The thorny way of truth - Free Energy Community

'^3\6 -SIEFAN MARINGV Prof. J. p. Vigier.^'^^""cnfeldgassc 16A 20 November 1990 PHYSICS LETTERS AA-80I0GRA2- AUSTRIA Institut H. PoincareTel. 0316/377093 11 Rue P. et M. CurieDear Prof.Vigier,F- 75231 Paris Cedex 05Thank you very much for your letter of the 13 November 1990 and for the enclosedree's report on my paper V1607. I wish, however, to note that my paper was submittedthe 6 August and you send me the referee's comments (which have been written in some ff'iminutes) more than three months later. A journal for rapid publications must proceed qu'cker. On the other hand, as you are a capacity in the field and as you publish activelypapers on the Ampere-Grassmann controversy, I think, that you had to take the responsib'lity to be a referee of my paper.The equation giving the force acting on a unit positive electric charge, which I caVGLOBAL ELECTRIC INTENSITY,(m/q)u = Eq]qJj= - grad* - 9A/9t vxrotA, (A]where m is the mass of an electric charge q moving with a velocity v and acquiring anacceleration u (FIRST PROPER ACCELERATION) when crossing a reference point where the eltrie and magnetic potentials of the surrounding system of electric charges are * and A,is the well-known Lorentz equation, which I call the NEWTON-LORENTZ EQUATION, especialljwhen it is written in the "Newtonian" form ,,^,^^£^^ ^1 ^1,^(m/q)uQ + dA/dt = - grad(* - v.A), (B)which clearly shows that only the FULL KINETIC FORCES of two interacting charges (seethe left part of equation (B)) are equal and oppositely directed quantities but the simKINETIC FORCES (see the left part of equation (A)) are NOT.The referee writes that equation (A) is consistent with an electric field"E = - grad* - 3A/3t. (CJAn "equation" can be not consistent with a "field". An equation can be consistent wilanother equation. It is obvious, and any student in the MIDDLE schools knows, that theelectric intensity defined by the equation (C), which is the sum of the COULOMB ELECTRICINTENSITY and the TRANSFORMER ELECTRIC INTENSITY, i.e.,^ = ^coul ^ ^tr = " S"^^^* " ^^^^^* ^^^gives only a part of the force acting on the unit test electric charge put at the referencepoint; the other part is given by the MOTIONAL ELECTRIC INTENSITYE^, = vxrotA. (E)What is here more to discuss? Where the "argument" is to be developed further? Why tl"referee blocks the discussion of the scientific problems by beginning to discuss banalities?The referee then writes: "It is true that the electric field is partly due to the chlging magnetic field, and partly due to the position of the charges in space."The electric field (i.e., a PART of the force acting on a unit electric charge) is