[Physics] Do longitudinal FTL "Tesla" waves exist and, if yes, how should they be modelled?

[Arend Lammertink]

On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 9:23 AM Ilja Schmelzer <ilja.schmelzer at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 2020-04-29 17:04 GMT+06:30, Arend Lammertink <lamare at gmail.com>:
> > On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 4:09 AM Ilja Schmelzer <ilja.schmelzer at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> The Maxwell equations have been well-tested already in the
> >> pre-relativistic pre-quantum times. There is simply no room for
> >> correcting there something.
> >
> > Well, there's a lot more to the history of radio than meets the eye,
>

> So, what would one have to do if one would nonetheless support that
> age-old theory rejected at that time?

Please do note that there is a significant difference between the
aether theories that existed "at that time" and ours, if only because
we fundamentally consider gravity to propagate *trough* the medium
rather than consider it as a separate force.

> One would have to check that it
> is not only compatible with the few weak experiments used at that time
> to favor the theory which is mainstream now, but also all the other,
> later, experiments which have given only a few lines in a review
> article that experiment X has tested effect Y and reached an increase
> of accuracy by reducing the error bars by a factor 2 or so,  There are
> a lot of them, hundreds, thousands, it depends.  Feel free to start
> this.

Einstein once said: "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me
right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."

Seems more efficient to focus on that single experiment and let others
do the hard work.

>
> Not interested, too many of them, and you have no resources to counter
> them with equally accurate own experiments?  Ok, then there is a way
> to handle them all at once, namely, design a theory which predicts the
> same as the mainstream theory for all those experiments. In this case,
> you can ignore them - they predict the same as my new theory, thus,
> they cannot decide between our two theories.  This is my approach.

Yep, mine too. It's just that I work on the most fundamental level
possible: the characteristics of the medium itself.


>
> So, before considering historical experiments, you should make a
> choice of your general strategy.  If you want to make own experiments
> at home, with investing some $100 000 or so, and hope to beat an
> industry which controls particle accelerators and spaceships which
> cost billions with many thousands of employees, I wish you luck but
> will not contribute even a single cent.  Sorry.

General strategy is to formulate an alternative theory using the most
expressive math available for the task: vector and potential theory.
This single equation is really all one needs to do so:

∇²𝐅= ∇(∇·𝐅) - ∇×(∇×𝐅) = 0

Literally, everything we know about fluid dynamics can be derived c.q
follows from this equation, including the EM fields, when applying
well known FD theory and substituting the charactertics of the aether
(permittivity, permeability) into the well known FD parameters.

Now because Maxwell did things differently, the longitudinal wave is
what's not being predicted, while it is known from FD how to derive
equations for the longitudinal wave from this single equation, and it
is known such "sound" waves propagate faster than a transverse wave by
a factor of just over 1.5, it is clear what to do:

Experimentally obtain inconclusive evidence longitudinal waves exist
AND propagate faster than the well known EM waves.

Fortunately, all one needs to be able to do so is a bunch of wires, a
handful of electronics, a transmitter and some measurement tools. All
of this can be had for less than $1000.

Measuring the wavelength in air of an emitted radio wave is not so
difficult. Hook up two antenna's to a single transmitter and you will
get an interference pattern. Then one can find the location of nodes
and antinodes and measure their distance, which should be half a
wavelength. If that is bigger by a factor of just over 1.5 compared to
the normal EM wave, you're done. Sure, have to make sure you get the
planet our of your near field, so you will have to perform the
experiment at least two wavelengths above ground level, which is why
it needs to be done at higher frequencies, either the 23cm or the 70cm
amateur band.

In the attached picture, you see the latest antenna design I'm
experimenting with, which comes very close to what Tesla was working
with, only scaled down to more manageable dimensions. A piece of
coaxial cable of about 50 cm long, a 4 turn coil around it and a
tuning capacitor. Hook it up to a (nano)VNA and see what gives.

This thing shows some very weird behavior. The tuning is very
sensitive, but one can find a sweet spot, whereby the behavior of the
antenna varies without touching anything. I uploaded a screen capature
of my measurement, so you can see for yourself:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFEsklvbP-k

Sorry for the bad sound quality, mike in my mac is problematic.
Starting at about 2:30 in, you can see that the behavior of the thing
varies considerably, which is very, very weird.

So, it seems to me I'm finally on the right track with my experiments,
but time will have to tell. I have to get this under control before I
can hook two of these up to a transmitter and measure the emitted
wavelength.

In any case, the moral of this story is: it's entirely possible to do
research with radio waves on a shoe-string budget. That's the beaty of
researching with radio waves, it costs next to nothing compared to
particle accelerators and what have you.

Another big advantage of working with this kind of equipment is that
it can be easily replicated by just about anyone, so we're not
dependent on "the industry" to be able to obtain independent
verification, should we be succesful at some point in the future.

So, that's why I love experimenting with radio.

>
> > Quite a lot of info to digest, but note how this story is closely
> > related to the way Maxwell's equations compare to the general case as
> > defined by Laplace / Helmholtz, which includes a fundamental
> > distinction between an irrotational, compressible field [E] and a
> > rotational, incompressible field [B].
>
> This is not the general case, but, as even wikipedia explains correctly:
>
> "In other words, a vector field can be constructed with both a
> specified divergence and a specified curl, and if it also vanishes at
> infinity, it is uniquely specified by its divergence and curl. This
> theorem is of great importance in electrostatics, since Maxwell's
> equations for the electric and magnetic fields in the static case are
> of exactly this type."

IMHO, it is general, because the whole thing is hidden within the
Laplace operator.

Everything we know from fluid dynamics can de derived c.q. follows
from this single equation:

∇²𝐅= ∇(∇·𝐅) - ∇×(∇×𝐅) = 0

Everything ties together mathematically in this single equation,
including the Helmholtz decomposition.

It works both ways: the whole thing is uniqely _defined_ by this
single equation, that's what makes it so beautiful and powerful!

>
> Remember, if you accept that light waves and radio waves are those
> transversal Hertz waves, you already accept some part of the
> electrodynamics, even if you like to add those Tesla waves.

Yep, I do accept Hertzian waves.

> So, what
> are your equations for electrodynamics?

∇²𝐅= ∇(∇·𝐅) - ∇×(∇×𝐅) = 0

> And do they allow for those
> transversal Hertz waves?

Yep, just a matter of working things out along the FD textbook.

> Up to now, I see no nice way how you can
> reach this. If you simply remove the dB/dt term from the Maxwell
> equations, you destroy them too.

Nope, one _allows_ all possible harmonic (wave) equations, rather than
_reducing_ the number of possible solutions to only one: the Hertzian
transverse wave.

What the dB/dt term does, essentially, is to artificially tie the
rotational field [B] to the compressible field [E] in a very specific
way. Remember my claim a real transverse wave is a combination of
vortices and a longitudinal wave?

https://www.acs.psu.edu/drussell/Demos/waves/wavemotion.html

See that in the transverse wave the rotational field [B] is tied to
the compressible field [E] in a very specific way?

Remember, potential fields are well known within FD, even though not
fully developed yet. It is the exact same math, except for the dB/dt
term....

>
> > Yes, the Hertzian wave predicted by Maxwell has been well-tested and
> > is well predicted, so that part matches and is pretty much OK.
>
> Do they exist in your equations?

Yep, it's just FD.

Only in "my" equation, which is trivial to work out using textbook FD,
you have two phenomena that match the observation that there is such a
thing as a "near" and a "far" field around an antenna and not just one
"Hertzian" transverse wave:

The near field is a real transverse surface wave, the one actually
predicted by Maxwell that cannot propagate trough a fluid-like medium;

The far field is something else that involves rotation, because
magnetics imply rotation, and therefore it implies vortices. Could be
vortex rings, could be very complex combinations thereof, too, but it
*has* to involve vortices in one way or the other.


> Do changing magnetic fields, those
> dB/dt terms, have an influence on electric fields or not?

Yes, definitely, but these influences follow from the math and physics
and are not artificially enforced via the dB/dt term.

See for example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vortex#Irrotational_vortices
"However, the ideal irrotational vortex flow is not physically
realizable, since it would imply that the particle speed (and hence
the force needed to keep particles in their circular paths) would grow
without bound as one approaches the vortex axis. Indeed, in real
vortices there is always a core region surrounding the axis where the
particle velocity stops increasing and then decreases to zero as r
goes to zero. Within that region, the flow is no longer irrotational:
the vorticity  becomes non-zero, with direction roughly parallel to
the vortex axis."

So, "my" equation allows "ideal" situations to be considered, whereby
one can neglect the influence of the electric field in the
considerations of the magnetic field (Helmholtz), but it also brings
awareness that such ideal "magnets"
are not "physically realizable" because of the influence of the
electric field that has to be taken into account in practice.

In other words: "my" equation allows the simplification of considering
the medium as being rotational and incompressible for the
consideration of the behavior of the magnetic field and also the
simplification of considering the medium as being irrotational but
compressible for the consideration of the electric field and/or
longitudinal waves.

So, "my" equation allows the relationships between the dynamic (i.e.
changing) [E] and [B] fields to follow from the math, rather than
enforcing them to have a specific relation with a specific propagation
speed c.

The propagation speed of the waves, of which the equations are trivial
to derive from "my" equation along text-book FD, follow from the
parameters of the medium and the particular wave equations known in
FD, rather than being artificially enforced for the electric field [E]
and associated longitudinal wave.


>
> > The FTL longitudinal wave, however, not so much. This is not so
> > strange, given that Maxwell does not predict these, so one has almost
> > nothing to work with. As a result, virtually no (quality) research has
> > been done on this subject, so if one wants to do so, one finds himself
> > pretty much alone in the desert, without hardly any map nor guidance
> > to speak of,
>
> Fine. So, start with equations which allow for your longitudinal FTL
> waves, but which also allow for the Hertz waves travelling with c.

Yep, got that:

∇²𝐅= ∇(∇·𝐅) - ∇×(∇×𝐅) = 0

>
> That means, you have to give up your modification of the Maxwell equations.

Nope, it is exactly that modification c.q. return to basics (LaPlace /
Helmholtz) which yields an equation that - when worked out along the
FD textbook - allows both FTL longitudinal waves as well as the
Hertzian wave, AND is no longer ambiguous, because it also explains
the difference between the "near" and "far" fields in a
straightforward manner.

The difference between the "near" and "far" fields _is_ significant,
because Maxwell does not predict such a difference, since only one
resulting wave equation, the one for a not otherwise specified
"transverse" wave.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_and_far_field
"Non-radiative 'near-field' behaviors dominate close to the antenna or
scattering object, while electromagnetic radiation 'far-field'
behaviors dominate at greater distances."

Having a non-radiating *transverse* surface wave (as actually
predicted by Maxwell) for the near field, and a "quantized" far field
involving vortices matches observations and explains quite a lot,
IMHO.

>
> There is place for longitudinal waves given the gauge freedom.

Yep, but that has to go. There can be no gauge freedom in the fields
describing the behavior of a fluid-like medium.

>
> > What is the Lorentz gauge, really, in essence?
>
> The simple way to have the simple wave equation
>
> \square A^m = j^m
>
> for the four potentials  compatible with the Maxwell equations.

"finding additional equations in order to straighten things out"


>
> > Note the word "symmetrizing".
> >
> > What does this really mean, "introducing a retardation effect to the
> > Coulomb force"?
>
> It means, once you have that gauge freedom, the equations for  E and B
> don't define the potentials completely.  You can add to the A_m which
> give E and B some \partial_m \omega(x,t) with arbitrary \omega(x,t)
> and get the same fields E and B. Once you can measure only E and B,
> but not the A, but think that the A are nonetheless real fields, you
> have to make a guess about the  equations for the A.

Were it not that the whole thing is uniquely defined by a single equation:

∇²𝐅= ∇(∇·𝐅) - ∇×(∇×𝐅) = 0

Even the =0 is not only unique, but also follows from dimensional
analysis from the velocity fields [E] and [B] as defined in fluid
dynamics. For 𝐅 one obtains a unit of measurement in [m^3/s], which
implies 𝐅 goes to zero by definition in infinitesimal calculus.

>
> > IMHO, what you are looking at is on the one hand an effort to explain
> > the propagation of the electric field trough time (since Coulomb
> > assumed an infinite speed) and on the other hand the "symmetrizing" of
> > a set of equations, Maxwell's, which are apparently not symmetric
> > already.
>
> Maxwell has also used potentials, but used another way than Lorenz.

Yep, and because of the explicit connection via the term dB/dt he
messed things up.

> If you want the longitudinal wave travelling at a  different speed
> than c, you can try to look at other gauge conditions too.

Nope, all one needs to do is work things out along the FD textbook and
wave propagation speeds follow from the math.

>
> > So, what happened is that the propagation speed of Herzian transverse
> > waves, c, has been taken as an absolute fact, and the electric field
> > has been artificially enforced to propagate at that speed also, even
> > though quite a lot of evidence supports the idea that this is not the
> > case and a FTL longitudinal wave aka "the electric field" exists.
>
> No. The Maxwell equations as given in E and B - that means the
> equations where all terms can be tested because E and B can be
> measured - have not been forced into anything.  It is these equations
> which have been taken as an absolute fact, once all the terms have
> been tested with sufficient accuracy.

I have little doubt that when one works out "my" equation using
textbook FD, the exact same wave equation comes out for the transverse
wave with the exact same propagation speed c, so it should match
observations.

And because the main stream doesn't understand Tesla's single wire
transmission line concept, which has no closed loop (circulation), we
have no idea how to measure the details of the E field. All we can
measure at the moment are the "transverse" surface waves propagating
along our wires.

In other words: EVERYTHING that has been measured to date, including a
handful of "anomalies", has been measured AND interpreted from the
"transverse" two-wire transmission line perspective, which implies a
closed loop (circulation).


>
> Once the potentials cannot be measured, there is freedom in the choice
> of equations for the potential.   The Lorenz gauge is one possibility,
> and it indeed leads to the potential following a wave equation with
> speed c too.  In the Coulomb gauge, used by Maxwell, the potentials
> would be distributed, instead, immediately, with infinite speed, like
> the Newtonian gravitational potential.
>
> So, by choosing the gauge condition, you are free to modify the speed
> of the longitudinal waves.

And we're back at square one: there cannot be "gauge freedom" in a
medium that behaves like a gas/fluid.

>
> This freedom you have in the actual mainstream interpretation of the
> Maxwell equations too.

Yep,  one of the reasons they're incorrect.

The problem is, it has started a live of it's own, which is not easy
to accept after 150+ years of "progress" upon a broken foundation.

> The reason why the mainstream does not
> consider them is that they don't have any influence, because they
> don't interact with other matter, with the charged particles.

The reason why they are in fantasy land is because in order to have an
actual influence, not only *must* a resulting force be obtained, the
fields *must* also propagate trough the medium in one way or the other
and therefore *must* be described in terms of the elemental fields [E]
and [B] as defined by LaPlace / Helmholtz.

> In the
> Lorenz gauge they travel with c through the world, not bothering
> anybody because nobody can see them.  They are positivists, thus,
> unobservable things are anathema to them, they should be excluded from
> the theory at arbitrary costs.

Then may be someone should explain to them that "virtual" fields and
photons and what have you are by definition unobservable and should
therefore be excluded from the theory at any cost.

Note that "unobservable" implies "not measurable" and thus implies
"unfalsifyability", the very criterium Karl Popper used to discrimate
"science" from "pseudoscience". ^_^

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
"Popper opposed falsifiability to verifiability. For example, in order
to verify the claim "All swans are white" one would have to observe
every swan, which is not possible, whereas the single observation
"Here is a black swan" is sufficient to falsify it.

As a key notion in the separation of science from non-science,
falsifiability has featured prominently in many scientific
controversies and applications, even being used as legal precedent."


>
> >> I'm not that anti-mainstream.  I think the experimenters make their
> >> job, and the experimental clothes are quite fine. If not, I have no
> >> chance to correct them anyway.
> >
> > I've become quite skeptical about the mainstream. In general, they
> > have a very arrogant attitude, while in reality they act pretty much
> > like a cult, worshipping the idols of relativity and quantum
> > weirdness, forcefully rejecting any attempt to even question these two
> > theories.
>
> My point is that we have no chance to question the experimental
> results.  But we are free to develop alternatives which give the same
> predictions as the mainstream theories, or are at least sufficiently
> close to them, so that all their references to experiments can be
> easily answered.

Yep, completely agree.

>
> I think there is a good chance to fight those mystical interpretations
> of relativity and quantum theory.

Yep.

> To present the world a simple,
> realistic, non-mystical interpretation of relativity, of quantum
> theory, of the SM, of GR.  We don't have to fight these theories -
> they are fine, sufficiently well tested, and unproblematic in
> themselves.  But we can reject the relativistic mysticism, all these
> wormholes, causal loops in Goedel universes, all this creation out of
> nothing mystery, all this quantum mysticism, rejection of realism and
> even causality, and, moreover, all this string theory nonsense.

Ddon't have to fight these theories, indeed.

All we need to do is experimentally verify the existence of FTL
"Tesla" waves. There's no doubt in my mind whatsoever that all of the
mysticism is the result of neglecting the single equation that will
one day revolutionalize science:

∇²𝐅= ∇(∇·𝐅) - ∇×(∇×𝐅) = 0

I believe we are pretty close to that moment in time, but time will
have to tell. I'm not a very good experimenter, but someone has to do
it and so far it looks like I have to do it all by myself.

>
> > To a rational thinker, the supposed "dark matter" saga shows
> > that in actual fact "a variety of astrophysical observations,
> > including gravitational effects cannot be explained by accepted
> > theories of gravity" aka GR and therefore something is seriously wrong
> > somewhere.
>
> Dark matter is a way to solve these problems without rejecting GR.

It is also an excuse to deny the fact that this _is_ one of those
"single" experiments which proves GR wrong.

I would think that after 150+ years of trying to find additional
equations, it may be time to try something else.


The following quote has often been attributed to Einstein, but appears
to originate at Rita Mae Brown:

“Insanity is doing the same thing, over and over again, but expecting
different results.”

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/misattributed-quotes-2013-10

> Alternatives which modify, instead, GR to solve these problems can be
> proposed and have been proposed.

Here we have a proposal that modifies the very reason for it's
existence: the failure by Maxwell to predict the propagation speed of
the electric field.

> You should take into account here
> that the standard cold dark matter is a quite simple theory, all you
> need is a single massive particle which does not interact with other
> matter.

Which violates the well established "wave-particle" duality principle.

> As long as this simple theory is sufficient to explain what
> is observed, alternative theories of gravity have a hard job.

Yep. Until proven wrong by providing conclusive evidence for the
existence of FTL longitudinal waves, as predicted by Laplace /
Helmholtz in combination with Stowe's proposal to model the medium as
an ideal, Newtonian fluid.

>
> >> Where the mainstream fails is metaphysics.  This is the part where
> >> they even refuse to discuss anything, based on positivist nonsense
> >> ideas that metaphysics are worthless and should not be discussed -
> >> which only protects the established metaphysics against criticism.
> >
> > I have no opinion on metaphysics, don't know enough about the subject
> > to say anything sensible about it.
>
> It is all this related with the interpretation of the equations.  Does
> this field g_mn(x,t) describe some mystical curved spacetime or simply
> density, velocity, and stress tensor of an ether?  Do quantum systems
> have some configuration even if they are not measured?  Are the
> potentials really existing, or only mathematical tools of no
> fundamental importance?  These things are not about God, ghosts and so
> on, they are about physics, but those parts of physics which one
> cannot simply test in some simple experiments, because different
> theories make essentially the same predictions for those experiments.

Isn't it interesting that the ultimate reductionalism yields both the
simplicity and the understandability needed to put an end to all off
the mysticism built opon Maxwell?

∇²𝐅= ∇(∇·𝐅) - ∇×(∇×𝐅) = 0

>
> This is the weak place of the mainstream physics.  Here they prefer
> the most mystical variants, variants which give them the aura of some
> superheros able to understand things no normal human is able to
> understand, like curves spacetimes, spaces with higher dimensions,
> causal loops, wormholes, and all the quantum strangeness.  But while
> they care a lot about experiments - and have a clear advantage here
> over outsiders, given the costs for them paid by taxpayers - they
> don't care about better interpretations.

The beauty of "my" equation is that it's all very simple to explain,
so the irony is that ordinary people have no problem understanding
what I'm saying, because we have all these analogies people are
familiar with that we can use to illustrate things.

Isn't it interesting that ordinary people have no problem
understanding "my" equation, while the "superheros" have no clue?

Isn't it also interesting that researching radio waves costs next to nothing?

In other words: we don't have to care about the "superheros", we can
do what we want and are completely independent. Eventually, the truth
speaks for itself and cannot be stopped.

>
> And even if they would find better (simpler, easier to understand for
> laymen) interpretations, they would prefer the established mystical
> interpretations.  Simply because they are more attractive to them.
> But they have no arguments to fight them.  All they can do is to
> ignore them, to censor them in forums, and so on.  And this is
> something a few outsiders can fight against.  Distribute the knowledge
> about the alternative interpretations in the net.  Make them popular
> enough so that the mainstream can no longer completely ignore them.

Yep, completely agree.

And prove the mainstream wrong beyond any doubt, by conclusive
experiments that pretty much everyone can repeat, once success has
been achieved.

>
> As long as you question their experiments, your chances are miserable,
> and they would be miserable even if you were right about it. Because
> they have very strong weapons, in form of particle colliders, large
> telescopes and space stations, and big supercomputers to compute what
> they need, and a lot of scientists working there.

Yep, but they don't have

∇²𝐅= ∇(∇·𝐅) - ∇×(∇×𝐅) = 0,

>
> But we can fight them on a place where they have no defenses. They
> have none because they think it is not worth to fight there. Their
> misguided positivism tells them not to care about this. Here we can be
> stronger.

Yep, the public domain.

>
> And this is the place where I'm strong. I have now a theory of
> gravity, of the SM, I know how to interpret quantum theory is a simple
> way.  So, regarding the scientific content, everything is already
> finished, or almost finished.

Well, you are still fighting "my" equation:

∇²𝐅= ∇(∇·𝐅) - ∇×(∇×𝐅) = 0,

>
> My weak place is that I have no supporters. Those who would distribute
> my results to break through the wall of ignorance.  And not because
> there is some error in my theories, but for purely sociological
> reasons:

Your weak place, as far as I can tell, is that you don't have a
proposal for a single experiment that can prove the very foundation of
the "superheros" theories wrong.


>
> The mainstream scientists have no chance, they live in a "publish or
> perish" competition, and to publish progress in ether theory is
> extremely hard.  So they have to follow the mainstream fads even if
> they would like otherwise, simply to survive, to get yet another
> grant.

Yep, so we have to do things differently.

>
> I have had some hope that some alternative physicists could help, but
> they have all their own pet theories and will never give them up.  If
> they would be ready to give them up if they see a better theory, they
> would already have done this and they would support the mainstream.
> They are like me - lone fighters. Else they would have given up
> developing alternatives long ago.  They will be unable to support me
> by their nature.

Yep, you have a point here, very aware of that myself.

But also do take a look in the mirror....

You see, I don't have a complete theory. All I have is a bug and the
fundamental solution of said bug:

∇²𝐅= ∇(∇·𝐅) - ∇×(∇×𝐅) = 0,

>
> How one could solve this problem?  I don't know.  Maybe some
> alternative physicists could accept some sort of compromise - they
> continue to develop their own pet theories, but recognize the general
> situation as described above, recognize that my theories have a much
> better chance to beat the resistance of the mainstream given that all
> the experimental support for the mainstream theories does not give
> anything, and support my theories for a purely pragmatical reason?

May be you're the one that could accept some sort of compromise?

Take

∇²𝐅= ∇(∇·𝐅) - ∇×(∇×𝐅) = 0,

and RUN with it!

You understand how the SM works and how they did it, I don't.

You can understand "my" equation, too, like ordinary persons can. It's
just simple math that describes the behavior of a fluid. That's ALL
there is to it!

It's YOU that can build that particle model Paul and I can't, because
the math is way above our heads.

So, here's my proposal for a compromise:

You worry about the particle model,
I worry about the experimental proof that longitudinal FTL waves exist.

Deal?


>
> The pragmatical reason is quite obvious for those who support common
> sense. The world of physics becomes simple again, with absolute space,
> absolute time, an ether following classical condensed matter
> equations, the quantum mystery is reduced to some Brownian motion, the
> configurations have some continuous trajectory without quantum jumps,
> the wave function describes only incomplete knowledge.

Yep, the very fact that they had to resort to probabilistic methods
makes clear something is incomplete somewhere.

>
> Wouldn't this be already a great thing, if the mainstream would be
> forced to accept this, even if your own pet theory is much better?

Gotta have experimental proof....

> Wouldn't it become much easier to develop your own pet theory if the
> mainstream would have changed by rejecting the curved spacetime and
> quantum mystery nonsense and switched to that common sense
> interpretation of the established theories?

Change does not come from within, has to come from the outside.

> Last but not least, simply
> because developing ether theories would become acceptable mainstream
> science, and because early supporters (you?) would almost
> automatically become accepted, established mainstream scientist too?

Again, gonna have to hit them where it hurts:

Experimental verification of longitudinal waves.

>
> So, simply think about supporting my theories for such purely
> pragmatic reasons.  Note the advantages of my theories if the aim is
> to win the mainstream: These are already finished theories, they are
> published in accepted mainstream journals, they don't question even a
> single experimental result reached by the mainstream, their
> established theories, GR and the SM, remain intact and unquestioned,
> only their mystical interpretations have to be rejected. So that the
> standard mainstream attacks against alternative science all fail.
> Their only argument is ignorance and censorship. Which they apply
> successfully up to now, but which is obviously quite weak.

Well, in order to be able to capitalize on the experimental
verification I'm working on, someone will have to correct the bug and
work out the fundamental solution:

∇²𝐅= ∇(∇·𝐅) - ∇×(∇×𝐅) = 0

You have it in you to do that, but you will have to accept the obvious:

Something is seriously wrong with Maxwell's equations that has to be
fixed, no matter what.

>
> All one needs to overcome it is some community which supports it,
> which distributes the knowledge about it, which attacks the mainstream
> mystics everywhere, so that they cannot ignore it anymore. As long as
> I'm a lone fighter, ignorance is sufficient to beat me. But if there
> would be some community supporting my theories, this would be much
> harder.
>
> Think about it.
>

Please also think about my proposal. We need to get everything perfect
if we want to have a chance and that means we cannot afford not to fix
Maxwell's bug.

Best regards,

Arend.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 2020-03-24 10.46.56.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1797059 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.tuks.nl/pipermail/physics/attachments/20200430/823d2e45/attachment-0001.jpg>