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

[Ilja Schmelzer]

2020-05-01 14:45 GMT+06:30, Arend Lammertink <lamare at gmail.com>:
> Continuing where I left of yesterday evening

>> > 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.
>
> Again, it's a matter of perspective.

No. The fact that I have created some ether theories for gravity with
GR limit and for the SM and published them does not depend on the
perspective.  The fact that the mainstream has not presented any
objections, with ignorance being the only argument, also does not
depend on perspectives.

And that you have not yet made your experiment, and also have not yet
developed your ether theory completely, is also a fact which you don't
deny.  The difference is quite objective.

> 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.

I don't ignore your claim, I openly reject it as plainly wrong.

> 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.

My proposal for cooperation is not about who is right and who is
wrong. Of course, you will continue to think you are right, and I will
continue to think I'm right. Never seen something different.

The proposal is about cooperation in a fight where we both remain
independent and care about our own interest. Like a coalition against
a common enemy. Say, a quite powerful enemy, and we, if we remain
divided, have no chance to win this fight.

But I see myself in a quite good position to gain a particular
victory, say, taking a town near my border given that I have gained
the control of the mountain near that town. But alone I cannot take
it.

You are not really interested in taking that town, it is not near your
border. But, nonetheless, I invite you to fight with me to take this
town. Your gain? With your help, taking this town will be quite easy,
much easier than every other place where you could attack. You risk no
losses. But after this, the enemy will be seriously weakened.

> 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.

Whatever, I will neither do any experiments myself nor even care about
experiments ignored by the mainstream. Even if they would be ok and
even if the mainstream has used a dirty conspiracy to silent them - so
be it, they have more power, and this is not the frontline where I
would have a chance.

> 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.

I take only the unproblematic parts from gauge fields, not the
ideology that this symmetry is somehow fundamental or similar
stupidity.

The unproblematic part is that what we can measure - E and B - is
clearly not all, because of Aharonov-Bohm we need the potentials A
Phi.  The rest follows from the Maxwell equations (which are fine).

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

So what?  That would be my problem, not your problem.  I have made my
bet, and I'm quite successful.

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

And I'm not breaking them. I know them better than you, sorry.

>> > 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/

Historical experimental evidence is something for losers.

> 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).

And I have clearly explained you that this is nonsense. There is no
bug, no failure to derive, the equations are well established and
supported by simple observational evidence in all parts.

> 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.

Of course, it does not solve your problem, and has no intention to do
this. Your interest would be a different one: This is a playing field
where alternative physics can win against the mainstream.  All what is
necessary for this victory is already reached.  It remains the
sociological problem of fighting the wall of ignorance.

If this attack against the mainstream will be successful, you will be
in a much better position to help with your ideas the US to regain Air
superiority.

> 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.

There are different views about what is established with sufficient
experimental evidence. I follow here the mainstream, simply because I
would not have any ability to identify errors there and to make
something better than the mainstream. You seem to think that it means
something if some crank has found a general ready to pay taxpayers
money for esoteric research based on empty promises that this will
give the US air superiority.

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

So you think you can exclude the possibility that human observers are
sometimes unable to distinguish by observation states which are really
different?  I see no base for such claims of human ability to observe
everything.

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

There are none. This is the established mainstream opinion, and, as
explained, I would have no chance questioning it even if they would be
completely wrong.

> 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.

To the first half of the sentence, I give a 0.0000001 probability.

That I have to continue as a lone fighter despite having the only
theory which derives the EEP from simple first principles and the SM
gauge group and the three generations of SM fermions from independent
hypotheses is something I have already accepted as my fate. Such is
life. In fact, I'm quite happy with this. If I would have received
some offer - becoming a famous acknowledged scientist for my theory of
gravity, but not finding the SM model - I would have rejected it.

> Back to square one: one CANNOT get away with breaking the
> *fundamental* theorem of vector calculus.

Nobody has broken it.