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

[Arend Lammertink]

Continuing where I left of yesterday evening

On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 3:05 AM Arend Lammertink <lamare at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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.

That's a good idea, but it's also a good idea to follow Einstein's
advice and study the historical and especially the philosophical
background in order to gain knowledge of how it has been put together
and what led to what:

"I fully agree with you about the significance and educational value
of methodology as well as history and philosophy of science. So many
people today — and even professional scientists — seem to me like
someone who has seen thousands of trees but has never seen a forest. A
knowledge of the historic and philosophical background gives that kind
of independence from prejudices of his generation from which most
scientists are suffering. This independence created by philosophical
insight is — in my opinion — the mark of distinction between a mere
artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth." Letter to Robert
A. Thorton, Physics Professor at University of Puerto Rico (7 December
1944) [EA-674, Einstein Archive, Hebrew University, Jerusalem].

Einstein was not a stupid guy, he was one of the smartest people ever
to walk on this planet. He knew something was seriously wrong
somwhere, but could't put his finger on it:

"All my attempts to adapt the theoretical foundation of physics to
this new type of knowledge (Quantum Theory) failed completely. It was
as if the ground had been pulled out from under one, with no firm
foundation to be seen anywhere, upon which one could have built." (P.
A Schlipp, Albert Einstein: Philosopher – Scientist, On Quantum
Theory, 1949)


> >
> > 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.

Again, it's a matter of perspective.

It's clear that Maxwell does not adhere correctly to the theorems
which define how one should go about when defining the two vector
fields [E] and [B] that are the decomposion of a given vector field.
The very notion that the Maxwell equations violate the *fundamental*
theoreom of vector calculus is undeniable, it is a mathematical fact
and therefore an undeniable established result.

Sure, one can ignore that, but doing so does not bring us closer to
the secrets of the Old One.

There are numerous anomalies which confirm FTL signals are possible,
most notably the USAF. To me that's a bit more than "vague hope",
which is not vague in any case. It has been well established it is
possible to emit FTL electromagnetic signals with a "fundamentally
different character", which not only does makes my hope not vague but
very specific, it *does* imply Maxwell's equations are incorrect as
well.

In other words: your "well-established results" are just as wrong on
this one, because you insist one can continue to get away with
breaking the *fundamental* theorem of vector calculus and introduce as
many "gauge fields" as you please.

So, who's the vage one that's dreaming here?

> >
> > 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.

Hence the need for undeniable evidence for the correct propagation
speed. The experiment cited by the USAF proves FTL waves exist, but
they also have not established the wavelength in the air.

In other words: there is quite a lot of experimantal support that
cannot be explained by established theories and neither can yours,
because you apparently value not to ask the hard question of "how the
heck is this possible and how can we explain it?".

Ignoring available experimental evidence that points to a specific
anomaly, the existence of FTL waves, is also just 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).

As long as you choose to remain in "gauge field" fantasy land, you
will not get much, if any, closer to the secrets of the Old one.

Add ignorance of experimental evidence and at the end of the day your
quest is just as hopeless as that of the main stream.

One cannot get away with breaking fundamental mathematical theorems,
that's also common sense.

> >
> > 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.

It's not vague, it's a very specific target that is supported by quite
a lot of experimental evidence, both historical and recent:

http://www.tuks.nl/pdf/Reference_Material/Fast_Light/

> >
> > 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.

It's not a vague hope. I've shown you exactly where the bug in
Maxwell's equations is and explained what the consequences thereof
are, namely the failure to derive (wave) equations for the
irrotational phenomena we measure as the electric field and thus
failure to predict it's propagation speed, which relates to the
properties of the medium, just like c^2 = 1/(ε0μ0). This is what
causes the need for straigthening things out with "retarted
potentials" and explains the anomalies around experimental results
involvling the observation of superluminous signals.


>
> > 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.

My problem with your theory as is, is that it does not solve my
problem: how to describe that FTL longitudinal wave the USAF intends
to use to  "maintain air superiority in 2035" such that it can be
included in simulation software, so I can check my antenna designs
without actually having to build them.

You simply continue to build on one and the same broken foundation
that has *not* really stood the test of time, exactly because of the
existence of experimental evidence that proves something is wrong with
it, somewhere. I've pointed you exactly to where the problem is, but
apparantly there are different views on what common sense is.

I hold that having "gauge freedom" in an aetheric model makes no sense
at all, as I've argued many times already.

> >
> > 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.
> >

Well, your theory is not finished until it can explain the anomalies
involving the experimental observation of superluminous signals.

> > > 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.)
> >

We have the USAF report, which conclusively proves the existence of a
FTL longitudinal "polarization" wave:

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

That's a good start, IMHO.

> >
> > > 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.

Well, then someone else will eventually explain to the world how FTL
longitudinal waves really work and you can continue to be a pretty
much anonymous lone fighther.


> >
> > > 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.

Back to square one: one CANNOT get away with breaking the
*fundamental* theorem of vector calculus. People have tried to do so
for over 150 years and it doesn't work!  We still cannot compute
something as simple as the (FTL) propagation speed of the electric
field.