Lasted edited by Andrew Munsey, updated on June 15, 2016 at 1:01 am.
A review of the Paper: The Equivalence of Magnetic and Kinetic Energy by Carel van der Togt.
"This article proves that QM/QED/QCD/. ... assumed, unjustified, that the electromagnetic field is (also) conservative."
On December 18, 2006, Carel van der Togt wrote:
Subject: coldfusion/omissions in physics
Dear Sterling D. Allanhttp://www.pureenergysystems.com/about/personnel/SterlingDAllan/,
I read your website concerning cold fusion. I'm concerned because mainstream physics is without any doubt hiding serious mistakes made in the past. Omissions so enormous science will not be able to correct without being ridiculed.
Maybe you are interested. In December 2006 the scientific journal "Galilean Electrodynamics" published the article "The Equivalence of Kinetic and Magnetic Energy."
(http://www.paradox-paradigm.nl/Van_der_Togt_equiv2ckw.pdf). This article proves that QM/QED/QCD/. ... assumed unjustified that the electromagnetic field is (also) conservative.
The electrostatic field is conservative. In early days QM scientists (Feynman ea.) concluded unjustly that the electromagnetic field is also conservative. However this is not the case, which is proven without doubt in this article (section 4 The Electromagnetic Mass). The scientific consequence of this article is that all theoretical conclusions of QM/QED/QCD/. . are fictional.
You can understand it is impossible to publish an article or a comment in mainstream science journals concerning an omission that proves all QM/QED/... formulas are physically false. The Nobel-prize Frank Wilczek e.a. received in 2004 is also based on this false assumption. Possible you realize physics will do anything to hide this mistake. Can you imagine they admit there are no parallel worlds, no ..
Possible it is interesting for you to have a look.
Carel van der Togt
An electric charge placed in vacuum produces an electrostatic
field that surrounds the charge. When an observer moves relative
to the charge, the electrostatic field observed changes in
time, and in addition, the observer will measure a magnetic field.
The presence of the magnetic field indicates magnetic energy.
For an observer moving relative to a mass, the relative speed
of the mass represents kinetic energy. Like magnetic energy,
kinetic energy exists only if there is relative movement – in this
case, relative motion between observer and mass. Kinetic and
magnetic energy are thus quite comparable: both forms of energy
exist only when there is motion relative to an observer.
The questions that I want to answer are these:
1) How much energy does the magnetic field of a moving
2) What is the relation between the magnetic and kinetic energy
of a charged mass?
In addressing these questions, only non-relativistic velocities
need be considered, because relativistic conditions unnecessarily
complicate the situation without adding any additional insight.
# Selected Works of H.A. Lorentz V (Palm Publications 1987).
# Roger H. Stuewer, The Compton Effect (Science History Publications, 1975).
# Johan Bakker, Van Paradox tot Paradigma [Uitgeverij Relatief Netherlands, 1999 (translated in English: http://paradox-paradigm.nl].
# R.P. Feynman, R.B. Leighton, M. Sands, The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Volume II (Addison-Wesley, Reading MA, 1964).
On Dec. 23, 2006, New Energy Congress member, Congress:Advisor:Kenneth M. Rauen wrote:
The paper by van der Togt is excellent! It took
awhile to wade through it, but it is on the mark, as
far as I can tell. I am doubly pleased by this paper
because it reinforces the physics of Steven Smith on
his website, http://www.geocities.com/electrogravitics, where
kinetic energy is explained as a magnetic energy
phenomenon. Smith and van der Togt are talking about
the same thing, presenting the math a little
differently. Smith is doing it for public readership
with high school physics knowledge, and van der Togt
is talking at the university physics graduate level.
Carel van der Togt