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

[Arend Lammertink]

On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 10:45 PM Ilja Schmelzer
<ilja.schmelzer at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 2020-04-30 18:01 GMT+06:30, Arend Lammertink <lamare at gmail.com>:
> > On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 9:23 AM Ilja Schmelzer <ilja.schmelzer at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> 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.
>
> If there is a significant difference, why are you sure that the
> prediction about those longitudinal Tesla waves is the same?

What aether theory do you know of which is compatible with Maxwell AND
predicts longitudinal Tesla waves?

Might have missed it, but I know of none.

>
> > Einstein once said: "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me
> > right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."
>
> But you don't have such an experiment.

Yet.

>
> > Seems more efficient to focus on that single experiment and let others
> > do the hard work.
>
> No. A single experiment with affordable devices has quite plausibly no
> chance to falsify one of the fundamental theories, neither GR nor the
> SM or quantum theory.
>

Time will have to tell.

> >> 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.
>
> No. You reject one of the well-established equations, the Maxwell equations.

Yep, and for very good reasons, math being one of them.

>
> I propose something completely different - a theory which preserves
> all the equations of the SM and GR at least in some limit.

Ok, I agree, there is a difference between "preserving all the
equations" and preserving the predictions made by the theory as a
whole as much as possible in some limit.

>
> >> 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.

No need, have all the equipment I need.

> >
> > 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
>
> This is not even an evolution equation. There is no derivative in
> time. So, the change in time is not restricted at all.

Ok, you have a point. This is still abstract math that has many
applications, including fluid dynamics.

No need to write the terms out once again, it's clear that this
equation can be used to establish fundamental relations between an [E]
and a [B] field.

Within fluid dynamics, these two fields have a unit of measurement in
[m/s] and denote the well known "velocity field".

This velocity field describes, obviosly, the velocity distribution
within a fluid. However, when the velocity within the fluid is not
uniform, when there are velocity differentials within the fluid, you
get stresses. The parameters of the fluid, such as compressibility,
mass density etc. can be used to compute forces. etc. from these
velocity differentials. In essence, you get Newtonian mechanics in 3D,
the 3D version of a mass-spring system.

Think about the analogy of two masses connected by a spring. Once
there is a velocity difference between the two masses, you get
oscillations. That's how this works, too.

But, you have a point, you need more than just that single equation,
you also need the fluid dynamics parameters and other well known math
in order to turn this equation into something that is an evolution
equation.

So, the point is: *given* the fluid dynamic domain, it is this
equation that defines how the velocity field of a compressible,
rotational fluid can be related to a unique vector field 𝐅=0, which
establishes a decomposition into two related fields [E] and [B], each
describing a simplification of the original velocity field, while
superposition may be used to obtain said original, overall velocity
field.


>
> > 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.
>
> No. In physics, you need some evolution equations. Usually derived
> from some Lagrangian.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian_and_Eulerian_specification_of_the_flow_field
"In the Eulerian specification of a field, it is represented as a
function of position x and time t. For example, the flow velocity is
represented by a function

v(x,t)"

So, when you consider [E] and [B] to be velocity fields with a unit of
measurement in [m/s], there's your Lagrangian.

So yes, you need a bit more, but the equation given defines a
relationship between such (velocity) fields [E] and [B] that is
fundamental and should not be broken, not even if your name is Maxwell
or Einstein.

>
> > 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.
>
> As explained, you have no chance. All what you can measure with your
> $1000 equipment has been measured hundreds of times with much better
> devices, and they have seen nothing in contradiction with the Maxwell
> equations.

Did you notice I collected a few papers around "near field anomalies",
like these?

http://www.tuks.nl/pdf/Reference_Material/Fast_Light/Experimental%20Evidence%20of%20Near-field%20Superluminally%20Propagating%20Electromagnetic%20Fields.pdf
"Experimental Evidence of Near-field Superluminally Propagating
Electromagnetic Fields"

http://www.tuks.nl/pdf/Reference_Material/Fast_Light/Two%20possible%20interpretations%20of%20the%20near-field%20anomaly%20in%20microwave%20propagation.pdf
"Two possible interpretations of the near-field anomaly in microwave propagation

Microwave and optical experiments have been demonstrated to be a
powerful tool for observing anomalies in wave propagation. The
observation of superluminal behavior, has been of particular interest
both in tunneling processes of evanescent waves and in propagation in
air with non evanescent (complex, X-shaped, Zenneck-type) waves."

These are anomalies, esactly because they contradict Maxwell's equations.

In other words: there are definitely observations whereby people have
seen something that is in contradiction with Maxwell's equations. And
the interesting thing is: these have to do with the observation of
faster than light phenomena.

And these are anomalies, because Maxwell's equations do not predict
the propagation speed of the electric field. That has been added later
via the backdoor known as the "Lorentz gauge", as discussed before.

>
> > 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.
>
> Your equation does not restrict the evolution at all. The Helmholtz
> decomposition is a mathematical theorem, not a physical equation,
> thus, does not change this.

Yep, point taken. Need to apply it to the velocity field in order to
restrict the evolution.


>
> >> 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.
>
> But you have no equations giving them.   ∇²𝐅= ∇(∇·𝐅) - ∇×(∇×𝐅) = 0
> is not an evolution equation.
>
> >> And do they allow for those
> >> transversal Hertz waves?
> >
> > Yep, just a matter of working things out along the FD textbook.
>
> No, there is no necessity to work out anything, the equation is
> compatible also with Hertz waves moving with 1.234 c or
> 0.0000549853495 c or on working days with 5845c and on Sabbath with 0
> c. Because it is compatible with every evolution, once it contains no
> derivatives in time.

Yep, point taken.

>
> > Nope, one _allows_ all possible harmonic (wave) equations, rather than
> > _reducing_ the number of possible solutions to only one: the Hertzian
> > transverse wave.
>
> Allowing all equations means predicting nothing.  Thus, it is
> unfalsifiable, therefore unscientific, nonsense.

Same point again. Need to apply to FD field definitions.

>
> > 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.
>
> Yes. This makes it a theory which makes empirical predictions.  You
> can try it out, take a magnet, move it around, creating in this way
> some dB/dt, and then see what happens with the electric field, which
> you can measure by the force on something charged.

Yep same problem, need to move from abstract math to physics by
incorporating the velocity field and such from continuum fluid
dynamics.

Well, same point keeps coming up. No need to continue repeating the
need to couple the abstract math with the physical FD domain.

>
> > Remember my claim a real transverse wave is a combination of
> > vortices and a longitudinal wave?
>
> Yes. It is quite meaningless if there are no equations for the
> vortices and nothing but a mathematical tautology.
>
> >> 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.
>
> The physics are evolution equations, like the Maxwell equations.
>
> Your "equation" ist not a physical evolution equation.
>
> >> That means, you have to give up your modification of the Maxwell
> >> equations.
> >
> > Nope, ...
> > 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.
>
> Wrong, the near field is described well by the Maxwell equations too.
>

Yes, the near field can be obtained by evaluating Maxwell's equations,
but you can't directly compute the far field, which is described by a
single wave equation:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_wave_equation

How come there is only one wave equation, yet we have two wave phenomena?

How come this wave equation describes a continuous wave, while the far
field has been found to be quantized?


> >> 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.
>
> In the fields which can be measure, E and B, there is no gauge freedom.
> The gauge freedom is only in the potentials.

Which are also fields.

We've been over this multiple times. Gauge freedom makes no sense at
all, since no resulting forces.

How obvious can it be?

>
> > Were it not that the whole thing is uniquely defined by a single equation:
> >
> > ∇²𝐅= ∇(∇·𝐅) - ∇×(∇×𝐅) = 0
>
> No, this equation defines no evolution. Essentially everything would
> be possible.
>
> >> 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.
>
> No, this term allowed for wave solutions.

Nope, this term restricts the number of possible wave solutions to
only one, a continous transverse wave that is not quantized and
therefore does not match observations in the far field.

>
> >> > 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.
>
> It would not match observation once it would contradict the Maxwell
> equation, in particular the part with the dB/dt term influencing the
> electric field.

It would match observation better than Maxwell's eq, because it would
result in a "real" transverse wave for the near field AND some kind of
vortex phenomena for the far field, which would be quantized and would
therefore actually match observation in both cases.


>
> > 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.
>
> Nonsense. Some charged test particle allows to measure the electric
> field by the force which acts on that test particle.

How many charged particles can you mention that do not also produce a
magnetic field, as in: do not have a magnetic moment?

>
> > And we're back at square one: there cannot be "gauge freedom" in a
> > medium that behaves like a gas/fluid.
>
> So what? I don't claim gauge freedom is something fundamental. But if
> we can measure only E and B, but describe the EM field by the
> potential A, it means that we cannot measure all properties of the EM
> field.

There's also the scalar potential Phi.

But you are right: we cannot measure all properties of the EM field
defined by Maxwell, because Maxwell violates the math defined in the
Laplace operator because of the term dB/dt (and units of measurement
as well), and therefore the uniqueness you do find in the Laplace
operator has been lost.

Had Maxwell used the Laplace operator, we would not have had that
problem and we would not have had the whole fantasy land built on top
of the whole "gauge freedom" idea that is totally unwarranted, given
that Maxwell started out from an aetheric paradigm and mechanical
models.

All of this is caused by the introduction of Faraday's law, which
essentially describes the near field behavior of a "DC" antenna, into
the model at a place where it just doesn't fit.

>
> >> 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.
>
> Completely meaningless. Even if the reasoning itself would be correct
> (it is not)

Please explain.

> it is based on the assumption that there exists some such
> medium.

Well, it's based on the assumption that the behavior of the medium can
be described using continuum fluid dynamics, since the medium is
characterized by a permittivity 𝞮 of 8.854 pF/m, a permeability 𝞵 of
4𝞹 x 10^-7 H/m and a characteristic impedance of 377 𝞨.

What more does one need?

> So you have to assume your ether theory is true. If some
> contradiction follows, you have shown that your own theory is
> nonsense.

Yes, IF.

So far, I've found none, but quite a lot in Maxwell's:

*) circular logic, because the concept of charge is taken as a
fundamental quantity in violation of wave/particle duality;
*) only one wave equation, yet two wave phenomena;
*) no prediction of propagation speed of the electric field, later
bolted on in contradiction to measurements by Wheatstone and Tesla;
*) contradiction with LaPlace / Helmholtz b/c not uniquely defined potentials;
*) quite a lot of "anomalies" involving FTL phenomena


>
> > 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.
>
> Forget about these virtual particles. This is all complete confusion
> in popularizations.

Agreed.

>
> > Note that "unobservable" implies "not measurable" and thus implies
> > "unfalsifyability", the very criterium Karl Popper used to discrimate
> > "science" from "pseudoscience". ^_^
>
> This applies only to theories as a whole.  But gauge theory as a whole
> makes a lot of predictions, namely the same as Maxwell theory
> formulated in E and B.  But it is mathematically simpler, and in the
> quantum domain there even is no formulation in terms of E and B alone.
> See Aharonov-Bohm.

Seen that, no valid experimental verification. Theory vs. "physically
realizable".



> >
> >> 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.
> >
> > Don't have to fight these theories, indeed.
>
> > All we need to do is experimentally verify the existence of FTL
> > "Tesla" waves.
>
> But this is exactly the approach I reject - to try to compete with the
> mainstream doing experiments with $1000 equipment.

It does depend on what you want to accomplish/measure. The idea is
that FTL radio waves exist and that they have a totally different
character from the waves we are familiar with. The Erdman brothers
have already shown it is possible to detect a delay between the
underground wave and trough the air wave transmitted by an AM
broadcast transmitter with a lot less sophisticated equipment than I
have, even though they did not understand what they were looking at.

So, the problem is not accuracy, the problem is how to emit such a
wave from a transmitter made for the emission of normal EM radiation:
how to build a suitable antenna and how to make a transformer to/from
the coaxial feed line. In other words: it has more to do with analysis
and interpretation of what you are seeing than with expensive
equimpent. Even the most expensive equipment cannot help with that. If
it can't be measured with, say 10% accuracy, it's not there.

Sure, it would definately help to have someone with a lot more RF
experience around or even just someone that can help with practical
things like winding coils, but it is what it is.


>
> Of course, in principle one cannot exclude that you somehow measure
> something noboby else has measured before and observe there an effect
> which is in contradiction with the Maxwell equations, despite the many
> multi million dollar experiments the mainstream has done. But in
> reality you simply have no chance.

Bear in mind that this is an effect that is not predicted by Maxwell
BUT has been observed before by a/o Tesla,  Dollard and the Erdmann
brothers AND has a completely different character than the electric
phenomena we are familiar with.

Even the US Air Force considers the existence of FTL waves proven, but
they pretty much have to bend over backwards in order to emit and
study them, because they don't understand what they are dealing with
since Maxwell does not predict them!

Interestingly enough, they do confirm what I claim, namely that this
type of wave has a completely different character than our normal EM
waves:

http://www.tuks.nl/pdf/Reference_Material/Fast_Light/APPLICATION%20OF%20SUPERLUMINAL%20RADAR%20TO%20MAINTAIN%20AIR%20SUPERIORITY%20IN%202035.pdf

"Not only did this experiment prove it is possible to create
electromagnetic radiation through superluminal polarization currents,
it showed such radiation exhibits fundamentally different
characteristics than traditionally generated electromagnetic
radiation."

They have to invent all kinds of work-arounds that are not really
necessary, given that Tesla already transmitted the same kind of waves
over 100 years ago.

>
> Whatever, I have no objection if you would do such experiments some
> time. As long as you don't ask for support from my side.

Nope, won't.

>
> >> 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.
>
> Nobody denies the fact that GR without cold dark matter is wrong.
>
> > I would think that after 150+ years of trying to find additional
> > equations, it may be time to try something else.
>
> CDM was not a long period of trying to find additional equations. It
> was the simplest, most straightforward choice of an equation for
> additional matter which we simply don't see. (Ok, the second after
> massless dark matter, named Hot Dark Matter (HDM).)

I count the total period of "finding additional equations" from the
time the bug crept in and has not been fixed. Everything after Maxwell
leads back to Maxwell's original bug, especially relativity and the
"gauge fields" that have crept in all over the place.

The whole dark matter idea is just nonsense. It's existence is implied
because they don't understand that the gravitatonal force is a pushing
force and they also don't account for the magnetic fields that are
implied to exist for any rotating structure, including planetary
orbits as well as complete galaxies.


>
> >> 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.
>
> Nonsense. The propagation speed of the waves follows from Maxwell's
> equations. It appeared to be the speed of light. Nobody but historians
> care much of who has found this first.

Did you notice one can just as well say it actually follows from the
parameters of the medium?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light#Electromagnetic_constants
"An option for deriving c that does not directly depend on a
measurement of the propagation of electromagnetic waves is to use the
relation between c and the vacuum permittivity ε0 and vacuum
permeability μ0 established by Maxwell's theory: c^2 = 1/(ε0μ0)."

This goes for other waves as well, for instance sound waves:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_sound#Equations
"For fluids in general, the speed of sound c is given by the
Newton–Laplace equation:

c^2 = Ks/𝞺

where

Ks is a coefficient of stiffness, the isentropic bulk modulus (or the
modulus of bulk elasticity for gases);
𝞺 is the density."


But I was specifically refering to the propagation speed of the
electric field, NOT the waves predicted by Maxwell.

The propagation speed bolted on later by means of "retarded potentials":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retarded_potential
"In electrodynamics, the retarded potentials are the electromagnetic
potentials for the electromagnetic field generated by time-varying
electric current or charge distributions in the past. The fields
propagate at the speed of light c, so the delay of the fields
connecting cause and effect at earlier and later times is an important
factor: the signal takes a finite time to propagate from a point in
the charge or current distribution (the point of cause) to another
point in space (where the effect is measured)."

Why the need for retarted potentials if Maxwell's equations already
predict the propagation speed of the electric field?

Maxwell's equations are differential equations, in which the
propagation speed of both the electric as the magnetic field is
assumed to be infinite, a la Coulomb and Ampere.

Because of Maxwell's bug, we got only one wave equation which indeed
gives you a propagation speed for that particular type of wave, but
NOT for the E and B fields themselves.

So, what to do?

Well, just find some additional equations around the potentials and
straigten things out.

> >
> >> 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.
>
> Nonsense. First, it does not violate anything related with quantum
> theory, second, this "duality" is vague Copenhagen nonsense and not
> something well-established.

It's still only invented in order to straighten things out. The
logical conclusion is that something is seriously wrong somewhere.

>
> > 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.
>
> I do not object if you throw away your money searching for such
> age-old speculations. You can as well look for ghosts in haunted
> houses, that's fun too, and would also prove wrong a lot of mainstream
> science.

Could be, but I haven't seen an institute like the USAF stating that
the existence of "ghosts" has been proven.

>
> > 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
>
> There is no mysticism build upon Maxwell, his equations are simple,

Well, the "retarded potential" trick is what led to the universal
constant c being further abused and his failure to define his
potentials uniquely has led to even more mysticism.

> it
> is easy to present the experiments which show that all the terms in
> that equation are necessary, even in simple presentations for school
> children.

It's just as easy to show that they violate elemental math.

>
> > 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.
>
> The problem is that your equation explains nothing.
>

Well, you need to fill in the detail that the equation applies to FD
and then it does.

> > Isn't it interesting that ordinary people have no problem
> > understanding "my" equation, while the "superheros" have no clue?
>
> Ordinary people, if they have told you that they understand this, have
> simply talked nonsense.
>

No, they intuitively understand how it works, because they are not
brainwashed with all kinds of mysticism.

>
> > Eventually, the truth speaks for itself and cannot be stopped.
>
> It can be simply ignored. That's what I have learned during the last years.

Yep, gotta obtain experimental proof as well.

>
> > And prove the mainstream wrong beyond any doubt, by conclusive
> > experiments that pretty much everyone can repeat, once success has
> > been achieved.
>
> This is the main difference. I was talking about what I have already
> reached. You are talking about your personal dreams.

I guess it's a matter of perspective what one considers dreaming.
IMHO, the existence of the phenomenon I want to measure is well
supported by evidence, most notably by the USAF.

>
> > Well, you are still fighting "my" equation:
> >
> > ∇²𝐅= ∇(∇·𝐅) - ∇×(∇×𝐅) = 0,
>
> It is not even an evolution equation.  And it does not even have a
> definition of the measureable fields E and B.

Point taken.

>
> > 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.
>
> Such a proposal would give me nothing. I cannot do experiments myself,
> and my proposals would be ignored by the mainstream anyway.
>
> >> 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,
>
> There is no bug, and that equation is not even an evolution equation,
> it solves nothing.

Again, point taken.

>
> > May be you're the one that could accept some sort of compromise?
> > Take
> > ∇²𝐅= ∇(∇·𝐅) - ∇×(∇×𝐅) = 0,
> > and RUN with it!
>
> It is not even an evolution equation. It gives nothing.

Again, point taken.

>
> > 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!
>
> No. ∇²𝐅 = 0 describes at best something static, given that it
> contains no time derivatives. So it cannot describe any behavior.

Nope, not when applied to a velocity field in [m/s].

>
> > 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?
>
> No.

Too bad. Hope you'll change your mind.

High time for bed. Will look at the rest later.

>
> I propose to look at what has been actually reached.
>
> On my side there is a complete ether theory of gravity and an ether
> model for the SM, both published in peer-reviewed mainstream journals.
> And there are interpretations of QT (Caticha's entropic dynamics) and
> the GR equations (from the GR limit of my ether theory) which give a
> common sense compatible interpretation of the whole of established
> physics.   All this is already here, available.
>
> You have nothing which could be presented as a finished result. You
> have a vague hope that your equation gives something, but clearly no
> idea how to do this. And you have a vague hope that your experiments
> with the $1000 devices gives something completely missed by all those
> working with billion dollar devices.
>
> So, we have well-established results vs. vague hopes.
>
> Then, look at the strategic situation. My approach does not question
> any experiment, and does not question any established equation, thus,
> all the experimental support of modern physics is compatible with this
> approach. So, the straightforward objections used by every mainstream
> guy against every alternative physicist ("have you published it in a
> peer-reviewed journals?", "there is a lot of experimental support for
> the established theories, where is the experimental support for your
> theories?") fail miserably.  Their only remaining argument is
> ignorance.
>
> The superiority of my approach in comparison with the mainstream
> approach is in several domains obvious. First in simplicity and common
> sense compatibility of the interpretations, then in explanatory power
> of the SM (where I compute the gauge group, all three generations of
> fermions and all the charges) as well as of GR (where I derive the
> EEP).
>
> Instead, with what you have now you have no chance at all. Vague
> dreams do not count at all, at least not in discussions with the
> mainstream.
>
> So, on my side there is, quite objectively, a reasonable chance to win
> based on what has been already reached alone. We would not have to
> rely on vague hopes that something will succeed. On your side, there
> is nothing.
>
> Then, are you able to contribute?  Yes, you are. What is necessary is
> the distribution of knowledge about my theories among the scientists.
> This can be done even by laymen who don't understand all parts of the
> theory, in principle everybody can do it. Say, visiting some popular
> lecture and asking "Here, I have read in the net such an
> interpretation of modern physics which is completely compatible with
> common sense, see here. Can you tell me what is wrong with this?"
> Given that the theories themselves are quite easy to understand (much
> easier than GR and SM themselves) because of their common sense
> compatibility, it is not that difficult to learn some parts of it. In
> this case, one could even meet some of the straightforward and
> standard objections.
>
> So, actually you can already do something reasonable and important,
> namely distribute knowledge about the existence of my theories. If
> this would be successful, it would help you too, as explained. And you
> can do it now, immediately. You don't have to wait until something not
> yet finished is finished.
>
> > Gotta have experimental proof....
>
> We have none. (Ok, I have some hopes, see
> https://ilja-schmelzer.de/gravity/. But this is not what I hope for.)
>
> > Change does not come from within, has to come from the outside.
>
> Of course, we would introduce it from 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.
>
> But this is only a dream. Comparable with the dream of experimental
> verification of ghosts. What I have is already available. And I
> already know that they have no counterarguments, their only
> counterargument is ignorance.
>
> > 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
>
> There is no bug, and your equation does not solve anything. But,
> whatever, this is nothing we would have to argue about, I could ignore
> this as well as your experiments.
>
> > 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.
>
> It is you who thinks there is a bug, but there is none. All the terms
> can be and have been tested directly. There is nothing to correct. In
> fact, all these terms can be tested already with cheap devices. So,
> all I can do for you is to try to explain you your error.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Physics mailing list
> Physics at tuks.nl
> http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics