Faster-than-light electric currents could explain pulsars

reply to post by Phage
Right, sending a laser to the moon will really show the divergence.

But if you try to measure the difference in intensity at a distance of 20 feet versus 2 feet with a laser versus an incandescent bulb, it's very easy to see the inverse square at work on the isotropic incandescent bulb, and not as easy to see it with the laser.

Edit to add: When comparing light intensity at 2 feet versus 20 feet, we see a hundred times difference in the intensity of the incandescent bulb. Do we really see a hundred times difference in the intensity of the laser?

[edit on 26-6-2010 by Arbitrageur]

Originally posted by Maddogkull
The thing I cannot understand about the electric universe is the amount of lack of scientists are engaged in it. Is it because they don’t want to drop their theories because they have been taught there whole life a certain style? It just seems weird how the plasma/electric models are not getting looked into more. It has to be more than just money and power.

Mainstream science, or einsteinism, is very similar to religion. If it doesnt fit in with the dogma then its not real science. Way too many closed minds or people who care only about profit. Just because Darwin, or Einstein, Or Hawkins, or whoever, said some clever things does not mean they were right. It merely means they had a better theory that fit better than what else was around. Too many scientists forget their principles.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


The less divergence the less the loss of power but it is still proportional to the square of the distance. Something like: / r^2 θ (θ being the angle of divergence). The closer θ is to 0 the less the loss. In the distance the beam remains collimated there is no loss but that does not last forever.



[edit on 6/26/2010 by Phage]

reply to post by Phage


I have to agree phage, a perfect laser doesn't follow the ISL, but a real laser does.

Where I had made a mistake was between a sperical emitter and a focussed or coherent source.

Amazingly most of the stuff on the web cocks this up as well.

It is a little embarrassing for me as I have worked with lasers for the last 5 years! We have large aperture lasers with a very long focal distances that don't diverge until the focal point.

Luckily for my ego Arbi, who's opinion I also respect on here also seems a little unsure

Originally posted by LightFantastic
Arbi, who's opinion I also respect on here also seems a little unsure

Thanks for the respect but I really don't feel unsure about this at all. When I said it's debatable I didn't mean I wasn't sure which was correct. What I meant is that it's debatable depending on the measurement scale/conditions. So to use Phage's terminology while the beam is collimated as it might be within a classroom demonstration, we don't see the inverse square law apply, but the collimation doesn't last forever, so on a larger measurement scale like sending a laser to the moon, the inverse square law definitely does apply to lasers.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

The less divergence the less the loss of power but it is still proportional to the square of the distance. Something like: / r^2 θ (θ being the angle of divergence). The closer θ is to 0 the less the loss. In the distance the beam remains collimated there is no loss but that does not last forever.

I agree with that completely.

However I'm not sure I agree with your previous assessment that

What makes it debatable is the difference between theory and reality.

What you now seem to be saying is that if measurements are made over the range of distances where the beam remains collimated the lack of inverse square behavior is not just theory but is in fact real? If that interpretation is correct then I think we are in agreement.

reply to post by Arbitrageur

We agree.

My previous statement was in regard to a theoretical collimated beam of unlimited extent. Such a beam would not follow the inverse square rule. The reality is that no such beam exists, all forms of electromagnetic radiation obey the inverse square law when divergence is considered as a part of the proportionality.

But to get back to what started this divergent discussion. What the heck can that statement mean?

In addition, the focusing provides a degree of amplification, causing the intensity of the radiation to diminish not with the inverse square of the distance but with the inverse distance.

Is it a directional, collimated beam? Is it coherent? If it were, why would it lose power at all?

Originally posted by Phage
What the heck can that statement mean?

Is it a directional, collimated beam? Is it coherent? If it were, why would it lose power at all?

Good.

Well I do have some guesses but I wasn't able to find out for sure. Actually my first guess in a case like this is a misunderstanding of the author, George Musser, who wrote the story. It wouldn't be unusual for a misinterpretation to occur when trying to explain something a scientist said in layman's terms.

There's a listing of Singleton's papers/grants etc here:

www.magnet.fsu.edu...

The closest paper I found was this one: xxx.lanl.gov...

Which references in the acknowledgements:

J. S., J. F., and A. S. are supported by U.S.
Department of Energy grant LDRD 20080085DR, “Construction and use of superluminal
emission technology demonstrators with applications in radar, astrophysics and secure com-
munications.”
Project Dates: 01/10/04 - 30/09/07
Award Amount: $700,000

Which sounds like this project except he's apparently still working on it in 2009 and 2010 and that grant was through 2007 with his paper published in 2008.

So I'm wondering if he's got another grant not listed there and his paper for the new one will be published after the conclusion of the current grant like his 2008 paper was published after the conclusion of his previous grant in 2007?

I think I need to read what Singleton says about it, not what someone else's interpretation is. So maybe reading the paper he writes at the conclusion of this research will answer that question. George Musser's explanation doesn't really make sense to me.

A quick scan of the paper linked through the op describes the pulsar beam as incoherent beam constructed from coherent sub beams. 

This beam continually constructs and reconstructs itself, resulting in a falloff of 1/r rather that 1/r2, explaining our measurements of pulsars.  I guess this could also be used with GRB's.

So it appears this doesn't support EU theories.

Originally posted by LightFantastic
A quick scan of the paper linked through the op describes the pulsar beam as incoherent beam constructed from coherent sub beams. 

This beam continually constructs and reconstructs itself, resulting in a falloff of 1/r rather that 1/r2, explaining our measurements of pulsars.  I guess this could also be used with GRB's.

Thanks, I just scanned that paper too.

He definitely says the decay is "non-spherical".

extreme values of the brightness temperature (∼ 1037 K), temporal width (∼ 1 ns), and source dimension (∼ 1 m) of the giant pulses received from the Crab pulsar arise from the nonspherical decay of the intensity of this radiation with distancce

I noticed he has a diagram of a "Light cylinder" in Fig 6, so I wonder if he's implying the decay is more like cylindrical than spherical. That would result in a falloff of 1/r rather than 1/r2 at distances relatively close to the cylinder. For example, a 4' long fluorescent tube might exhibit 1/r decay from relatively close distances to the tube, like 1 foot to 2 feet away. But at greater distances the cylinder still approximates a point source where 1/r^2 kicks in, and it would take a light cylinder of incredible length to give us 1/r decay from a distance of the crab nebula.

I guess the paper is peer reviewed but I wonder if other researchers agree with this paper. I'll have to read it more closely, I didn't really study it yet.But I already have a lot of heartburn with his first two sentences:

Observational data imply the presence of superluminal electric currents in pulsar magnetospheres.
Such sources are not inconsistent with special relativity; they have already been created in the laboratory.

I have no doubt he has created a superluminal source in the laboratory. However if he's implying that the superluminal source he created in the laboratory is evidence for superluminal currents in pulsars, I don't follow that logic. Currents consist of electrons, and if any individual electron is moving faster than light that would violate relativity even if his lab experiments don't. There are no actual massive particles like electrons traveling faster than light in his lab experiments.

[edit on 27-6-2010 by Arbitrageur]

reply to post by Arbitrageur


I will have to read the paper properly but it looked to me that they are describing the creative mechanism for 1/r em propagation rather than an effective point source distance thing.

They cite experiments confirming the 1/r propagation.


[edit on 27/6/2010 by LightFantastic]

I thought the Sun sent out faster than light particles and
that star is closer than any pulsar.
Why are they going so far away when we already know what
goes on close by.

reply to post by Sinter Klaas


Ether sound waves go the speed of light.
However building up a high voltage potential can accelerate a particle
faster than the speed of light.
An aircraft built on the ether propulsion method has been estimated
to have a top speed of 300 miles per second.
The notes are sealed but thought you might want to know what
has not been confiscated.

reply to post by TeslaandLyne


That makes sense, but what are you referring to that's confiscated ?

Originally posted by Sinter Klaas
reply to post by TeslaandLyne

 

That makes sense, but what are you referring to that's confiscated ?

The Tesla labs and notes.
There are some people still interested in seeing them.
We will never see verification of the Tesla craft or of his ether theory.
His best work not given to the museum in Tesla's homeland is in
Los Alamos under a security level William R. Lyne has not yet
determined but must be very high.

reply to post by TeslaandLyne


I would love to know that. They should make it illegal for governments to keep secrets.

Originally posted by Sinter Klaas
reply to post by TeslaandLyne

 

I would love to know that. They should make it illegal for governments to keep secrets.

For those tracking down and working with what is known there
might be progress some day.
I think all of Tesla's work is based on the coil operation which he
said was better than the MIT Van Der Graff as he wrote a publication
detailing the mechanical device as inferior to his coil to make static
electricity.
Essentially making high voltage was the main product he used for
all his announced devices that were never built (to our eyes) except
for his aircraft which many have seen for 10 munits before speeding
off at great speed.
www.youtube.com...
Special bipolar Tesla coil exhibiting capacitive coupling in free air.

However the device looks out of Tesla's 1892 lecture on one wire
lighting.
People are getting close.
Perhaps Haiti could use a Tesla one wire power system instead
of UFO hoaxes.
And BP should get out of US Ranch management.
(US Ranches: secret landing areas for Tesla aircraft)