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

[Ruud Loeffen]

Arend.

You wrote:
"Since it is an extention of Stowe's work, it predicts that the
elementary particle called electron can be modeled as a single vortex
ring which results in an actual understanding of "the quanta" as well
as an actual understanding of what "charge" is. It also predicts that
the observed cosmic background radiation, resulting in a minimum
temperature of about 2.7 K, is related to the characteristic
oscillation frequency of the electron".
Can you (or Paul Stowe)present a link to a paper where this is explained? I
am especially interested in "It also predicts that
the observed cosmic background radiation, resulting in a minimum
temperature of about 2.7 K, is related to the characteristic
oscillation frequency of the electron".

I also have a calculation in my book "Con-fusing Gravitation" about the
relation between the temperature of CMBR (2.726 K) and a primordial
elementary particle. I would like to read Paul Stowes pape about this
subject.

Arend: Thank you! You are doing a great job with this discussion forum
about Maxwells equations and especially the discussion about the
aether, vortices and gravity.

Best regards.
Ruud Loeffen.


Op zo 26 apr. 2020 om 21:41 schreef Arend Lammertink <lamare at gmail.com>:

> On Sun, Apr 26, 2020 at 10:16 AM Ilja Schmelzer
> <ilja.schmelzer at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > 2020-04-25 18:36 GMT+06:30, Arend Lammertink <lamare at gmail.com>:
> > > Today, both relativity as well as the standard model are being pretty
> > > much considered as "unalterable givens".
> >
> > The physicists would be happy to find something which is in
> > contradiction with the SM, but up to now they have failed to find such
> > things.  The SM is essentially a phenomenological theory, its
> > development was not guided by theoretical ideas but by the experiments
> > with all those accelerators.
> >
> > So, there is no good chance for simplification of the SM.
>
> Well, the idea that there should be only one aether and it's dynamics
> can be fully described by LaPlace / Helmholtz, yields a perfectly good
> chance for simplification, IMHO, because instead of having the
> complexity of having to work with multiple fields of force one all has
> to account for, one can work with only one field. That's a
> simplification in my book.
>
> >
> > > However, we must not  "forget their earthly origins" and realize they
> > > are products of the human mind and therefore subject to human error.
> >
> > Of course, but the origins are, first of all, the experiments with
> > particle colliders.
> > And they have quite good agreement between the theoretical computations
> and
> > the results of the experiments.
>
> So, what does this really reveal?
>
> It reveals that with the use of wave functions, which are *harmonic*
> functions, one is able to describe the physics in such a way that one
> can obtain "quite good agreement between the theoretical computations
> and the results of the experiments".
>
> In other words: what has been shown is that harmonic wavefunctions are
> sufficient to describe the phenomena.
>
> >
> > > I agree with you that "all the SM fields as well as gravity have to be
> > > ether fields", but I disagree with the way these fields should be
> > > integrated.
> >
> > It works.
>
> That does not mean it can't be improved upon.
>
> >
> > > The fundamental idea is that a medium called aether exists and it
> > > behaves like a fluid.
> > >
> > > A logical consequence thereof is that there is one one medium and
> > > therefore only one (set of) field(s) suffices in order to describe
> > > it's dynamics. There can be only one!
> >
> > That's nonsense. The ether can have a quite complex structure, thus, a
> > lot of different properties beyond its velocity.
>
> The solutions of the Laplace equation are *all* harmonic functions.
>
> Plenty of room to construct all the complexity one could ever wish for.
>
> >
> > > And therefore, gravity *must* be a force that is the result of either
> > > waves trough the aether or a steady state flow within the aether.
> >
> > Gravity must, first of all, described as something which gives results
> similar
> > to GR.  Else, you will fail to predict all the results of observations
> > and experiments which have been used to test GR.
> >
> > > Tom van Flandern pointed out the following:
> >
> > I doubt that van Flandern has some point. I had take a short look at
> > one discussion with him, and it seemed to me that his opponent, a GR
> > guy, had the better arguments.
>
> That still leaves "Dark Matter" and Ron Hatch.
>
> But you have a point, we should be able to explain "all the results of
> observations and experiments which have been used to test GR".
>
> However, as I pointed out, magnetics play a *very* important role as
> well, as shown in the lab by David LaPoint.
>
> So, it's quite a lot of work to re-analyse all those experiments and
> see how the data fits with the new model, which is not even completely
> worked out yet.
>
> >
> > > And since it cannot be a Herzian electromagnetic wave, the only other
> > > possibility left is that it is a longitudinal "Tesla" wave, the kind
> > > of wave not currently described by Maxwell's equations, the equations
> > > which I've shown to be in violation of elemental math.
> >
> > You have not done such a thing.
>
> There is no denying that Maxwell's equations violate the elemental
> math as defined by Laplace / Helmholtz, because curl E != 0 in
> Maxwell.
>
> This IS mathematical proof, whether you like it or not.
>
> >
> > > The propose existence of no less than 2^48 different fields is a
> > > violation of the fundamental idea of the existence of a physical
> > > aether which behaves like a fluid and therefore there can be only one
> > > field, as defined by the Laplace operator and culminating in two the
> > > closely related vector flow velocity fields [E] and [B] with a unit of
> > > measurement in [m/s].
> >
> > So what?  Your one-field ether is unable to make any of the many
> > empirical predictions made by the SM.  Instead, my ether model gives
> > the SM fields.
>
> As I argued, the bottomline is that SM is (at least partially) based
> on *harmonic* wave functions.
>
> Since *all* harmonic wave functions are solutions to the Laplace
> equation, there is no question SM can be revised to fit perfectly well
> within our aether model.
>
>
> >
> > > Occam demands a model with only one fundamental field definition
> > > should be preffered.
> >
> > If it is viable.  Your model is not.  It does not predict anything
> > about the elementary particles at all.
>
> Since it is an extention of Stowe's work, it predicts that the
> elementary particle called electron can be modeled as a single vortex
> ring which results in an actual understanding of "the quanta" as well
> as an actual understanding of what "charge" is. It also predicts that
> the observed cosmic background radiation, resulting in a minimum
> temperature of about 2.7 K, is related to the characteristic
> oscillation frequency of the electron.
>
> Whatever you may think of that, one cannot maintain it does not
> "predict anything about the elementary particles at all".
>
> >
> > > Yep, we need it to obtain the elementary particles from the waves of
> the
> > > ether.
> >
> > This is not a problem at all, because it is standard QT in quantum
> > condensed matter theory. There are usual sound waves and the quantum
> > effects (discrete energy levels) give energies similar to those
> > associated with particles.  These quasi-particles are named "phonons".
> >
> > That means there is nothing to do but to apply standard quantum
> > condensed matter theory.
>
> Again, sound waves are harmonic waves. So, there is no reason this
> could not also be revised and realigned to our medium model, our
> aether theory, which allows *all* harmonic functions as a solution.
>
> >
> > > And we need to explain what "charge" is as well. It is not hard to see
> > > that vortex rings can be combined into complex structures, which share
> > > attributes both associated with waves as well as particles:
> >
> > Such vortex rings are hardly sufficient to give all the SM gauge fields.
>
> As shown, these gauge fields do not result in any change of the real
> fields of force they are defined to hook into, and therefore they have
> no physicall effect at all, that is, not along the way they are
> currently hooked up into the model.
>
> At the end of the day, there is no reason why the SM could not be
> realigned to our medium model, our aether model.
>
>
> >
> > >> Universality: The old ether was a medium for the electromagnetic
> field. It
> > >> was assumed, that, except the ether, there are also other things in
> the
> > >> universe, like usual matter and gravity.
> > >
> > > Yep, and that's why the old ether model has to go. There are no other
> > > things in the universe but the aether, so things like matter and
> > > gravity *must* be described as the result of some kind of phenomena
> > > that can occur in a fluid-like medium, like waves and vortices.
> >
> > Why you think the ether has to be fluid is beyond me.
> >
> > > There _can_ be only one.
> >
> > No, there can be many, and there are many in my model.
>
> Well, yes, one can invent many, but that does not mean doing so helps
> in increasing your understanding of what's actually going on.
>
> We know there is a medium and it behaves like a fluid. All one
> accomplishes by introducing additional fields is that one makes thinks
> unnecessarily complicated.
>
> That's just not a good idea in my book.
>
> >
> > >>Length contraction caused by the ether: As well, ether effects lead to
> a
> > >> contraction of moving rulers. Thus, relativistic effects are
> described in
> > >> a way similar to the Lorentz ether.
> > >
> > > Mostly agree, as long as it's clear that the Lorentz transform should
> > > not be applied, no matter what. We *have* to stick to absolute space
> > > and therefore Galilean coordinate transforms.
> >
> > Sorry, but you are free to use whatever coordinates you like.  It is
> > elementary differential geometry to rewrite all the equations in other
> > coordinates.
> >
> > BTW, in my ether theory there is absolute rest, thus, no Galilean
> > invariance too.
>
> How do you intend to explain the MM experiment from that then?
>
> >
> > >> Speed of light as the speed of sound of the medium: The speed of
> light in
> > >> the vacuum is the characteristic speed of waves in this medium,
> similar to
> > >> the speed of sound.
> > >
> > > Disagree. Besides the familiar "transverse" wave, there is also a
> > > longitudinal wave, which propagates at either pi/2 or sqrt(3) times
> > > the speed of light.  Speed of light is not a universal constant, but
> > > follows from the local properties of the aether. Hence no application
> > > of the Lorentz transform.
> > >
> > >
> > >>
> > >> > In fluid dynamics, we have both incompressible flow as well as
> > >> > irrotational flow:
> > >>
> > >> And we also have flows which are neither incompressible nor
> irrotational.
> > >
> > > Those are theoretical simplifications that have their place in theory,
> > > but not in reality. No incompressible fluids nor materials exist.
> > >
> > > One cannot have something physical that is rotating and also has zero
> > > curl/rotation. See:
> > >
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vortex#Irrotational_vortices
> > >
> > >>
> > >> The fluid dynamic model of the ether has the velocity of the ether
> > >> defined by the gravitational field as v^i = g^{0i}/g^{00}.  It is
> > >> neither incompressible nor irrotational.
> > >>
> > >> >  𝐀=∇×𝐅
> > >> >  Φ= ∇⋅𝐅
> > >>
> > >> ???????
> > >
> > > All I did was to take the terms one finds in the Laplacian, elemental
> > > math, wrote them  out and labeled them as follows:
> > >
> > > -:-
> > > The Laplacian IS the second order spatial derivative
> > > of ANY given vector funtion 𝐅, the 3D curvature if you will, and is
> > > given by the identity:
> > >
> > >  ∇²𝐅= ∇(∇·𝐅) - ∇×(∇×𝐅)
> > >
> > > The terms in this identity can be written out as follows:
> > >
> > >  𝐀=∇×𝐅
> > >  Φ= ∇⋅𝐅
> > >  𝐁=∇×𝐀=∇×(∇×𝐅)
> > >  𝗘=−∇Φ= −∇(∇⋅𝐅)
> > >
> > > And because of vector identities, one can also write:
> > >
> > >  ∇×𝗘= 0
> > >  ∇⋅𝐁= 0
> > > -:-
> > >
> > > This math establishes a Helmholtz decompositon of any given vector
> field 𝐅:
> > >
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmholtz_decomposition
> >
> > The formula given there for the decomposition is
> >
> > F =-\nabla \Phi + \nabla x A
> >
> > means
> >
> > \nabla  F = -\nabla^2 \Phi instead of  \nabla  F =  \Phi
>
> "The formula given there for the decomposition is
>
> 𝐅 = −∇Φ + ∇×𝐀
>
> means
>
> ∇𝐅 = - ∇²Φ instead of ∇𝐅=Φ"
>
> What is given is:
>
> ∇²𝐅= ∇(∇·𝐅) - ∇×(∇×𝐅) = ∇(Φ) - ∇×(𝐀)
>
> What Helmholtz says is:
>
> A vector field 𝐅 exists such that:
>  𝐅 = −∇Φ + ∇×𝐀
>
> And what I'm saying is that, apart from the negation, this vector
> field 𝐅 is given by:
>
> ∇²𝐅= ∇(∇·𝐅) - ∇×(∇×𝐅) = ∇(Φ) - ∇×(𝐀)
>
>
> And dimensional analysis of the FD case, as I've shown, reveals that
> the unique solution to this equation is:
>
>  𝐅 = [0], the null vector.
>
>
> >
> > >> In other words, you want to speculate about some ether theory, but
> > >> have not even fully worked out formulas for this. Even if successful,
> the
> > >> result would be worthless because a viable ether theory would have to
> > >> cover the whole SM together with gravity, and not only the EM field.
> > >
> > > This is established by modelling the gravitational force as
> > > experienced on the surface of a planet as being caused by longitudinal
> > > waves.
> >
> > You cannot establish something by modeling.  You can construct some
> model.
> > Then, this model makes some predictions.  Then you have to compare the
> > predictions with observation and if this fails, the model has to be
> thrown away.
>
> All in all it's just a process of debugging. First find the bug, then
> update your model accordingly and then compare the predictions with
> observations. If this fails, find the bug and continue.
>
> There is no question that a bug that has been left unnoticed for over
> 150 years takes some time to debug and requires quite a lot of
> refactoring in/of the rest of the model.
>
>
> >
> > > And it can be shown in the laboratory that the other two so-called
> > > "fundamental interactions" can also be fully accounted for by EM
> > > forces:
> > >
> > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=siMFfNhn6dk
> > > Don't mind the narrator too much, focus on what is being shown.
> >
> > Nonsense. What is shown are nice pictures at best, they cannot tell us
> anything
> > if not supported by theoretical considerations.
>
> What is shown is that steel balls form geometric structures under the
> influence of a magnetic field under certain conditions and that these
> patterns match to a photo that has been shown and is claimed to be an
> image of an atom nucleus.
>
> There is no denying that these seem to match. What that means is up
> for debate, but it is a fact that the picture shown matches the
> patterns shown in the experiment.
>
>
> >
> > > Again, the fundamental idea is that there is only one aether and
> > > therefore only one field as defined by the fundamental theorem of
> > > vector calculus.
> > >
> > > This is not speculation, this is logical thinking.
> >
> > No. This is simply a much too primitive model which fails to predict
> anything
> > about the observations made in particle accelerators.
>
> No shit, Sherlock!
>
> What we have is a model for the medium and the argument that a
> particle model should be built on top of it.
>
> Of course the medium model itself cannot predict anything about the
> observations made in particle accelerators. We cannot do that without
> a particle model.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Physics mailing list
> Physics at tuks.nl
> http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics
>


-- 
*Ruud Loeffen*
http://www.human-DNA.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.tuks.nl/pipermail/physics/attachments/20200428/2195cb93/attachment.html>