Doubts About "Modern Physics"

[Transpower]

I joined this forum, in part, to respond to an individual going by the handle "papagino." In http://www.bautforum.com/archive/index.php/t-85118.html, he made the statement that one of my physics papers, "Theory of the Capacitor," is "pathetic." I skimmed through his comments, but could find no substantiation for this pejorative.

I've been a Ph.D. scientist and engineer in industry for over 30 years and have written numerous papers, books, and software packages. My theoretical physics mentor was Dewey B. Larson, from 1965 until his death in 1990. His Reciprocal System is a unified, general theory of the universe, and I've written over 50 papers on it, in addition to a primer entitled The Unmysterious Universe. My current project is the construction of a comprehensive data base of Reciprocal System calculations; this is chronicled at http://transpower.wordpess.com. You will find there numerous free papers (written in Mathcad and saved as a PDF) to download; they are all computational. One of these is "Theory of the Capacitor." Now, why is this important to a forum such as this? It's important because, if the conventional explanation of the two capacitor problem is found to be wrong, this undercuts electrical theory, which then undercuts the nuclear atom theory, which then destroys Quantum Mechanics, and which then makes laughable the concepts of neutron stars and black holes and the Big Bang.

As I show in "Theory of the Capacitor," the conventional theory results in a violation of the law of the conservation of energy, one of the most important verified laws in physics. Of course, the conventional theorist simply waves his hand and says that electromagnetic waves carry away the missing energy. C'me on, this is nonsensical. I lay out the Reciprocal System calculations and show that energy is conserved, after all.

I will make this as clear as possible: conventional electrical theory says that ordinary capacitors store charged electrons and that the quantity of energy stored is proportional to the square of the voltage. The Reciprocal System says, to the contrary, that ordinary capacitors store uncharged electrons and that the quantity stored is directly proportional to the voltage. All physical quantities in the Reciprocal System are expressed in space-time terms only--just s and t. Energy = [t/s] and an electron = [s]. Energy per electron is then (t/s)/s = t/s^2. These are the dimensions of voltage (and any force, for that matter).

There are, of course, numerous other problems in "modern physics" but just this one problem shows that it really is just a house of cards. I would suggest that if you also have doubts about "modern physics" you go to http://transpower.wordpress.com and download the free papers. I'm more interested in clarity than agreement, so if you disagree--or if you are working in conventional physics or another paradigm--let's at least try to stay civil.

[tusenfem]

Dear Transpower, welcome to BAUT.

Just a little note, if you want to discuss your ideas here on BAUT then you will have to present them on this board and not in a link to a blog sphere, where one has to search for where you might have saved those papers you mention in your OP and for which one may or may not have to sign up before getting there. Okay, I noticed that the second link brought me to your page.

Have fun discussing, don't forget to read the ATM ruled, and maybe papageno will join in if he feels like it.

Happy new year.

[Shaula]

Now, why is this important to a forum such as this? It's important because, if the conventional explanation of the two capacitor problem is found to be wrong, this undercuts electrical theory, which then undercuts the nuclear atom theory, which then destroys Quantum Mechanics, and which then makes laughable the concepts of neutron stars and black holes and the Big Bang.

That is really not how it works. There have been many different verifications and tests of these theories. If you have found an issue with electrical theory (and I make no claim as to the validity of your claim to have found one) then all that means is that electrical theory needs to change. I'm guessing that you know that the Big Bang and Black Holes have little to do with Quantum Theory?

If you do present your ideas here then I will warn you - people will focus on the things about your theory that can be tested. Where does it predict something different to other theories? How can this be tested? Reformulations of current theory into a different by equivalent model have no intrinsic value unless they simplify calculations.

[Tensor]

I've been a Ph.D. scientist and engineer in industry for over 30 years and have written numerous papers, books, and software packages. My theoretical physics mentor was Dewey B. Larson, from 1965 until his death in 1990. His Reciprocal System is a unified, general theory of the universe, and I've written over 50 papers on it, in addition to a primer entitled The Unmysterious Universe.

So? You want list of people who had made similar claims, and whose ideas are still fringe?

My current project is the construction of a comprehensive data base of Reciprocal System calculations; this is chronicled at http://transpower.wordpess.com.

Oh Boy, yet another site telling us how current theory is all wrong.

Now, why is this important to a forum such as this? It's important because, if the conventional explanation of the two capacitor problem is found to be wrong, this undercuts electrical theory, which then undercuts the nuclear atom theory, which then destroys Quantum Mechanics, and which then makes laughable the concepts of neutron stars and black holes and the Big Bang.

Ahhhhh, you may want to look at that list. You have the hierarchy of several things backwards.

As I show in "Theory of the Capacitor," the conventional theory results in a violation of the law of the conservation of energy, one of the most important verified laws in physics. Of course, the conventional theorist simply waves his hand and says that electromagnetic waves carry away the missing energy. C'me on, this is nonsensical. I lay out the Reciprocal System calculations and show that energy is conserved, after all.

Yeah, and conventional theory somehow matches observations to 10 decimal places. Something that RPS adherents haven't been able to do with their claims. How about you show us where current experiments disagree with theoretical preditictions?

I will make this as clear as possible: conventional electrical theory says that ordinary capacitors store charged electrons and that the quantity of energy stored is proportional to the square of the voltage. The Reciprocal System says, to the contrary, that ordinary capacitors store uncharged electrons and that the quantity stored is directly proportional to the voltage. All physical quantities in the Reciprocal System are expressed in space-time terms only--just s and t. Energy = [t/s] and an electron = [s]. Energy per electron is then (t/s)/s = t/s^2. These are the dimensions of voltage (and any force, for that matter).

And yet, using conventional theory, capacitors were designed, built and works just fine. Hmmmmm, how did that happen if current theory is so wrong?

There are, of course, numerous other problems in "modern physics" but just this one problem shows that it really is just a house of cards. I would suggest that if you also have doubts about "modern physics"

The only doubts I have are about RPS. After all, there are many outstanding questions that could not be answered in the previous thread. How about you give those a shot?

--let's at least try to stay civil.

You mean like calling current theory results nonsensical?

[Transpower]

So? You want list of people who had made similar claims, and whose ideas are still fringe?



Oh Boy, yet another site telling us how current theory is all wrong.

[The difference is that I prove it.]

Ahhhhh, you may want to look at that list. You have the hierarchy of several things backwards.

[Nah, the hierarchy is in order.]



Yeah, and conventional theory somehow matches observations to 10 decimal places.

[QED has been calculated to 10 decimal places--this doesn't make it correct.]

Something that RPS adherents haven't been able to do with their claims. How about you show us where current experiments disagree with theoretical preditictions?

[It's RS, not RPS. Conventional theory is useless for the calculations of the properties of matter; ask any engineer. I've created a data base of calculations using the Reciprocal System.]



And yet, using conventional theory, capacitors were designed, built and works just fine. Hmmmmm, how did that happen if current theory is so wrong?

[All engineers know that capacitors are not "ideal." In fact, there was a recent article in EE Times discussing this very issue. At 5 volts, which is typical, the Reciprocal System and conventional theory give the same energy result. The differences become great then the voltage is << 5 or >> 5.]

The only doubts I have are about RPS. After all, there are many outstanding questions that could not be answered in the previous thread. How about you give those a shot?

[My papers answer all these questions. An experimental physicist has promised me that he will conduct some new capacitor experiments in 2012.]



You mean like calling current theory results nonsensical?

[It's highly irrational and illogical. Perhaps "nonsensical" is a bit too strong.]

[Strange]

I joined this forum, in part, to respond to an individual going by the handle "papagino." In http://www.bautforum.com/archive/index.php/t-85118.html, he made the statement that one of my physics papers, "Theory of the Capacitor," is "pathetic." I skimmed through his comments, but could find no substantiation for this pejorative.

Your theory was shown to be wrong in the first few posts of that thread. Why should we still take it seriously?

[cjameshuff]

As I show in "Theory of the Capacitor," the conventional theory results in a violation of the law of the conservation of energy, one of the most important verified laws in physics. Of course, the conventional theorist simply waves his hand and says that electromagnetic waves carry away the missing energy. C'me on, this is nonsensical.

What's nonsensical? Are you claiming changing electromagnetic fields don't radiate? That electromagnetic radiation doesn't exist? That capacitors are somehow a special case that for some reason don't radiate?

I lay out the Reciprocal System calculations and show that energy is conserved, after all.

Does it account for the energy radiated as electromagnetic waves? Because in case you didn't guess, none of the above options are acceptable...

I will make this as clear as possible: conventional electrical theory says that ordinary capacitors store charged electrons and that the quantity of energy stored is proportional to the square of the voltage. The Reciprocal System says, to the contrary, that ordinary capacitors store uncharged electrons and that the quantity stored is directly proportional to the voltage. All physical quantities in the Reciprocal System are expressed in space-time terms only--just s and t. Energy = [t/s] and an electron = [s]. Energy per electron is then (t/s)/s = t/s^2. These are the dimensions of voltage (and any force, for that matter).

Conventional theory does not state that capacitors store electrons. A charged capacitor has the same number of electrons as an uncharged capacitor, and remains electrically neutral. If you want to overthrow current theory, you might want to learn what you're overthrowing first. And are you really claiming that stored energy is directly proportional to voltage?

And really, they actually store uncharged electrons? What, then, is the origin of the electrostatic field around the plates? What force moves these uncharged electrons around and stores them in the capacitor in the first place?

And energy, force, and voltage have the same dimensions? How is this not an indication that reciprocal theory has lost all touch with reality? Do you understand that you're attacking basic mechanics here as well?

[Geo Kaplan]

I joined this forum, in part, to respond to an individual going by the handle "papagino." In http://www.bautforum.com/archive/index.php/t-85118.html, he made the statement that one of my physics papers, "Theory of the Capacitor," is "pathetic." I skimmed through his comments, but could find no substantiation for this pejorative.

Perhaps you mean "papageno" (guess you're not a Mozart fan; see "The Magic Flute"). In any event, it's my personal policy not to go offsite if that's where the bulk of the ATM argument is allegedly to be found; I don't want to encourage posters whose main purpose is to drive traffic to their site. Instead, I ask that you summarize your argument here, to facilitate discussion and criticism here.

But from what you have posted, it's clear that papageno's dismissive comments are justified. It seems that, despite the brief CV you boasted, you haven't the foggiest idea how a capacitor works. It does not "store electrons" (where did you get this idea?). It displaces them. The energy is in (the field associated with) that displacement.

If I double the voltage across the capacitor, I will most certainly quadruple the energy stored in that displacement, as evidenced by the Joule heating I may induce in a resistor connected across the capacitor. Here theory matches experiment exquisitely. Perhaps it is because of this total agreement and self-consistency that papageno adopted the attitude you object to. But surely you must understand that someone who has crowed about having resolved a false paradox of his own devising is going to attract, er, unpleasant attention.

I recommend going back to your undergraduate textbooks and studying how a capacitor actually works. Reexamine the papers of Heaviside, Gibbs and Poynting (they worked all this out over a century ago). There you will find that the energy actually resides in the field, not in the electrons. If you carry out a proper field-based calculation (instead of the simplified truncations of lumped circuit theory), you will avoid false (and in your case, grossly so) paradoxes.

ETA: If you're referring to that old undergraduate chestnut, the "two-capacitor paradox," you need to understand that there is no paradox. When you close the switch, an infinitely large current flows for an infinitesimal time. The common error is to assume that there is no dissipation in the wires, leading to a "paradox" of where some energy went. But you can't ignore dissipation in cases where infinities of current arise (in brief, "infinite current times zero resistance equals zero voltage" is what you are implicitly -- and improperly -- assuming, leading to the "paradox"). If you wish to reside within the simple, comfortable domain of lumped circuit theory, you need to posit some resistance in the wires and sneak up on the computation of the dissipation by having the resistance approach zero. If you handle this properly, you find that the assumed perfectly conducting wires still dissipate a finite energy (thanks to the infinite current), and the paradox evaporates. Many good papers have been written about this interesting example. You would do well to study first the field that you would propose to upend.

[Tensor]

Oh Boy, yet another site telling us how current theory is all wrong.

The difference is that I prove it.

Not here you haven't.

Ahhhhh, you may want to look at that list. You have the hierarchy of several things backwards.

[Nah, the hierarchy is in order.]

Maybe for RS, not for conventional theory. Electrical theory is based on Quantum Field Theory (QFT). Electrical theory could be wrong (but it isn't) and QFT could still be correct. If QFT was wrong, then Electrical theory would be wrong. And I don't even know why you bring in atomic theory, since it's part of QFT. Doing so indicates a lack of knowledge of conventional theory.

Yeah, and conventional theory somehow matches observations to 10 decimal places.

[QED has been calculated to 10 decimal places--this doesn't make it correct.]

QED has been calculated to more than 10 decimal places(another error about conventional theory). It matches observation to 10 decimal places. If RS can't, it's less correct than QFT, no matter how you spin it.
Provide the calculations from RS that can match observations to 10 decimal places.

Something that RS adherents haven't been able to do with their claims. How about you show us where current experiments disagree with theoretical preditictions?

[It's RS, not RPS. Conventional theory is useless for the calculations of the properties of matter; ask any engineer. I've created a data base of calculations using the Reciprocal System.]

I didn't ask that, so don't change the subject. I asked specifically for you to show where current experiments disagree with theoretical predictions. There must be many such examples if current theory is as wrong as you claim it is.

And yet, using conventional theory, capacitors were designed, built and works just fine. Hmmmmm, how did that happen if current theory is so wrong?

[All engineers know that capacitors are not "ideal." In fact, there was a recent article in EE Times discussing this very issue. At 5 volts, which is typical, the Reciprocal System and conventional theory give the same energy result. The differences become great then the voltage is << 5 or >> 5.]

Yeah, but according to you current theory is so bad that they shouldn't work at all, right?

The only doubts I have are about RPS. After all, there are many outstanding questions that could not be answered in the previous thread. How about you give those a shot?

[My papers answer all these questions. An experimental physicist has promised me that he will conduct some new capacitor experiments in 2012.]

Which, again, is not an answer. You provided us with the thread, so you should be aware of which questions were still open or were abandoned by StevenO, who was the proponent. And future experiment will be fine, after they are done. Until then, we have experiments that match current theory predictions. How about showing how your version of RS explains those open questions?

You mean like calling current theory results nonsensical?

It's highly irrational and illogical. Perhaps "nonsensical" is a bit too strong.

Yeah, theories that make accurate predictions are irrational and illogical. I don't think so. I think RS is irrational and illogical. And previous attempts here haven't shown otherwise.

[Strange]

At 5 volts, which is typical, the Reciprocal System and conventional theory give the same energy result. The differences become great then the voltage is << 5 or >> 5.

In what possible sense is 5v "typical"? Typical of what?

You do realise that capacitors are used at 100s of thousands of volts. Guess which theory is used to design the circuits.

[cjameshuff]

In what possible sense is 5v "typical"? Typical of what?

I missed that bit, mainly due to the badly broken quoting. Transpower, please wrap your quotes in quote tags, don't just stick your responses into the quote...

Before TTL logic came along, very few things used 5V power...tube radio circuits work at voltages from millivolts to hundreds of volts. Experiments with Leyden jars often dealt with hundreds or thousands of volts. Most audio circuits work at tens of volts. Your typical PC power supply has capacitors operating at several hundred volts. Even most digital electronics these days works at 3.3V or lower. (It also generally uses MOSFET logic, with an integral part of each transistor being...guess what? A capacitor.)

More than that, the very idea that it by chance produces the same results in 5V circuits is nonsensical. Even in 5V circuits, capacitors used as a functional component of the circuit (not just something like a power supply filtering or decoupling capacitor) charge and discharge through a range of voltages below 5V, quite often less than a volt or even just a few millivolts. We couldn't possibly build modern electronic devices with such a severe misunderstanding. Or mechanical devices for that matter, considering that the same math applies to springs, air tanks, etc. Virtually nothing would work right.

Transpower, one of your basic claims is that the energy stored in a capacitor is proportional to the voltage it is charged to, right? So the difference in stored energy from full voltage to half voltage should equal that from half voltage to zero voltage, right?

Well, what is the voltage waveform of a capacitor charging or discharging at constant current? A simple linear ramp up or down. Power is current times voltage, current is constant, so the power waveform is also a simple linear ramp. Energy is total power over time, equivalent to the area under the power waveform. To illustrate, with a vertical line drawn at the point where the capacitor reaches half voltage, and a horizontal to clarify the diagram:

|\
|  \
|    \
|______\
|      | \
|      |   \
|______|_____\

Two identical triangles and a rectangle. The conclusion of your claim of stored energy being proportional to voltage is that the sum of the areas of the triangle and rectangle on the left half equals the area of the triangle on the right half. The areas of the triangles alone are equal, and the rectangle has twice the area of one of the triangles, so your claim leads to the conclusion that 1 + 2 = 1. Or perhaps that rectangles have zero area, take your pick. Personally, I conclude that your theory is bunk, and that stored energy is in fact proportional to the square of voltage...

(also note that full charge isn't 5V, or 1V, or 1kV or 1µV, it's whatever you want it to be)

[Transpower]

The equations for six simple DC and AC circuits are given in my paper "Theory of Dielectrics, Diamagnets, Paramagnets, and Ferromagnets, including the Calculation of Electric and Magnetic Susceptibilities." I compare and contrast the Reciprocal System to conventional theory in regards to the energy stored in a capacitor and other parameters. I suggest that cjameshuff and everyone else here study this paper; cjameshuff is attacking a "strawman"--the situation is exponential, not linear, and his argument in "nonsensical."

[cjameshuff]

The equations for six simple DC and AC circuits are given in my paper "Theory of Dielectrics, Diamagnets, Paramagnets, and Ferromagnets, including the Calculation of Electric and Magnetic Susceptibilities." I compare and contrast the Reciprocal System to conventional theory in regards to the energy stored in a capacitor and other parameters. I suggest that cjameshuff and everyone else here study this paper;

Why bother wading through your site and papers when you can't even address the simple but fundamental issues being raised?

cjameshuff is attacking a "strawman"--the situation is exponential, not linear, and his argument in "nonsensical."

What does "the situation is exponential" even mean? Capacitors are linear components. The constant-current load is non-linear, but that certainly doesn't render the argument nonsensical. The same argument could be made with a plain resistive load, the exponential charge/discharge curve would just make the absurdity less visually obvious.

The argument is not a straw man: you specifically claimed stored energy was proportional to voltage, and presented this claim as an important if not fundamental part of your theory. Assuming it to be true leads to the contradiction I showed. Just how is it a straw man argument? Also, if your claim were true, you would see a linear ramp waveform when charging/discharging at constant power. Instead, you see such a waveform with constant current charging/discharging, which is certainly not constant power. So how do you explain this?

Also, I remind you that you are required to answer questions by the rules of this forum. You so far haven't even attempted to answer any of mine.

[Geo Kaplan]

The equations for six simple DC and AC circuits are given in my paper "Theory of Dielectrics, Diamagnets, Paramagnets, and Ferromagnets, including the Calculation of Electric and Magnetic Susceptibilities." I compare and contrast the Reciprocal System to conventional theory in regards to the energy stored in a capacitor and other parameters. I suggest that cjameshuff and everyone else here study this paper; cjameshuff is attacking a "strawman"--the situation is exponential, not linear, and his argument in "nonsensical."

Please discontinue your tactic of directing readers to your offsite documents. You should be making your arguments HERE, in this forum. Thus far, you have seemed curiously reluctant to engage us in actual debate. You are obligated to answer our direct questions. Your unwillingness to do so might be reasonably interpreted by some as an inability to do so.

Along those lines, I point out that, among others, designers of high-end CPUs need to be able to predict accurately the total power their chips will consume, otherwise they would either burn up, or underperform relative to some competitor's product (because high-end CPUs these days are power-constrained in performance). Their simulations are accurate to within several percent. Such accuracy would not be possible if a capacitor's energy were proportional to voltage. Your assertion is obviously incorrect, and not by a small amount. That's why folks like papageno (papa gino is a pizza vendor, by the way) dismiss your theory as off-the-chart wrong.

[Transpower]

CJamesHuff: The voltage across the capacitor is not linear; in a very simple DC circuit with a constant voltage source V, the voltage across the capacitor is V x (1 - exp(-t x (V/RC) x conv_RCV)) for the Reciprocal System (where conv_RCV is a conversion factor = .2024), and V x (1 - exp(-t/(RC)) for the conventional theory. In the Reciprocal System theory the "charging" and "discharging" of a capacitor therefore occur much more quickly than calculated by the conventional theory. Capacitors, in this respect, perform better than they would be expected to by conventional theory--but the energy stored is considerably less.

GeoKaplan: OK, I will make the arguments here, in this forum, even though it's more convenient to refer to the original papers. And fine, it's papageno--but you have to admit the guy does sound like a pizza vendor. The two capacitor problem is well-known and has been discussed in many physics texts, including that by Sears and Zemansky. The problem here is that conventional theory leads to the conclusion that energy is not conserved in the process. This is all for the sake of charge conservation, which is important to conventional theory. But in the Reciprocal System, electric charges can be easily created and destroyed and so are not permanent. Regardless, the electrons in ordinary circuits are not charged, according to the Reciprocal System, and so there is no need for "hole" theory (in semiconductor physics) to balance--this is another one of those bizarre features of conventional physics that baffles anyone who is rational. Computer motherboards typically use 5 volts so, here, there wouldn't be any difference in the calculations between conventional theory and the Reciprocal System. The differences will, however, be very clear when the voltages are much greater than or much less than 5 volts.

[cjameshuff]

CJamesHuff: The voltage across the capacitor is not linear; in a very simple DC circuit with a constant voltage source V,

Voltage is not constant in my example. Again, it's charging or discharging at constant current. The voltage waveform is linear, this is in fact commonly used as the basis of ramp, sawtooth, and triangle wave generators.

the voltage across the capacitor is V x (1 - exp(-t x (V/RC) x conv_RCV)) for the Reciprocal System (where conv_RCV is a conversion factor = .2024), and V x (1 - exp(-t/(RC)) for the conventional theory. In the Reciprocal System theory the "charging" and "discharging" of a capacitor therefore occur much more quickly than calculated by the conventional theory. Capacitors, in this respect, perform better than they would be expected to by conventional theory--but the energy stored is considerably less.

Faster is not "better", circuits using capacitors depend on them matching their predicted characteristics, not on them charging or discharging as quickly as possible. In particular, no RC oscillators would work right if your claim was correct, they'd all run fast. (Correction: those running at greater than 4.94V would run fast, those at lower voltages would run slow.) The capacitance when measured using the accepted equation would also appear to vary, decreasing as the applied voltage increases. Tuned circuits would never work right, frequency response would be all over the place as input amplitude changed. Capacitors would have to be rated for a narrow range of operating voltages, not just given a maximum voltage.

GeoKaplan: OK, I will make the arguments here, in this forum, even though it's more convenient to refer to the original papers. And fine, it's papageno--but you have to admit the guy does sound like a pizza vendor. The two capacitor problem is well-known and has been discussed in many physics texts, including that by Sears and Zemansky. The problem here is that conventional theory leads to the conclusion that energy is not conserved in the process.

As already pointed out, only when the problem is given a superficial analysis. Taking EM radiation into account shows that energy is conserved...an explanation you're apparently well aware of, but have done nothing to discount.

This is all for the sake of charge conservation, which is important to conventional theory. But in the Reciprocal System, electric charges can be easily created and destroyed and so are not permanent.

How do you reconcile this with the strict conservation of charge that is actually observed?

Regardless, the electrons in ordinary circuits are not charged, according to the Reciprocal System, and so there is no need for "hole" theory (in semiconductor physics) to balance--this is another one of those bizarre features of conventional physics that baffles anyone who is rational.

Lack of understanding does not equate to rationality. Don't you think the complexity and success of modern semiconductor based electronics hints that there might be something to the theory used you call bizarre?

Computer motherboards typically use 5 volts so, here, there wouldn't be any difference in the calculations between conventional theory and the Reciprocal System. The differences will, however, be very clear when the voltages are much greater than or much less than 5 volts.

There are electronic devices other than computers, you know...and in fact, modern computers have parts that operate at 12V, the great bulk of the logic operates at 3.3V or lower (1.8V and 1.2V are becoming more and more common), and the power supply has portions operating at a few hundred volts. And many other devices have capacitors operating at voltages from microvolts to kilovolts, 5V power is something that only became common with TTL logic. All this has already been pointed out. And yes, the differences would be painfully clear...so how do you explain the lack of evidence?

And I note that I still have a fair list of unanswered questions...

[Jim]

... And fine, it's papageno--but you have to admit the guy does sound like a pizza vendor. ...

BAUT has a rule against ad hominem comments and this one comes very close to violating that rule. Attack the merits of the arguments and not the individual.

[Geo Kaplan]

CJamesHuff: The voltage across the capacitor is not linear

Apparently, you either didn't bother to read what he wrote, or you didn't understand it. As is very clear from his post, he's examining the situation where a capacitor is driven with a constant current. In such a case, you will most certainly get a linear ramp. If your theory says otherwise, it is yet another case where its predictions are at odds with experiment. Standard laboratory signal generators (you know, the ones found in undergraduate labs all over the planet; they provide sine, square and triangle outputs) would not function if a constant current did not produce a linear ramp. Analog oscilloscopes would not function, as their sweep circuits similarly rely on a constant current charging a capacitor to generate a linear ramp (a sawtooth waveshape in this case).

And the 5-volt demarcation point is flaky, and yet doesn't matter. A century of power engineering has provided a wealth of evidence in total contradiction with your claims. To argue otherwise is simply to appear foolish.

[Geo Kaplan]

The two capacitor problem is well-known and has been discussed in many physics texts, including that by Sears and Zemansky. The problem here is that conventional theory leads to the conclusion that energy is not conserved in the process. This is all for the sake of charge conservation, which is important to conventional theory.

Here you either intentionally misrepresent what the mainstream says, or you are simply ignorant. In either case, "conventional theory" says that BOTH charge AND energy are conserved. This is pointed out in the very textbook that you cite, Sears and Zemansky (although it's not a great text, IMNHO, you cited it, but you seem not to have actually read it).

In an earlier post I already explained why energy is conserved in the two-capacitor example. That you have not acknowledged it shows that either you are not reading the posts (in which case it becomes more likely that you aren't interested in actual discussion; rather, you just want to drive traffic to your site), or that you simply can't provide a counterargument. I hasten to add that the radiation argument cited by cjameshuff is fully consistent with my explanation, as radiation is modeled with the appearance of a resistance. So whether you establish boundary conditions to allow or preclude radiation, conventional theory fully explains what happens.

Direct question GK1 (I remind you that you are obligated to answer): Where is the error in the conventional theory's explanation? Show mathematically where it fails, or cite a "real" publication with measurements showing a disagreement. If you cannot, you have withdrawn your claim.

Direct question GK2: There are electric cars that employ "supercapacitors" to supplement batteries. The voltages employed are well in excess of your arbitrary "5V" limit, and thus the error in conventional theory should be evident, according to your assertions. And yet the engineers who design electric cars observe excellent agreement between calculation and experiment. The energy stored (and delivered back) behaves exactly as predicted by conventional theory. Why is this so?

In summary, your ignorance of conventional theory has led you to invent a false paradox of the type we teach undergrads to avoid (again, look at Sears and Zemansky; don't just cite it, read it). Instead of repairing that ignorance, you advocate adoption of an alternate theory that resolves a non-existent problem. Further, this alternative theory of yours seems curiously unable to make predictions in accord with the vast wealth of experimental data that happens to agree with conventional theory. One wonders why, in the face of overwhelming evidence that your theory fails, do you and your Larsonian kin insist on pushing it?

[tusenfem]

The equations for six simple DC and AC circuits are given in my paper "Theory of Dielectrics, Diamagnets, Paramagnets, and Ferromagnets, including the Calculation of Electric and Magnetic Susceptibilities." I compare and contrast the Reciprocal System to conventional theory in regards to the energy stored in a capacitor and other parameters. I suggest that cjameshuff and everyone else here study this paper; cjameshuff is attacking a "strawman"--the situation is exponential, not linear, and his argument in "nonsensical."

Dear Transpower

Once more, if you want to discuss your ideas on BAUT you have to present them on BAUT.
Up to now you have not presented much of substance to actually defend your ideas.

[Strange]

The differences will, however, be very clear when the voltages are much greater than or much less than 5 volts.

As someone who has spent most of my working life working with and designing electronic circuits (which haven't run at 5V for decades) I can assure you this is false. Nobody uses your bogus theory to design circuits. Standard electronics, including hole theory, predicts the timing, power dissipation, response time, charge storage, and many other factors extremely well.

[Transpower]

You guys are still not getting it. In the simple DC circuit I cite, the voltage source is constant, and the voltage across the capacitor changes exponentially.

Let's go back to the fundamental equation for capacitance: Q = C x V (disregarding any numerical coefficients or conversion factors). In Reciprocal System space-time terms, the dimensions are [t/s] = s x t/(s^2). But [t/s] may be either energy or electric charge, in the Reciprocal System. Since ordinary electric currents involved uncharged electrons, the [t/s] is energy, not charge. Therefore the equation states that energy in a capacitor is linearly proportional to voltage, contrary to the assertions of conventional theory. Once you guys understand that electric currents involve uncharged electrons, not charged electrons, you'll understand that the nuclear theory of the atom is false, that Quantum Mechanics is therefore false, and that neutron stars and black holes and the Big Bang are impossible.

At voltages above the dielectric strength of the capacitor, electric charges are created in the atoms and electrons, and the dielectric then self-destructs.

As for resistors and inductors, the Reciprocal System uses the same equations as conventional physics. But let's compare the dimensions of resistivity in the two theories:

conventional theory: R = [kg (m^3) / (sec coul^2)
Reciprocal System: R = [t^2 / s^2]

Wouldn't you rather have a simpler theory? The Reciprocal System is a unified, general, rational theory of the universe. Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity are in conflict, and so conventional physicists do not have a unified, general theory with which to work. I've used the Reciprocal System for many decades; it works beautifully. As for semiconductor theory, engineers in industry use empirical or semi-empirical equations--the electron-hole theory is useless in practice, like most of Quantum Mechanics and the nuclear theory.

[Strange]

You haven't addressed the fact that, according to you, your "theory" predicts different results than conventional physics. These results are wrong and therefore the theory is falsified.

[cjameshuff]

You guys are still not getting it. In the simple DC circuit I cite, the voltage source is constant, and the voltage across the capacitor changes exponentially.

Wrong. You were criticizing my example, which uses constant current, which does in fact produce a voltage waveform that linearly ramps up or down...something that is incompatible with your claim that stored energy is proportional to voltage. Again, real instruments use this technique, and actually work as designed.

Let's go back to the fundamental equation for capacitance: Q = C x V (disregarding any numerical coefficients or conversion factors). In Reciprocal System space-time terms, the dimensions are [t/s] = s x t/(s^2). But [t/s] may be either energy or electric charge, in the Reciprocal System. Since ordinary electric currents involved uncharged electrons, the [t/s] is energy, not charge. Therefore the equation states that energy in a capacitor is linearly proportional to voltage, contrary to the assertions of conventional theory.

Which is a failure of the Reciprocal System, because the stored energy is actually proportional to the square of voltage. When predictions of the Reciprocal System are so fundamentally wrong, why should we take it seriously?

Once you guys understand that electric currents involve uncharged electrons, not charged electrons, you'll understand that the nuclear theory of the atom is false, that Quantum Mechanics is therefore false, and that neutron stars and black holes and the Big Bang are impossible.

You have provided no evidence of uncharged electrons, or any explanation of how such a thing could possibly work. So far, you have completely failed to provide any support for your claims or address any of the issues raised.

At voltages above the dielectric strength of the capacitor, electric charges are created in the atoms and electrons, and the dielectric then self-destructs.

Then what causes the mechanical forces on the plates, or the electrostatic field around the capacitor? Are you even aware these things exist?

Wouldn't you rather have a simpler theory? The Reciprocal System is a unified, general, rational theory of the universe. Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity are in conflict, and so conventional physicists do not have a unified, general theory with which to work. I've used the Reciprocal System for many decades; it works beautifully. As for semiconductor theory, engineers in industry use empirical or semi-empirical equations--the electron-hole theory is useless in practice, like most of Quantum Mechanics and the nuclear theory.

I'd rather have a theory that works, or even two contradictory theories that each work in some particular domain. It doesn't matter how simple or beautiful you think it is, the Reciprocal System does not work.

[Tensor]

Wouldn't you rather have a simpler theory?

I would rather have one that works.

The Reciprocal System is a unified, general, rational theory of the universe.

Then show us the calculations that you would use in RS, to predict the decay of the orbit of PSR 1916+13. And show how those calculations match observations

Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity are in conflict, and so conventional physicists do not have a unified, general theory with which to work. I've used the Reciprocal System for many decades; it works beautifully.

From post #9:
QED has been calculated to more than 10 decimal places(another error about conventional theory). It matches observation to 10 decimal places. If RS can't, it's less correct than QFT, no matter how you spin it.
Provide the calculations from RS that can match observations to 10 decimal places.

As for semiconductor theory, engineers in industry use empirical or semi-empirical equations--the electron-hole theory is useless in practice, like most of Quantum Mechanics and the nuclear theory.

Also from post #9
I asked specifically for you to show where current experiments disagree with theoretical predictions. There must be many such examples if current theory is as wrong as you claim it is.

Yeah, but according to you current theory is so bad that they shouldn't work at all, right?

I've bolded my questions, along with showing questions that have been open since Post #9. There was another question open, but I wait until you answer these until I bring it up again.

[Geo Kaplan]

You guys are still not getting it. In the simple DC circuit I cite, the voltage source is constant, and the voltage across the capacitor changes exponentially.

Do you not read? Is it ignorance, dishonesty, or just a plain old comprehension problem? Read cjameshuff's post. Now. Read it carefully. His example is specifically about a constant current, not constant voltage. He does so to present a clearly-reasoned example that shows the absurdity in your "logic." I am led inevitably to suspect that you are deliberately avoiding any direct discussion about his example (and are also avoiding answering our questions) because you are simply unable to refute how these reveal the vast vacuousness of RST.

Therefore the equation states that energy in a capacitor is linearly proportional to voltage, contrary to the assertions of conventional theory.

These aren't mere "assertions." As many have cited repeatedly, there are EXPERIMENTS that show superb agreement to umpteen decimal places. RST has never done so. Repeatedly asserting an erroneous claim does not make it more valid. You seem to misunderstand this. That's a general characteristic of the crank species (homo fractoceramicus). I don't think you would wish to be considered part of that breed.

Once you guys understand that electric currents involve uncharged electrons, not charged electrons, you'll understand that the nuclear theory of the atom is false, that Quantum Mechanics is therefore false, and that neutron stars and black holes and the Big Bang are impossible.

Until you are able to show an actual example where conventional theory fails, there's no reason to accept anything you are saying. The fact that what you ARE saying is demonstrably false in those few situations where you have foolishly made testable declarations diminishes our enthusiasm to look in the direction of RST.

At voltages above the dielectric strength of the capacitor, electric charges are created in the atoms and electrons, and the dielectric then self-destructs.

So you say, but without evidence. I may just as well say that the nanognomes that hold dielectrics together get tired when too much voltage is applied. My statement has fully the same amount of evidentiary support as does RST.

Wouldn't you rather have a simpler theory?

I'd rather have one that works. Yours doesn't. Conventional theory does.

Game over for RST.

Do you have anything other than assertions? From all the dozens of pages devoted to RST in this forum, and the long posts by you and your brethren (and perhaps sisteren), I have never seen other than assertions. That's the signature of a non-theory. The ardor with which you push RST is more a characteristic of a cult, rather than a science. Why aren't you able to show a single verified quantitative claim? And why don't you acknowledge the many quantitative falsifications of the few testable claims you've made? Yes, fairy tales are lovely -- their simplicity certainly has an appeal to a certain type of mind. But I have to build real things. And those real things obey other -- sometimes mathematically complex -- laws. Sure, I'd prefer simplicity, but if I have to make a choice between simple/wrong and complex/right, I'll have to choose the latter. Feel free to pick the former, but don't delude yourself into thinking that you'll convince any real scientists with mere assertions and promises of simplicity. You have to do the hard work that conventional theory has already done to show that it accurately predicts outcomes in real experiments, not just in fantasyland.

ETA: I'm still awaiting answers to questions GK1 and GK2, as well as to outstanding questions by several other posters. When may we expect actual answers, as opposed to more assertions?

[Strange]

From all the dozens of pages devoted to RST in this forum, and the long posts by you and your brethren (and perhaps sisteren), I have never seen other than assertions.

Oh be fair! In all of the threads I have looked at there has been at least one prediction that has been instantly falsified.

[Geo Kaplan]

Oh be fair! In all of the threads I have looked at there has been at least one prediction that has been instantly falsified.

You are absolutely right! Mea culpa, mea culpa!

[Copernicus]

Apparently, you either didn't bother to read what he wrote, or you didn't understand it. As is very clear from his post, he's examining the situation where a capacitor is driven with a constant current. In such a case, you will most certainly get a linear ramp. If your theory says otherwise, it is yet another case where its predictions are at odds with experiment. Standard laboratory signal generators (you know, the ones found in undergraduate labs all over the planet; they provide sine, square and triangle outputs) would not function if a constant current did not produce a linear ramp. Analog oscilloscopes would not function, as their sweep circuits similarly rely on a constant current charging a capacitor to generate a linear ramp (a sawtooth waveshape in this case).

And the 5-volt demarcation point is flaky, and yet doesn't matter. A century of power engineering has provided a wealth of evidence in total contradiction with your claims. To argue otherwise is simply to appear foolish.

I could be wrong, but if the inductance of the transformer is not high enough for certain types of capacitors that are not linear with voltage, you can get all sorts of kinds of nonlinearity in the ramp up.

[Geo Kaplan]

I could be wrong, but if the inductance of the transformer is not high enough for certain types of capacitors that are not linear with voltage, you can get all sorts of kinds of nonlinearity in the ramp up.

Huh??? What transformer? There is no transformer and hence no transformer's inductance to cause trouble. There's just a current source and a capacitor. That's the setup for cjameshuff's example. That's also the basic guts of a sweep generator in an analog oscilloscope, and of a triangle wave generator in a function generator.

If you believe that a transformer is somehow necessary to realize a current source, then that's the source of your confusion. The canonical way to make a current source is to use a transistor. More elaborate circuits use an op-amp. But a current source is almost never realized with a transformer.

There is no transformer. There is no spoon.