[Physics] Mathematical proof Maxwell's equations are incorrect?

[Arend Lammertink]

Hi Tom,

An  interesting read, indeed, and well explained with clear graphics!

I guess I better remove the reference to Van Flandern from my paper, then. :)

Noted the following:

"If the above reasoning is correct and gravity does move at a finite
speed and without pointing at a ‘ghost image’ of an attracting body,
this tells us something about the nature of gravity:

1) That it is radiated at a fixed speed relative to its source rather
than to an observer or hypothetical background aether. That is, if
gravity moves at speed g (relative to its source) and the source were
moving at speed v (relative to an observer), the speed of the
gravitational field relative to the observer will be g+v.

2) That the orientation of the field – i.e. the angle it was emitted
at – is important and is preserved within the field.

3) That the direction of force will be along the direction that the
field was emitted at rather than the direction it impacts a target
body."


It still needs to propagate trough the medium, which means it has to
be a wave, which leaves two options:

1) EM waves, the waves we are familiar with;

2) Longitudinal "Tesla" waves.


Option 1 would be highly unlikely, and we know how to detect these,
which leaves only option 2.

Given the anomalies around superconductors, I believe it is probable
that the source for the graviational force is related to the
characteristic frequencies of the electron, proton and perhaps neutron
and thus that it is a pushing force, which is caused by the
shadowing/attenuation of a planetary body.

If it were a pushing force and carried by longitudinal dielectric
waves, there would have to be standing waves in order to obtain a
pulling force. Can't rule it out, was actually what I first thought,
but now my money would be on a "pushing" force "shadowing" type of
gravity, a so-called LeSage "wave" model:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage%27s_theory_of_gravitation#Wave_models
"In 1900 Hendrik Lorentz wrote that Le Sage's particle model is not
consistent with the electron theory of his time. But the realization
that trains of electromagnetic waves could produce some pressure, in
combination with the penetrating power of Röntgen rays (now called
x-rays), led him to conclude that nothing argues against the possible
existence of even more penetrating radiation than x-rays, which could
replace Le Sage's particles. Lorentz showed that an attractive force
between charged particles (which might be taken to model the
elementary subunits of matter) would indeed arise, but only if the
incident energy were entirely absorbed. This was the same fundamental
problem which had afflicted the particle models."

To me, the question of whether or not Tesla's longitudinal waves exist
is almost certainly: Yes. In my paper, there are quite a lot of
references which support the idea of the existence of a
faster-than-light wave phenomenon, including Tesla himself, of course.
So, this seems a perfect match.

However, it should be noted that such a gravity model only explains
the gravitational force around a (large, planetary) body and does NOT
extend all the way down to the (sub)molecular scale.  This is an
important detail, because the assumption that gravity works the same
on any scale is what led to the invention of the imaginary "strong"
and "weak" nuclear interactions, IIRC.So, as we can now understand,
those two forces were invented in order to balance a force that does
not really exist the way they thought it did.

Paul Stowe also wrote about something like this:
http://www.tuks.nl/pdf/Reference_Material/Paul_Stowe/Mirror/le_sage.htm

Best regards,

Arend.

On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 4:46 PM Tom Hollings <carmam at tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Arend, You wrote "This is supported by Van Flandern39, who determined that
> with a purely central pulling force and a finite speed of gravity, the forces
> in a two-body system would no longer point toward the center of mass, which
> would make orbits unstable."
>
> I subscribed to that theory for a while, before learning the error of my ways. The reason that it is wrong  is explained quite clearly here:- http://www.alternativephysics.org/book/GravitySpeed.htm
>
> Tom Hollings
>
>
>
> > On 27 April 2020 at 15:31 Arend Lammertink <lamare at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Paul Stowe suggested to take the Toroidal ring model as a base for
> > particle physics:
> >
> >