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

[Arend Lammertink]

On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 5:37 PM Ilja Schmelzer <ilja.schmelzer at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 2020-05-01 14:45 GMT+06:30, Arend Lammertink <lamare at gmail.com>:

>
> >> > 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.

Yes, there is an objective difference.

However, having the right fundamental ideas is independent of the
amount of publications and equations one has produced and is even
independent from the amount of available evidence to support that
idea.

In the end, the idea is either correct or wrong, which is independent
of someone's opinion about whether or not he thinks it is right or
wrong, from his personal perspective and background.

I guess, ultimately, our differences lie mostly in what we trust the
most. You seem to primarily trust "hard" data and want to produce
equations which produce the right numbers and make as much sense as
possible, while I seem to rely much more on my intuition.

So, it seems like our debate rhimes with the debate between Einstein
and Bohr, although I have no idea about Bohr's personality at all:

"You believe in the God who plays dice, and I in complete law and
order in a world which objectively exists, and which I, in a wildly
speculative way, am trying to capture. I hope that someone will
discover a more realistic way, or rather a more tangible basis than it
has been my lot to find. Even the great initial success of the Quantum
Theory does not make me believe in the fundamental dice-game, although
I am well aware that our younger colleagues interpret this as a
consequence of senility. No doubt the day will come when we will see
whose instinctive attitude was the correct one." (Albert Einstein to
Max Born, Sept 1944, 'The Born-Einstein Letters')

So far, Einstein's "instinctive attitude" with respect to "the Quantum
Theory" has not been proven correct, but like him I have no doubt the
day Einstein foresaw will come, one day.

>
> > 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.

Yep, that much is clear. :)

I'm left with the question of "why?"

It really beats me how one could possibly reject this, since for me it
speaks for itself. Thus, the human mind remains to be mysterious.

>
> > 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.

Yep. Remarkable that two rational thinking people cannot come to an
agreement about what should be considered to be an absolute truth.
Apparently, even math does not have enough power to bridge the gap,
which is very unfortunate. I guess we have no other option but to
agree to disagree.

>
> 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.

Yep, I see that, too. But at the end of the day, I see no other option
but to conclude we are, indeed, divided.

And the problem is, we have a fundamental difference of opinion and at
this moment I don't see it happen that we can bridge the gap, even
though from my point of view that would be entirely possible.

> 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.

Problem is I cannot defend a theory which foundation is incompatible
with my ideas on a fundamental level, even though I have no reason to
doubt your theory is a lot better than what the main stream has to
offer. I take your word for it that it's much simpler and
understandable, but as long as it's fundamentally built upon "gauge
freedom", I cannot defend it. Sorry.

>
> 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.

I'm afraid I can't do much. I'm mostly at home and don't speak many
people, especially not scientists. And I really wouldn't know what to
say, because of our fundamental difference in point of view.


>
> > 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.

It's always a good idea to choose your battles.

I like to lay low until I'm fully armed and ready with a surprise.

>
> > 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).

Will have to agree to disagree on this one, too. Can't understand why
you apparantly can't follow my arguments, so the gap cannot be
bridged. It is what it is.

>
> > 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.

Let's just say I don't mind not to be in your shoes.

>
> > 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.
>

William Rice sent me this video a couple of days ago:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kPINNhHGNw

“One of the great challenges in this world is knowing enough about a
subject to think you are right, but not enough to know you’re wrong”.

> >> > 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.
>

May be, may be not.

> > 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.

This is just like people watching Trump say something on TV. One
person really sees a totally different person than another one does
and there seems to be no way the two shall ever meet.

Quite fascinating to realize to what extend it is actually our own
perspective and prejudice that determines what we see.

>
> > 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.

“The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.”
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

>
> > 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.

Yep, definately.

> 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.

What interests me most, is the principle of how it works and what it does.

>
> > 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.

I just don't see the point in consciously creating fields that are by
definition unobservable because they cannot have any physical effect
according to elemental vector analysis.

>
> > 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.

Most of their power is derived from the illision that a couple of
numbers printed on a piece of paper has any real value. History shows
that when they resort to Weimar financial policy, the end is near.

>
> > 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.

Fair enough, already moving in the right direction.

>
> 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.
>

Well, one never knows what the future brings. As stated, from my
perspective I don't see any reason why the gap could not be bridged,
but the ball is in your court on that one.

> > Back to square one: one CANNOT get away with breaking the
> > *fundamental* theorem of vector calculus.
>
> Nobody has broken it.
>

>From my perspective, I don't have any option but to agree to disagree.

For now, I thank you for the debate. I have learned quite a lot and
also have quite a lot to think about.

I wish you all the best and hope one day you will change your mind so
the gap can be bridged,

Arend.