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

[Arend Lammertink]

On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 11:46 AM Ilja Schmelzer <ilja.schmelzer at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 2020-05-01 7:35 GMT+06:30, Arend Lammertink <lamare at gmail.com>:
> > On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 10:45 PM Ilja Schmelzer
> > <ilja.schmelzer at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> 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.
>
> Me too.  The point being?  Maxwell does not predict them, the ether
> theories you know don't predict them, so what is the reason why you
> believe that age-old theory?

I believe in the fundamental principle that the dynamics of the aether
can be described using fluid dynamics continuum mechanics vector
theory and that doing so can at the very least describe the
electromagnetic domain more complete and thus better than Maxwell's
equations in their current form.

>
> >> But you don't have such an experiment.
> >
> > Yet.
>
> So what?  My bet is that you will never have one.

It's already there since at least 2004, my mistake. Sorry for the confusion:

https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0405062

"Experimental demonstration of a new radiation mechanism: emission by
an oscillating, accelerated, superluminal polarization current"

"Since practical superluminal sources are relatively novel, and since
the raw experimental data are affected by the proximity of the source
to the ground in a way familar only to communications engineers, this
section is by necessity rather detailed; without a thorough
explanation of these effects, the experimental data are not readily
understood. Within it, Subsection II A describes how the polarization
current distribution is created and animated (set in motion) at
superluminal speeds within a curved strip of alumina."

"familar only to communications engineers"

This is the experimental work cited by the USAF:

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."


>
> >> No. You reject one of the well-established equations, the Maxwell
> >> equations.
> >
> > Yep, and for very good reasons, math being one of them.
>
> No.
>

Yep, see a/o the above experimental evidence.

Maxwell does not predict FTL waves, which have now been conclusively
proven to exist by experiment and therefore Maxwell's equations have
to be revised. There's just no way around the obvious.

My proposal is really not such a big deal mathematically nor
conceptually and also changes very little with respect to the matching
of observations with the current Maxwell equations.

What it comes down to is that you move the current single "transverse"
wave equation to a slightly different place within the model, which is
established by moving Faraday's law from it's current location in
Maxwell's equations to somewhere else.

I haven't figured out yet where that "somewhere else" exactly should
be for Faraday's law, but it essentially describes the interaction
between a magnetic vortex and the transverse surface wave we call
"current" along a wire in a circuit that formes a closed loop. In
other words: this law describes a rather specific "static" or "steady
state" interaction and therefore does not belong in a model describing
the dynamics of the medium itself.

By removing Faraday's law from it's incorrect location in the current
model, one seems to be left without a wave equation.

However, this is not really the case, because what we get in return is
the fundamental specification of a full fluid dynamics contiuum model,
whereby the relationships between the two fields of force [E] and [B]
AND the associated potential fields [A] and Phi are uniquely defined
by this equation:

∇²𝐅= ∇(∇·𝐅) - ∇×(∇×𝐅) = 0

Yes, this equation itself is pretty much meaningless, but it becomes
very meaningful once one realizes it is very much applicable to the
fluid dynamics domain, which is the most natural domain to describe a
medium that happens to behave like a gas/fluid in.

Since we know from the FD domain one can derive a "sound" wave
equation from the fields thus defined, as well as a "transverse"
surface "water" wave, the one propagating along our wires, it is clear
that the exact same wave equation that comes out of Maxwell's
equations can be obtained this way and therefore this model is in
principle fully capable of reproducing the predictions made by the
current Maxwell equations.

However, in addition to that, it is also known we can derive a "sound"
wave equation this way, which is known from the FD domain to propagate
faster than it's "transverse" counterpart and therefore, in principle,
we obtain an actual explanation for the various superluminal anomalies
that have been observed in a logical, simple, straightforward and
mathematically completely correct manner.

And in addition to that, we also obtain a logical, simple and rather
beautiful explanation for one of Einstein's most important points:

"All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer
to the answer to the question, 'What are light quanta?' Nowadays every
Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken." (Albert
Einstein, 'The Born-Einstein Letters' Max Born, translated by Irene
Born, Macmillan 1971)

"The quanta really are a hopeless mess." (Albert Einstein, On doing
Quantum Theory calculations with Pauli, 'The Born-Einstein Letters'
Max Born, translated by Irene Born, Macmillan 1971)

And that answer is vortices. There's just no way around that from a
fluid dynamic foundation:

http://www.tuks.nl/img/dualtorus.gif

This dynamic structure obviously encorporates aspects both associated
with "particles" as well as waves and should therefore be very
seriously considered as a base for a new particle physics model.

And all one really needs to do in order obtain such a model is to take
the equations that are there already and move them to a more logical
place within a hierarchy of real, physical fields of force rather than
an unmanaged bunch of abstract "gauge" fields.

Yes, the "gauge fields" do describe quite a lot of observations well,
but they do not give you the philosophical insight needed in order to
make sense of what they actually describe and how it all fits together
with the (new) medium model.

> >> 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.
>
> Yes, there is a difference, in principle.  But preserving the
> equations in some limit is certainly the cheapest way to preserve the
> predictions in that limit.  The cheapest as for oneself developing the
> theory, as for the computing the predictions (one can simply refer to
> the existing derivations of the predictions for the preserved
> equations).
>

Yep, I agree.

All I'm saying is that this can also be done by building upon a
properly defined continuum fluid dynamics aether model rather than the
currently broken Maxwell equations that do not predict the FTL
longitudinal wave pretty recently proven to exist by experiment.

> And, given the many many predictions which have been tested
> successfully, there is essentially no hope for some really different
> equations getting the same predictions.

Yep, I agree to that. However, I don't see any reason why the
equations themselves, the math, would produce different results when
in essence only moved to a different location within some kind of
hierarchical structure of a number of fields that have been defined.

I mean what you have is a bunch of currently abstractly defined
fields, each specifying their own domain of applicability, more or
less independent from other similarly defined abstract fields. So, if
you take tese fields and figure out how/where these would fit with the
fields defined for the new model, you are doing something completely
different as has been done before, without throwing away the equations
themselves, thus "preserving the equations in some limit" and
therefore "preserving their predictions in that limit".


> > 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.
>
> First, you need some hypothesis that these fields are somehow
> connected with the ether fluid. This would be a non-trivial
> hypothesis, which could fail.
>

Yep, it could. But if you have a better and more simple explanation
for the observed superluminal anomalies, I'm all ears.


> In my theory, I was successful with identifying the relation
> g^{0i}/g^{00} with the ether velocity.
>
> > 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.
>
> First of all, you need some time derivative.

Found this textbook a while ago:

http://www.tuks.nl/pdf/Reference_Material/Fluid_Dynamics/Prieve_-_A_Course_in_Fluid_Mechanics_with_Vector_Field_Theory.pdf

If you have a spatial differential between two points in 3D with a
differential in velocity in [m/s], you get a unit of measurement in
meter per second [m/s] per meter, which reduces to per second [/s], so
there you are: a spatial time derivative, when you take the limit of
the spacing between the two points to zero.

>
> > 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.
>
> So, ok, you have the hypothetical ether fluid, which is described by
> the ether velocity, and use the Helmholtz theorem to decompose it into
> two fields.  Then you try to identify the two fields with E and B.

Yep. But bear in mind that the whole decomposition is mathematically
uniquely defined by:

∇²𝐅= ∇(∇·𝐅) - ∇×(∇×𝐅) = 0

> But this fails, because the E and B fields constructed in this way do
> not follow the Maxwell equations, and the Maxwell equations have very
> good direct experimental support.  For all the terms involved.

Actually, there's quite a lot of wiggle-room left for improvements,
without ruining the established experimental support.

What you basically have is on the one hand the simplification of
considering the medium to be incompressible, which is what is
considered to be the "static" magnetic field, which is considered to
propagate at an infinite speed within Maxwell's equations themselves.

On the other hand, you have the simplification of considering the
medium to be irrotational, which is what's considered to be the
"static" electric field, which is also considered to propagate at an
infinite speed, hence the later bolted on "retarded potentials".

And in additon to that, you have a single wave equation, describing an
otherwise unspecified "transverse wave".

Also bear in mind that our current model for electricity is
essentially limited to the two-wire transmission line, as descibed for
example by the Telegraphers equations, which implies a closed loop
c.q. circulation to exist within the electrical circuit. The current
*has* to go around the circuit, one way or the other. Fundamentally,
there is a return path for the current:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telegrapher%27s_equations

In essence, this describes a distributed version of a parallel
resonant LC circuit.


Besides this two-wire transmission line, you have Tesla's one wire
transmission line, for which there are no "Telegraphers equations". In
essence, this type of transmission line would describe a distributed
version of a series resonant LC circuit.

Now a normal capacitor has two leads, so with capacitors consisting of
two plates you also get a return path for the current across the
capacitor. However, if you take the plates of the capacitor apart and
separate them, you get a "circuit" that has no closed loop and
therefore no circulation of current.

Prof. Meyl illustrated this idea quite nicely, although he made the
mistake that after separation of the capacitor plates, the E-field
somehow magically remains confined between the separated capacitor
plates:

http://www.tuks.nl/img/open-resonant-circuit.png

This is pretty much the most simple way of showing the difference
between those two types of electricity that have been found to have
"fundamentally different characteristics" according to the refered
USAF document.

And this difference matches exactly to the decomposion of the fields
into a rotational (closed loop, circulating) component [B] and a
compressible (open loop, irrotational, non circulating) component [E].


>
> > 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.
>
> Nobody breaks anything.  It is your hypothesis that the fields E and B
> measured as the strength of electric and magnetic force have something
> to do with a velocity of some ether.  This is a quite nontrivial
> hypothesis.

I've shown many reasons why the current Maxwell eqations are
problematic and that they can be revised along a fluid dynamics model,
such that a better mathematical representation of the phenomena
becomes possible, because the match with current predictions can be
preserved, while the currently anomalous FTL wave can be naturally
explained as well as the reason why the far field has been found to be
quantized.

>
> >> 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?
>
> Fine. You know the way anomalies are handled in science?  Someone
> observes something which seems in contradiction with the established
> theory.  He publishes the result, and this is named an anomaly.
> Anomalies are something interesting, behind them there may be new
> theories, but in any way those experimenters who make decisive
> experiments to find out if there is really something wrong with the
> theory or this anomaly was simply an inaccurate observation becomes
> famous in the former case and an established good professional in the
> latter.  So, anomalies are attractive to experimenters.
> Unfortunately, usually the result is boring, and nothing new appears.
> One makes a better experiment, with better devices and more
> professional care about all those possible distortions, and the
> anomaly disappears.

Well, this is a pretty stubborn anomaly, having first been observed in 1834:

http://www.tuks.nl/wiki/index.php/Main/WheatstoneExperimentsToMeasureTheVelocityOfElectricity

Again in 1905:

https://teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla/patents/us-patent-787412-art-transmitting-electrical-energy-through-natural-mediums
"mean velocity of about four hundred and seventy-one thousand two
hundred and forty kilometers per second"

And multiple recent anomalies regarding anomalous dispersion in
optical fibres, anomalous FTL signals around the near field in
microwaves, etc., etc.:

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

Unltimately culminating in 2004 with the experiment cited by the USAF report.


Don't know what you think, but I see a clear pattern that matches with
my theoretical considerations.

Sometimes, something new _does_ appear.

>
> Anomalies have to do with many different things. They are simply
> experiments which seem to falsify established theories, which makes
> them attractive for experimenters.

If a pattern appears that one can explain differently by revising the
established theory, one sometimes obtains a new theory that falsifies
established theories, because it can explain certain phenomena which
cannot be explained by the established theory....

>
> In fact, a single experiment is not sufficient to falsify an
> established theory, simply for pragmatical reasons: there are always
> too many other things which can distort the experiment and lead to the
> anomalous result.   The theoretical problem behind this is that a
> single theory is usually not sufficient to predict the outcome of an
> experiment - you also need a lot of other theories, like theories
> about the accuracy of the measurement devices and so on.  So, a single
> falsification falsifies only that combination of theories.  Which of
> the theories involved has to be blamed for the falsification?  This is
> not obvious.

Unless one can point to an obvious mistake in the established theory.

>
> And therefore an experiment which seems to be in conflict with a given
> theory is not yet considered as a falsification, it is only an
> anomaly.  And other experimenters come to see if there is really a
> problem, some simply repeat the experiment themselves, others try to
> do this with other, especially with better devices.  Most of the time,
> the anomaly goes away.  Such is life.  The single experiment which
> falsifies a theory is only an idealization (you can read about this in
> Popper's work too).

Ok, but one can hardly call a repeated observation of one and the same
phenomenon over a time span of almost two centuries a "single"
experiment.

>
> > 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.
>
> No. The propagation speed of the electric field is well-defined and c.

Yep, it is defined to be c, but that is incorrect and is not predicted
by Maxwell's equations, which assume the propagation speed of the
fields themselves to be infinite. That is the very reason corrections
had to be applied in the shape of "retarded potentials", which they
did incorrectly, since the actual propagation speed of the electric
field is a bit more than 1.5 times c.

> The gauge freedom is about the potential.  If one uses the Coulomb
> gauge the speed of information transfer via the potential would be
> infinite.  But that's not observable anyway.  In the Lorenz gauge, it
> would be c too.

Again, the whole "gauge field" idea is nonsense. It is the result of
not uniquely defining the potential fields, because not adhering to
the elemental math defined by the Laplace operator.

>
> > Yep same problem, need to move from abstract math to physics by
> > incorporating the velocity field and such from continuum fluid
> > dynamics.
>
> In the case of the Maxwell equations, it would be better for you do
> start with the physics immediately, in the form related to experiment.
> E is, last but not least, the electric force, that means, it gives a
> force on a charged object.

There you already go wrong. Yes, it gives a force on a charged object,
but no charged particles exist that do not also have a magnetic
moment. It is that magnetic moment which gives rise to the polarity
associated with "charge", so if one does not take that into account
from the start, one is doomed from the very beginning.


> There are simple ways to have charged
> objects.  To measure the size of the charge is also not that
> complicate.  The same holds for the magnetic field B. Then, look at
> how they interact, how a changing electric field influences the
> magnetic field, and how a changing magnetic field influences the
> electric field.

If one really wants to get an idea how the fields actually interact,
one has to study radio and the history thereof, because that reveals
the actual relationships between the fields, which is a lot more
dynamic and complicated and can give rise to much more complicated
results than just a "Hertzian" wave.

> You can check in this way that the Maxwell equations
> are fine, that all the terms are necessary, and that, in particular, a
> changing magnetic field influences the electric field.
>
> Here you have direct contact with physics, the fields E and B are
> observable fields, how they change in space and time you can measure.
> Not much theory necessary (certainly no particular ether theory which
> identifies E and B with some velocities).

You get exactly that direct contact with physics by means of studying
the behavior of radio waves by experiment and considering the
experimental results by those that have come before you. It is often
said that radio engineering is like black magic. One really has to
master wave mechanics in order to be able to do such a thing. The
behavior of every component changes, dependent on the applied
frequency. Even an open coil behaves like a capacitance at certain
frequencies.

>
> > 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?
>
> In the near field, the initial and boundary conditions are more
> complicate.  In the far field, they are, instead, simple.
>
> > How come this wave equation describes a continuous wave, while the far
> > field has been found to be quantized?
>
> The near field is also quantized.

Nope, it is not. It's a real transverse surface wave, exactly the same
as "water" waves, consisting of a combination of vortices and FTL
longitudinal waves.

How come anomalies have been observed in the near field?


>
> >> 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.
>
> But they are not observable, so different potentials may give the same
> observable effects.

They cannot give observable effects, because the "gauge freedom" that
was erroneously introduced to the model by Maxwell does not actually
exist. It's just total B.S.

>
> > We've been over this multiple times. Gauge freedom makes no sense at
> > all, since no resulting forces.
>
> If you want to restrict yourself to the fields E and B, you will be
> unable to describe the Aharonov-Bohm effect.

Which is a fantasy. The electric version has not been experimentally
verified and the supposed experimental verification for the magnetic
version is, at best, inconclusive:

"An ideal solenoid (i.e. infinitely long and with a perfectly uniform
current distribution) encloses a magnetic field [B], but does not
produce any magnetic field outside of its cylinder, and thus the
charged particle (e.g. an electron) passing outside experiences no
magnetic field [B]. However, there is a (curl-free) vector potential
[A] outside the solenoid with an enclosed flux, and so the relative
phase of particles passing through one slit or the other is altered by
whether the solenoid current is turned on or off."

Just like a vortex with zero curl (curl-free potential) is not
physically realizable, the same thing goes for the magnetic field, for
the exact same reasons:

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."

>
> > How obvious can it be?
>
> Your "makes no sense" claim is indeed quite obviously wrong.

Nope, it is correct. A properly defined Helmholtz decompositon by
means of application of the Laplace operator is uniquely defined and
therefore there is no room whatsoever for "gauge freedom", nor can
they lead to any (net) resulting force, because the addition of the
gauge terms to not change the observed fields.


> Nature is not obliged to make everything observable to human
> scientists.  So it is not nonsensical at all that there may be
> different real configurations which we cannot distinguish by
> observation.

One can never rule out such a possibility, but gauge fields are
definitely not a good idea. All what is being accomplished by those is
that one invents a field that by definition does not result in an
observable reaction and then one complains that Nature is the one
hiding something from us.

>
> >> 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.
>
> Maxwell's theory is a classical theory, thus, not obliged or expected
> to predict quantum effects correctly.

Quantum effects are just an illusion, invented to cover up the gaping
hole in Maxwell's equations as a result of not applying vector
calculus correctly.

>
> >> 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.
>
> Ah, you take this quantization with vortices nonsense seriously?
> Sorry, forget about it.

Yep, there is not much other choice, really. Can't be a real
transverse surface wave and has to have rotation, since involving a
magnetic field which is by definition rotational in Nature.

>
> >> 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?
>
> In those macroscopic things you can buy for $1000 this does not matter
> at all. You can have a small ball electrically charged, but if it is
> not magnetized the magnetic field it creates will be negligible.

Could be, but it seems difficult to explain the polarization
associated with "charge" without magnetism, unless it is caused by
something akin to "acoustic levitation": standing longitudinal waves.
After all, the field has to propagate trough the medium at a finiete
speed and one cannot have "static" sound waves.

>
> >> 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.
>
> No. The fields E and B we can measure completely.  We cannot measure
> the potentials A and Phi.

Not directly, no. But if the fields are uniquely defined, their values
can be uniquely determined.

>
> > 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.
>
> But he would have had a problem with the correspondence of his
> equations with the observable reality, which can be observed by
> measuring E and B fields.

Nope, would not. See explanation above about the wiggle room in there.


>
> >> > 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?
>
> Not only that there exist some such medium (it exists in my ether
> theory too, which contains also the Maxwell equations),  but also
> because you propose out of your fantasy a particular identification of
> the objective measurable fields E and B with some velocity components
> of your personal ether theory.
>
> That means, it is based on an ether theory which can be wrong.

All right, I'll give you that much. Any theory can be wrong.

But do note I'm not saying it IS a fluid. All I'm saying is that it's
dynamics can be described using continuum mechanics fluid dynamics
vector theory. In fact, we cannot know what it's really like, because
all we can meaure involves electromagnetic waves in one way or the
other.


>
> >> 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.
>
> It is your claim that there is some contradiction.

I cannot imagine I made such a claim, you must have misunderstood. If
you can elaborate on what you are referring to, I might be able to
explain.

>
> > So far, I've found none, but quite a lot in Maxwell's:
>
> No. Maxwell's theory in itself is about the observable fields E and B
> which have nothing to do with any theories about fluids.
>
> > *) circular logic, because the concept of charge is taken as a
> > fundamental quantity in violation of wave/particle duality;
>
> Nobody cares about Bohr's nonsensical wave/particle duality, and
> nobody bases anything on it, so no circular logic is visible.
> Moreover, Maxwell theory is classical, and has nothing to do with
> quantum theory.

Particles are experimentally found to be capable of producing
interference patterns and therefore have some kind of wave character
besides having a particle character in the sense that they exist in
the shape of some kind of discrete entity.


>
> > *) only one wave equation, yet two wave phenomena;
>
> which are described by very different initial and boundary conditions.
> Of course, in different situations the same equation will give
> different solutions.

One resulting wave is found to be quantized, the other not. So,  the
equation does not produce correct predictions that match observations.

>
> > *) no prediction of propagation speed of the electric field, later
> > bolted on in contradiction to measurements by Wheatstone and Tesla;
>
> Wrong, the speed of the electric and magnetic field is c in Maxwell's theory.

Nope, that's AFTER taping over the hole with "retarded potentials".

>
> > *) contradiction with LaPlace / Helmholtz b/c not uniquely defined
> > potentials;
>
> Nonsense.
>
> > *) quite a lot of "anomalies" involving FTL phenomena
>
> Not more than usual.

Could be, but these are now no longer anomalies...

>
> >> > 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".
>
> ???? The Aharonov-Bohm effect was confirmed experimentally.

Yep, they fooled themselves and only the magnetic version was
supposedly experimentally confirmed. See above.

>
> After this, to get rid of the potentials, you have to introduce quite
> artificial constructions.
>
> >> 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.
>
> I want to accomplish something which can be accomplished with what we
> already have. Something were all we have to reach is to destroy the
> wall of ignorance, which is something which can be reached if there is
> a sufficiently large group of people who distribute the knowledge we
> already have now.

Which includes the knowledge that Maxwell's equations are incorrect in
their current form, since failing to predict a FTL longitudinal wave,
failing to predict anything close to a correct propagation speed for
the observed [E] and [B] fields since assumed infinite and failing to
predict a far field that is found to be quantized, i.e. found to
consist of distinguishable packets c.q. entities.

>
> What you have is a research program, and in fundamental physics even
> the best research programs will fail with more than 99% certainty.
> Look at the failure of all the research programs of mainstream physics
> beyond the SM or for quantum gravity.  Moreover, I see serious
> problems in your understanding of physics, thus, this reduces the
> chances for success by another large factor.
>
> I have already reached a lot, and the only remaining problem is the
> sociological one, that the results are simply ignored. This is a
> problem which I cannot solve myself, once it is intentional ignorance,
> not simply absence of knowledge, which creates the problem.
>
> But the problem is pure sociology, to solve it no deep, special
> knowledge of physics is even necessary, simply laymen interest in the
> foundations is necessary. In fact, not even support of the ether
> theories I have proposed, but simply interest in who is right, the
> mainstream or that outsider, and what are the arguments of the
> mainstream against that version of the ether.  To find enough people
> asking the physicists about this.
>
> So, this is a solvable problem, with a much better chance of success
> than your program.
>
> >> 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.
>
> And popularized at that time under names like "anomaly".

Sometimes new theoretical insights actually match "anomalous" observations.

>
> > Even the US Air Force considers the existence of FTL waves proven,
>
> Military commanders may be competent in killing people, or, at best,
> in protecting own forces.  But in science they are incompetent.
>
> Moreover, the US military is quite suspect in the question of
> competence in investing money, given that they have 10 times the
> Russian budget but are at best equal on the field of top level
> weapons.




>
> > Everything after Maxwell
> > leads back to Maxwell's original bug, especially relativity and the
> > "gauge fields" that have crept in all over the place.
>
> Maxwell made no bug.  Point.
>
> >> 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?
>
> Of course, some parameters have to be measured.  The equations
> themselves contain only some symbols for constants, like c or the
> charge, and one has to measure these constants to define the theory in
> a form that allows to make predictions.
>
> > But I was specifically refering to the propagation speed of the
> > electric field, NOT the waves predicted by Maxwell.
>
> And the point being?

The propagation speeds of the fields themselves are assumed to be
infinite within Maxwell's equations.

>
> > Why the need for retarted potentials if Maxwell's equations already
> > predict the propagation speed of the electric field?
>
> The retarded potentials are useful tools to compute solutions.

They also paint over the fact that the actual propagation speeds do
not follow from three wave equations describing the three distintcly
different wave phenomena observed in practice and the one for the
electric field is off by a factor of over 1.5.


>
> > 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.
>
> In many such differential equations there is no upper bound for causal
> influences.  But for the Maxwell equations, there is.
>
> > Because of Maxwell's bug, ...
>
> Because of ghosts and dragons killing honest scientists ...   Sorry,
> don't talk about your fantasies as if they were facts, once you know
> that I don't accept your claim.
>
> >> 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.
>
> The Copenhagen interpretation of QT contains a lot of nonsense. Nothing new.
>
> > Could be, but I haven't seen an institute like the USAF stating that
> > the existence of "ghosts" has been proven.
>
> I have seen such claims on esoteric pages.  Who cares?
>
> >> 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.
>
> The retarded potential "trick" is simply some mathematical trick to
> compute solutions. Once it works, fine.
>
> >> 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.
>
> Nonsense.
>
> > Well, you need to fill in the detail that the equation applies to FD
> > and then it does.
>
> Once the ghosts fill in the details, then everything will be fine.
>
> >> 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.
>
> LOL.  But, whatever: You have not yet reached anything which would
> have a single chance in physics, even if everything (peer review and
> so on) would be ideally fair.  I have reached in the domain of theory
> all I have dreamed about, and even much more.  The theories are even
> published in established mainstream journals.  And the remaining
> problem is pure sociology, nothing related to physics itself.
>
> You see the difference?

Yep.

>
> >> 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].
>
> Velocity fields can be static too.  This is the point of view that the
> river is yet the same as yesterday.
>

There is a difference between "static" and "steady state".