Scalar Waves

When I search The Free Dictionary for "scalar wave," it redirects to "scalar field."

That tells me that the establishment does not recognize the term "scalar wave."

Yet the term is used in alternative science.

I was working on the thread ”Prof. Konstantin Meyl's Unified Theory,” which involves scalar waves, when the thought occurred to me that a unified theory which uses the term "scalar waves" will be poorly understood if that term is not well understood.

But the question is: What does it mean?

Even Tom Bearden's website does not have a separate entry in its glossary for "scalar wave." It is, however, mentioned under "longitudinal wave" in relation to a "longitudinal standing wave":

A "pressure" type of wave, similar to sound, in which the vibrations are along the direction of travel of the wave.

Hence, a wave composed of alternating densifications and rarefactions, where we focus upon the longitudinal component of the changes. In the past we have used the term "scalar waves" to imply longitudinal standing waves, such as in one infolded Stoney-Whittaker wavepair inside the scalar potential. . . . Link

In an article associated with Tesla Tech first published in 1989, “Scalar Wave Detection” by scalar wave researcher Warren York, I don’t think it’s clear what a scalar wave is. The article doesn’t really talk about scalar waves. Instead, I see just “scalar”:

. . . This is what I hope some of you will do and start to help unfold and unleash this hidden knowledge called scalar -- zero point energy -- stress energy and even radionics. . . .

“scalar observations,”scalar detection,” “scalar properties,” “scalar energy,” with “interference patterns” in parentheses; “scalar indicator,” “scalar detector,” “scalar coil,” “scalar fields,” “scalar pulse,” or "plasma scalar detector.” Everything but "scalar wave."

Is it better called a “standing wave”?

I would like to hear from people who actually use the term “scalar wave” themselves as to what it means to them and how it differs from any other wave.

reply to post by Mary Rose


Look into scalars and vectors and you will start to see a bit better picture on why those terms are used, why you were re-directed, and why its use in "alternative science" (whatever that actually is) is, at best, a source of confusion.

You can start here:



and here:

I would like to know from people who know about em field/em radiation, why the momentum of a charged particle has no impact on the speed of propagation of em radiation? What does that mean? What would have to be the establishment and nature of the em field for the direction and velocity of a charged particle which is accelerated, and at that point of acceleration for em radiation to be caused (in all directions, 3d 360? no gaps in the em radiation, a perfect sphere of em radiation extending in all directions at point of acceleration expanding outward from surrounding charged particle?) to be influenced by the details of that charged particles travel? I am just trying to visualize and understand what sort of nature this is, the em field, that an electron traveling at any speed, accelerated, will cause em radiation to expand from that point at the speed of light, does this mean the em field is like a perfect solid, because it is so sensitive to change in acceleration that energy is near immediately and equally distributed in all near infinite directions surrounding a point?

reply to post by Serdgiam


Actually, what I'm interested in is people in the alternative science community (they know who they are) posting about what they mean if they use the term and how it differs from other waves.

reply to post by Mary Rose


Fair enough

I do not meet your qualification for participation, so I will be on my way.

Have a good one!

I think you should look up the term "gobbledygook" first and you will find the answer to why there is no scalar wave or over unity in the dictionary.

P.S.

Wide spread use of a term does not give any "understanding" or insight. Terms are created on the back of evidence, data, etc… that supports them being something with meaning. (science,math)

Or for standard vocab, simply wide spread use and understanding.

reply to post by Serdgiam

I have read a lot of Tom Beardon's books, simply fascinating reading. But, being an ordinary Joe Shmoe, I couldn't quite grasp what he was writing until I saw his videos. It put it all into perspective. The "Energy from The Vacuum" series are my favorite videos. I've watched them over and over, that is -1-17. I had them on my computer, but my son changed my operating system and I lost them. I was so mad at him
. I fully endorse watching these videos. you can find them on Tom's website @ cheniere.org .

reply to post by w8tn4it


The Natural Philosophy Alliance has recently honored Tom Bearden:

So did Trinity College and University. Honored him with a PhD for $400. It's one of the reasons the AF parted company with him.

Mary Rose
I would like to hear from people who actually use the term “scalar wave” themselves as to what it means to them and how it differs from any other wave.

I certainly hope this thread can stay on-topic, unlike many threads I've seen.

ImaFungi
I would like to know from people who know about em field/em radiation, why the momentum of a charged particle has no impact on the speed of propagation of em radiation? What does that mean? What would have to be the establishment and nature of the em field for the direction and velocity of a charged particle which is accelerated, and at that point of acceleration for em radiation to be caused (in all directions, 3d 360? no gaps in the em radiation, a perfect sphere of em radiation extending in all directions at point of acceleration expanding outward from surrounding charged particle?) to be influenced by the details of that charged particles travel? I am just trying to visualize and understand what sort of nature this is, the em field, that an electron traveling at any speed, accelerated, will cause em radiation to expand from that point at the speed of light, does this mean the em field is like a perfect solid, because it is so sensitive to change in acceleration that energy is near immediately and equally distributed in all near infinite directions surrounding a point?

I think I see where you are coming from.

Firstly, the EM radiation is a different thing than the charged particle. The EM radiation is, by very definition, mass-less. Because it is mass-less, it cannot exist at below the speed of light, it would simply 'evaporate out of reality' (don't get hung up on this, it is simply a metaphorical description). Similarly, to travel at the speed of light mandates that it MUST be mass-less.

The EM radiation itself is a self sustaining interaction between two fields (physically, at 90 degrees to each other). The electric field component induces a magnetic field component, which in turn induces an electric field and this cycle repeats very rapidly. At no stage does either field exist without the other, they overlap so that as the magnetic field approaches zero, the electric field approaches its maximum amplitude. At all stages, total energy is conserved and does not fluctuate except between states. In this way, they require no medium to propagate. They are totally self sufficient in each other.

To propagate oscillations longitudinally (as I understand most 'alternative' theorists mean by scalar waves), would require either a transmission medium being modulated or a compression and expansion oscillation along the temporal axis.

As we have no theory or mathematics that explains how a temporal oscillation could happen at the low energies and mass-less conditions of EM radiation, nor do we have any observational evidence that such is possible.

Most 'alternative' theorists, therefore, seem to presume that there is some sort of aetheric medium, which again we have tried to detect but never have. This assumption that there is an aether also assumes that it is omnipresent and homogenous throughout the universe and this again leads to all sorts of issues.

reply to post by chr0naut


As the topic of this thread is "scalar waves," do you have an opinion as to whether or not they exist?

Mary Rose
reply to post by chr0naut

 

As the topic of this thread is "scalar waves," do you have an opinion as to whether or not they exist?

I think it is highly unlikely that scalar waves (in the forms proposed by Bearden, et al) exist.

The conventional paradigms of Electromagnetic physics appear to be more complete and verifiable.

Mary Rose
When I search The Free Dictionary for "scalar wave," it redirects to "scalar field."

The definition of "scalar field" is shown as:

a field of scalars

where "field" is:

(mathematics) a set of elements such that addition and multiplication are commutative and associative and multiplication is distributive over addition and there are two elements 0 and 1; "the set of all rational numbers is a field"

And "scalar" is:



As I posted on the other thread, Prof. Konstantin Meyl discusses his use of the term "scalar wave" on Sterling Allan's website, where a person by the name of Karl Palsness had commented that there is a "scalar field" and there is a "longitudinal wave," but there should be no such thing as a "scalar wave." He also said that "scalar" just means size. He said a Tesla coil has a scalar field around it and emits a longitudinal wave.

Meyl responded that as a scientist he defined the meaning of scalar wave in his books but that it seems that nobody in America reads his writings. Continuing:

I explain that the scalar wave is nearly the opposite of a scalar field. The expression is more than 200 years old and in mathematics exactly explained by the field equation of Laplace.

The Laplace Operator (describing the distribution of a wave in space) may be separated in 2 parts: grad div - curl curl. The second part is explaining the EM wave, a transverse wave, while the first part gives a scalar wave: The div applied on a vector is scalar! This is why scalar particles or vortices as part of the wave equation are propagating as a scalar wave. But they are propagating in the direction of a field vector and by this the wave is longitudinal and has a direction. In mathematics it is known, that the grad applied on a scalar is a vector again. This is why the scalar wave is propagating in one direction, not in a scalar way, as Karl Palsness wants the scalar wave to do. Link

This is a screen shot from a search:



But when I tried to pull up that .pdf, it starts to download but then stops.

reply to post by Mary Rose

He said a Tesla coil has a scalar field around it and emits a longitudinal wave.

Funny, This Guy has built dozens of tesla coils and disagrees..

reply to post by AlphaHawk


That's scary stuff:

I explain that the scalar wave is nearly the opposite of a scalar field.

That is quite a conflict.

reply to post by Mary Rose


This is Tesla's bread and butter, and this guy has done some great things with some of Tesla's ideas.

reply to post by AlphaHawk


Does he put into writing a theory of Tesla's technology?