[Physics] Clock time vs. common sense time

[Arend Lammertink]

Hi Ilja and group,


On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 11:05 AM, Ilja Schmelzer
<ilja.schmelzer at googlemail.com> wrote:
> 2016-11-02 22:23 GMT+01:00, Arend Lammertink <lamare at gmail.com>:

>
>> I can live with that. After all, it's Maxwell's "logical error"!!!
>
> There is also no Maxwell's "logical error".  I mentioned "Einstien's
> logical error" only because it is (inclusive the spelling error) a
> quite typical "ether crank" statement.  Maxwell is seldom attacked by
> cranks.
>

Yet, the idea that "charge carriers" are particles which on their turn
are an electromagnetic in nature along the wave-duality principle is
clearly a circular reasoning around cause and effect, as I explained
in my background article:

http://www.tuks.nl/wiki/index.php/Main/OnSpaceTimeAndTheFabricOfNature#RecursiveProblem

"This illustrates the "non sequitur" issue we encountered above,
namely that electromagnetic waves are considered to be produced by
moving "charged particles", while these particles show this "wave
particle duality" behaviour themselves, as does "EM radiation" on it's
turn. In other words: electromagnetic radiation is essentially
considered to be produced by movements of "quanta" of electromagnetic
radiation, called either "photons" or "particles". Kind of a dog
chasing it's own tail, or recursion as software engineers call it:

    whatIsRecursion():
        if you understand Recursion:
              return
        else:
             whatIsRecursion()
"

There is obviously a violation of cause and effect in there, which I
would consider a logical error. Of course, you may differ in opinion,
but in that case, I'd love to hear why you would not consider this to
be a logical error in Maxwell's equations, regardless of whether or
not Maxwell could have known at the time.


>>> Similarly, claims that there is no time dilation are nonsense.
>>
>> I don't know if really ALL of them are nonsense, but according to Paul
>> Stowe it is indeed possible to make an explanation for time dilation
>> from an aether theory.
>
> First, of course, all are nonsense, once there is clock time dilation.

Oops. Your are right. It either exists, or it doesn't.

> Then, no need to refer to Paul Stowe, in my ether theory of gravity
> the EEP is derived, and so time dilation is derived too.
>
>> Either way, now that we found "Maxwell's hole" - the term dA/dt in his
>> definition for the electric scalar potential Ph- we must conclude that
>> it is exactly this hole which demands a solution like the Lorentz
>> transform, etc., etc.
>
> If you want to change the Maxwell equations and hope that this helps, sorry,
> you have no chance.

Of course, I differ in opinion on this one.

With the corrected version of Maxwell's equations, we come to the
prediction that longitudinal dielectric, magnetic-free waves also
exist and can propagate trough the vacuum. In other words: just a
matter of experimental confirmation that these waves indeed to exist
and propagate faster than c, and the current equations have no chance
of surviving without any change whatsoever.

And in fact, experimental data already exists in which light
propagation speeds exceeding c have been measured in so-called
"anomalous fast light dispersion" experiments. See for example
Stenner, Thevenaz and Wang:

http://www.tuks.nl/pdf/Reference_Material/Fast_Light/

In other words: since experimental data already is available which
shows propagation speeds faster than c, in actual fact neither
Einstein nor the current version of Maxwell's equations have any
chance to stand the test of time much longer.

Regards,

Arend.