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

[Tom Hollings]

We agree on a lot of things Arend, and where we disagree is mostly minor. For example I agree that gravity is radiated at a fixed speed relative to its source rather than an aether. However, like light (in my opinion), it is modified by the gas in space (which is the aether). It leaves its source at c +- v (that should really be c +- vs [vs for star]), then enters the gaseous "vacuum of" space, where it's speed is modified to c +- vg (space gas [aether] velocity), and continually changes its velocity as the gas changes direction and velocity. The gas will change direction and velocity in the vicinity of stars and other gravitating bodies, but for simplicity we can ignore the effects of the gravity of a star in the near vicinity on the gravity we are discussing (does that make sense?)
Points 2 and 3 I agree with.
I think that gravity is EM in nature (there is a chapter in BB's web page which goes into that - http://www.alternativephysics.org/book/Gravity.htm), and explains rather neatly some aspects of the behavior of distant galaxies. I think it highly unlikely that it is a push force. I have explored that possibility and discounted it. If it is a push force it must originate from outside the universe!? 
Don't you just love these discussions. 

All the best, 
Tom.


> On 27 April 2020 at 17:55 Arend Lammertink <lamare at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 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.