[Physics] Nature of Electric field (was: Re: Mathematical proof Maxwell's equations are incorrect?)

[Arend Lammertink]

Hi Tom,

On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 6:05 PM Tom Hollings <carmam at tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Arend, thank you for sending me your paper on Maxwell's equations, I am always happy to receive any papers from you. As I am not very mathematical, it will take me a while to read and digest it (digest being the operative word!). It did make me think of a web page by Bernard Burchell, whom you may have heard of. He uses the minimum of mathematics, and gets his point across. There is a section on electric fields which I have linked here, you might be interested in it.  http://www.alternativephysics.org/book/ElectricFields.htm

This is rather interesting, indeed:

"Let’s take a river as an example.  Is a river static or flowing?

If we view a river from high above, all we see is a fixed body of
water.  Just a line on a map and we would probably describe it as
static.  When viewed from ground-level, the picture is not much
different.  If the water contains no debris and no turbulence, the
river gives no indication of its underlying nature and might still be
described as static.

If we throw something into the river like a leaf and see it float
downstream, at that point we might suspect the river itself is also
moving with the leaf.  But then again, a scientist might argue “No,
the river is standing still.  The leaf moves because the water applies
a force to it.”

But of course no scientist would seriously say that.  We know
perfectly well that the river is not static at all.  The water is
flowing and that is what pushes the leaf along.

Could an electric field be a similar phenomenon?  Could what we
describe as an electric field be in fact, not just be an abstract
mathematical entity, but an actual flow of material that moves outward
from a charge and imparts a force on other charges when it hits them?

On one hand this sounds logical because it explains why there would a
delayed effect if the ‘material’ moved at the speed of light.  It
would also explain how an electric force is exerted at a distance:  it
isn’t, the force is applied directly when the material meets/hits the
other charge.

On the other hand it sounds illogical because the material is not
coming from anywhere.  It flows out of the particle, yes, but without
first coming into it from somewhere else.

So what if the electric field ‘material’ was not coming from elsewhere
but being generated ‘on the fly’?  That is, it was continuously being
produced and then ejected?

This would seem impossible because it violates conservation laws.  As
we know, quantities like mass and charge are conserved and can’t just
be created anew.  At least not without being created in neutral
positive/negative pairs (in the case of particles) or converted from
other forms (in the case of mass)."



The third option is that the electric field is actually a sound-like,
longitudinal wave trough the aether. The link Paul Stowe found between
cosmic background radiation and the natural oscillation frequency of
the electron (about 160-180 GHz IIRC) suggests that the electric field
is indeed soundwaves trough the aether and therefore not static
indeed.

What we call "gravity", the force we experience on the surface of a
planet, actually is one and the same thing as the electric field,
longitudinal waves, in my opinion.

So, Tesla's longitudinal wave, which propagates faster than light by a
factor of over 1.5, is what has been missing in Maxwell's theory.
There are quite a lot of sources which support the idea that these
exist and propagate faster than light, but to date there is no
conclusive evidence that they exist and propagate faster than light.
Or, at least not that I'm aware of.

Best regards,

Arend.