putting golden leaves at the end points of the wire and calibrating previously their deviations by known voltages (as one calibrates ·an electrometer), one can measure the Earth's absolute velocity. Of course, this method is very inaccurate. However, if one should rotate the wire b - bo along an axle parallel to the plane of the loop and passing through the wire's center, an alternating electric tension will be induced in the wire and by the help of modern electronics the Earth's absolute velocity can be measured with an exactitude of m/sec. Any child having a laboratory and money will perform such an experiment, but no single representative of conventional physics. I have not done it myself as I ne1•er do obvious experiments. I do only experiments in whose results I am not absolutely sure. The reader will perhaps say: »All right, let us assume that there is a difference between the motional and motional-transformer inductions. But how will the vector-gradient in formula (5) change the future of mankind? » Just wait a little. Chi va piano. va lontano. I established further that the electromagnetic interactions are point-topoint interactions. Any single current element of the magnet origi-

interaction« , »electric and magnetic fields« (as physical realities), » density of electromagnetic energy in vacuum«, »displacement current«, and all similar rubbish must be thrown over board and forgotten. There are only electric charges q moving with velocities v and their electric and magnetic potentialscjl = q/41tS,r, A = ~qv/4nr (I must write them in the damned system SI, where, my God!, 8 and H are two quantities with different dimensions, so that even the grandchildren of our grandchildren will curse and swear at us when studying electromagnetism?:. I repeat: 'and A and nothing else. With those ~ and A I calculated< 21 all effects in classical electromagnetism, including, say, the polarization of the synchrotron radiation, and I deduced the :»Lorentz friction« directly from the Lienard-Wiechert potentials and the Lorentz equation when treating the former from the most logical and »natural« absolute point of view, while if considering the Lienard-Wiechert potentials from - the phantasmagoric point of view of » propagation of interaction« .the Lorentz friction must be introduced artificially and that leads to the senseless » selfacceleration «. Analysing then the beautiful experiments of Francisco Mueller (see Ref. 2, p. 46), who for 15 years has submitted papers in which he shows that the effects in many induction experiments are not as described in the textbooks (the jelly-fish has spat out all Mueller's fantastically profound and wise papers), I discovered that the seat of the motional-transformer induction may be at such parts of the wire which lie in space domains where rotA = 0. Consequently I came to the conclusion that induced electric energy can be obtained without spending mechanical (kinetic) energy. Indeed, if the whole loop is in a space domain where A 0 but rotA = 0, then moving the magnet we can induce the current in the loop according to formula (5), while by moving the loop we cannot induce a current, as can be seen from formula ( I}. Take, for example, a long current solenoid (or a long permanent cylindrical magnet) and encircle it by a circular loop. Moving the solenoid parallel to the plane of the loop, you will induce electric tension in the loop (the conventional physicists will tell you that tension cannot be induced, but they lie). The unpleasant aspect, however, is that in the half circle which you approach the induced tension will be opposite to the tension induced in the half circle from which you remove, so that no net tension can be measured. Thus the problem is to find such a combination ofa loop and a magnet that the net tension in the loop wiiJ be different from zero. If we succeed in doing this, then the magnet will not exert a ponderomotive action on the induced current flowing in the loop, as such a ponderomotive force can appear only if a current element is in a space domain where rotA * 0. For closed current loops the third law of Newton is valid (for current elements this law is not valid, but conventional physics is afraid to touch and discuss this problem). Consequently the loop can not exert a ponderomotive action on the magnet either and the motion of the latter will not be braked, as this is the case in any generator known to humanity. Obviously such a generator without »braking moment« will be a perpetuum mobile. Now, I hope, that the reader understands that if such a generator can be constructed, the future of our planet will be changed substantially.

*

nates its own magnet ic potential A, and the e lectrons in the wire move

under the action of the algebraic sum of all A; (taking, respectively, rotation and partial time derivative from the net magnetic potential A). The »closed current lines« and »flux« conceptions of Faraday and Maxwell are no good. »Magnetic poles«, »lines of magnetic forces«. »magnetic flux «, etc. ·- all these notions can be used only for certain visualizations but not for theoretical speculations. I called (see Ref. 2, p. 4) the people who calculate the electric tension induced in a loop by the magnetic flux cut by this loop in a unit of time the »butchers«, as for such people the magnetic flux is a sausage and the loop a knife. If we wish our children to understand electromagnetism, we must chase the »butchers« away from the schools, otherwise our children and the children of our children will also become »butchers« and will never be able to discover an electromagnetic perpetuum mobile. Then such notions as »propagation of

•

-

•

.

•

~

•

ADVERTISEMENT In Ref. 2 and in Ref. 16 I give a detailed description of such a machine. Here I present its scheme (fig. 3), its photograph (fig. 4) and a short description: In the gap of a torus of soft iron there are two similar disks consisting of an equal number of sectors of axially magnetized permanent magnets. Between those sectorial magnets there are sectors of non-magnetizable material (I used bronze). The one disk is solid to the laboratory and the other can be rotated by an electromotor. When the sectorial magnets of the rotating disk overlap the sectorial magnets of the solid disk, there is rotA 0 in those »sectors« of the torus which »overlap« the overlapping sectorial magnets and = 0 in the space outside the torus. When the sectorial magnets of the rotating disk overlap the bronze sectors, there is rotA = 0 in the whole torus and A = 0 outside the torus. Consequently an alternating electric tension

*

A*

U=

n+ (o A/ot).dl

(6)

will be induced in the coil, where n is the number of the windings of the coil, and the line integral is taken along one of the coil's windings (dl is the line element of this winding). Although the induction in this case is motional-transformer, A in formula (6) depends directly on time, as, because of the cylindrical symmetry, the distance between the moving magnet and the coil practically do not change. Feeding the electromotors in figs. 3 and 4 by the generated current one obtains a perpetuum mobile which I called MAMIN COLIU (MArinov's Motional-transformer INductor COupled with a Lightly rotating Unit). Maybe, the reader will present the following objection: » Dr. Marinov, above you said that if there are a closed loop and a magnet, then whether the magnet or the loop will be moved, the induced tension will be the same. Imagine now that the torus in fig. 3 is a very long cylindrical torus. By rotating the sectorial disk one induces a current, but by rotating the cylindrical coil about its axis, no current is induced. Why is this asymmetry?« The question of the reader is very good. The answer is the following: The theorem for the equivalence of the motional and motional-transformer inductions for a closed loop is deduced only for two bodies a loop and a magnet. In Mamin Coliu there are four bodies: a rotating disk, a disk at rest, an iron »yoke« and a coil; the one disk must rotate with respect to the other, whether the cylindrical coil and the torus are at rest or rotate is immaterial. In the three variations of Mamin Coliu which I constructed the generated tension is still lower than the tension which is needed to run the motor, so that the friction can be overcome. However all machines show without any doubt that there is no electromagnetic braking when a current is generated. I hope to soon construct the self-running machine. Let me narrate at the end the last reactions of the jelly-fish to my endeavours to bring my discoveries to its attention. I brought my machine to the GRll Conference in Stockholm (July 1986) where I was to be a speaker. The Swedish police expelled me. After the first unsucoessful attempt, two James Bonds from the civil police took me in their arms and delivered me to the police in Vienna. All this was done, I believe, with the knowledge of the organizers of GR II . The whole shameful sto~ with all the details is narrated in my letter to the Nobel committee 11 6 in which I ask King Gustafto present me with the excuses of the Swedish crown for this barbaric expulsion. I then brought my machine to the International symposium on electromagnetic theory (Budapest, August 1986). taki.ng a very big personal risk, for if the Hungarian police had understood that I was

-

-

sentenced to ten years in Bulgaria as an «enemy of the people», my scientific career should have to be conducted further in a Bulgarian jail (as in the years 1966-77 when I dug the grave of relativity in the Sofia prisons and psychiatric clinics). However, in Budapest I was not allowed to present the machine and a poster, although 80% of the poster-tables were free. I asked Prof. Bach Andersen (Denmark), the Chairman, and Prof. Senior (USA), the Vice-Chairman, to state in written form the reasons for this denial (orally no reasons had been presented) but so far no letter from these gentlemen has reached me. And the final story. In a recent long phone conversation with Mrs. J. Payne from the » Journal of Physics«, I asked her why after more than two years of examination time there is still no decision about acceptance/ rejection of the four papers submitted by me. The answer was: »Dr. Marinov, nobody still wishes to become your referee, because then you publish the comments in your books.« Jelly-fish, jelly-fish, you are afraid to criticize me even anonymously, as you know that pretty soon your anonymous trousers will be stripped down. Indeed, the comments of29 June 1984 by the two anonymous referees on my paper on the »coupled shutters« experiment (Ref. 2, p. 68) are reproduced on p. 264 of Ref. 2. This paper was not rejected then and remained under examination for another two years. I said to Mrs. Payne: » If all referees are afraid to comment on my papers, then the Editor in Chief must take a decision, and if he decides to reject the papers. I think, I have the right to insist that he personally signs the rejection letter, as in my papers I discuss scientific topics vital for the survival of mankind.« In fig. 5 the reader can see the letter of the » Journal of Physics« which reached me on 24 September 1986: there is no date, no titles of the rejected papers, no signature. STEFAN MARINOV, Morellen Feldg. 16, A-8010 Graz, Austria

REFERENCES I. S. Marinov, The Thorny Way of Truth, Part I (East-West, Graz, 1982). 2. S. Marinov, The Thorny Way of Truth, Part II (East-West, Graz, 1984, third ed. 1986). 3. J. Maddox, Nature, 311, 399 (1984). 4. S. Marinov, Czech. J. Phys., B24, 965 ( 1974). 5. S. Marinov, New Scientist, 71, 662 (1976). 6. S. Marinov, Abstracts of the 8th International Conference on General Relativity and Gravitation (Waterloo, Canada, J977), p. 244. 7. S. Marinov, Gen. Rei. Grav.. 12, 57 (1980). 8. E. S. Cheng, P. R. Saulson, D. T. Wilkinson and B. E. Corey, Astrophys. J., 232, Ll 39 ( 1979). 9. G. F. Smoot, M. V. Gorenstein and R. A. Muller, Phys. Rev. Lett., 39, 898 ( 1977). 10. S. Marinov, Ind. J. Theor. Phys.. 31, 93 (1983). II. S. Marinov, Eppur si muove (C.B.D.S., Bruxelles, 1977, sec. ed. East-West, Graz, 1981). 12. S. Marinov, Classical Physics, (East-West, Graz, 1981). 13. A. O'Rahllly, Electromagnetic Theory (Dover, New York). 14. E. H. Kennard, Philosoph. Mag., 33, 179 (1917). 15. J. van Blade!, Relativity and Engineering. (Springer, Berlin, 1984). 16. S. Marinov, Nawre, 322, p. x (21 August 1986). Note: A big anonymous article on Marinov was published in the english journal: The Economist, p. 76 (5 February 1977). •