"Electromagnetic waves" do NOT EXIST!!!

So you're attempting to use a 1st year book to prove that 3rd year topics are worthless.

I bet your book doesn't cover quantum field theory either but it's very much mainstream physics. GR is a 3rd or 4th year course and at best would only get a passing mention in a 1st year book as something which is superior to Newtonian physics. Look at any university physics website and you'll see they include GR. So your logic, as usual, is terrible.

Are you that stupid? Again, what would I know about physics. Not like I teach this stuff to undergraduates or anything. Oh wait, I DO. Again.

Well done on ignoring the majority of my post, which talks about how effective theories are used, accurately, in mainstream physics. Well done on concentrating on just a small part of my post and then complaining I don't say anything relevent.

Because you ignored the relevent part.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

No doubt you either didn't understand it or you didn't want to accept it. Either way, it demonstrates how you're talking nonsense.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I don't see why we even need to go as far as honouring this topic with the mention of Quantum Field Theory. It's already been demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that Martillo doesn't understand the maths behind the mathematical theories he's trying to debunk. Martillo himself has admitted as much indirectly by saying (in so many words) "Ok, I was wrong about that one, but how about if I just make this bogus argument instead?" That on top of making references to brief Wikipedia outlines of topics normally covered in 400 page textbooks on differential equations, and doing so in a way which makes it blatantly evident he had never heard of such topics until we pointed him to the relevant Wikipedia articles in the first place.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That's the problem, you have gone too far through wrong theories and you must note that you can go yet furher jast getting wrong conclusions just because you are starting from wrong theories.
You should pay more attention to the basics and that's why a 1st year book become important. At least it only talks about the "well recognized" theories and not the last "experimental" ones.


Sure, I know nothing and Alphanumeric and CptBork are the couple of 21th century Physics Wisdoms...

You know I can only see that the rational argumentation to refute my claims has gone away giving place to a personal disregarding of myself.
For me is just the signal that I have won the dispute!

But at the end anyone believes in what he want to believe isn't it?
Good luck with your beliefs.

I can only just wait for some time in some future...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Proof you don't even know about the concepts of those theories.

General relativity and quantum electrodynamics (the theory of photon interactions) are the most experimentally verified theories EVER. Newtonian physics and Maxwell's equations can be shown to be wrong with modern equipment. Hell, that's been the case for almost 100 years! QED and GR have never been shown to fail (yet anyway).

I know the basics. I ****ing teach the basics to undergraduates. I'm paid by professors to tell 18, 19 and 20 year olds how to do classical mechanics!

You STILL haven't looked up what an effective theory is. You STILL haven't looked up QED, 'quantum electrodynamics', the theory of photons. That's why I get personal. You make it obvious that discussion of physics is pointless because you simply are not interested in even checking if your claims are right.

You've been wrong about maths and physics. You didn't bother to even learn those 1st year textbooks you talk of. I teach 1st years how to do solutions to ordinary and partial differential equations, in 1, 2 and 3 dimensions. I know how to work out such things in any number of dimensions. I work every day with 6 dimensional calculus. I got a distinction in my 4th year exams in black holes, a course on curved 4 dimensional space-time, involving vector calculus and differential equations in multiple dimensions. So don't give me that "You should look at the basics more". I know the basics. I know the advanced stuff. You make it obvious you don't.

If you know the basics of vector calculus, you should be able to do that question I asked you. It's a 1st year question. I would expect my 1st year students to know how to do that by Christmas time of their 1st year.

No, it's a signal I've lost patience with your ignorance and lies.

Can you do vector calculus? Yes or no? The answer seems to be no. If that's wrong, do the question I asked you. It should take you about 4 minutes. If you cannot do vector calculus you cannot do electromagnetism. If you cannot do vector calculus you cannot do relativity. Or quantum electrodynamics. If you cannot be even bothered to read about those things on something as 'layman' as Wikipedia (which you would find by Googling 'photon') then you aren't interested in even checking if your claims are right.

You're a liar and a fraud. Plain and simple. Prove me wrong. Prove you can actually DO electromagnetism. If you want people to take you seriously, you need to show this. Noone in the physics community is going to listen to the whining of someone who doesn't even know about the topic they complain about. If you cannot convince me, a lowly PhD student, you won't convince people like my supervisor (an expert in QED processes in experiments).

 

You forgot to mention how he completely ducked Jefimenko's equations. He never even heard of them, nor retarded potentials either, yet he's telling us what can and can't be done to solve Maxwell's equations. But you're right, why bother with all that stuff if he doesn't even know vector calculus.

Hey Martillo, I have an even easier problem for you, and though you could always cheat and find someone who knows the answer, at least the answer will only take a few seconds of your valuable time to solve and write down.

Can you name the following two famous mathematical theorems? If not, you're not even qualified to talk about electrostatics, let alone electromagnetism.

1st theorem:
\(\iiint_V \vec{\nabla}\cdot\vec{F}dV=\iint_{\partial V}\vec{F}\cdot\hat{n}dS\)

Where \(V\) is the volume over which the triple integral is performed, \(\partial V\) is the boundary surface enclosing this volume, and \(\hat{n}\) is the unit normal vector on this boundary, pointing away from the enclosed volume. \(\vec{F}\) is any vector function which we may assume is infinitely differentiable, and for our sake we can also assume that the equations parametrizing the boundary are also infinitely differentiable. \(dV\) represents a volume integral, while \(dS\) represents a surface integral.

2nd theorem:
\(\iint_S \left(\vec{\nabla}\times\vec{F}\right)\cdot\hat{n}dS=\int_C \vec{F}\cdot\vec{dl}\)

Here, the symbols which can also be found in the 1st theorem all have the same meaning as they do in the 1st theorem. The integral on the left is performed over a surface, \(S\), which can be assumed to be any simply-connected, bounded surface, whose parametric equations we may once again assume for our purposes to be infinitely differentiable. The integral on the right is a line integral along the curve \(C\) which bounds the surface \(S\).

If you can name these two theorems, that still wouldn't mean you know very much, but it's the bare minimum for anyone who claims to understand Maxwell's equations and all the possible ways they can be solved.

For those lurkers curious what makes the difference between science and pseudoscience, have a good read on this thread and how unqualified its author is to make the claims he makes here. It doesn't get any more clear-cut than this.

 

Uhm... is not the title of your website "A New Light in Physics"? And you think we're the ones harbouring delusions of grandeur?

We've given you a number of simple, basic problems which you could use to demonstrate at least a minimal competency in this area. The problems I listed are things you should be able to answer in a split second if I asked you this stuff in person. Given your track record of making demonstrably false statements about math, and the fact that you continue to make such statements, you're not going to earn much respect from anyone who actually understands this stuff and can solve problems with it.

When you finally realize that you were trying to debunk a theory you didn't even understand, and why it's totally ridiculous to try doing so.

 

Sorry I cannot waste my time such a manner.

I think you lost the part:

I just need to know the basis because it fails in the basis. Why to deeply understand about waves' mathematics if they just don't exist?

I'm not saying you are incompetent as you say to me, I'm just saying you are in the wrong way studying in deep and may be developing further theories that are wrong in the basis.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Well, if I'm a crackpot you are just a PARROT of current "Modern Physics"...

 

Michael R. Rogers is who?

 

Oh no, that part revealed one of your errors in full display for everyone to see. We already mentioned it, but you ran the stop sign without noticing. So here it is again, try #2:

Every equation in those links you provided is an example of an Ordinary Differential Equation, also called an ODE (see link). Linear ordinary differential equations refer to functions of only a single variable, and have a finite basis set as their solution. But as it says in that very article,

Partial Differential Equations (see link), also known as PDE's, can have an infinite basis set of solutions, and in many cases require this, including when solving the electromagnetic wave equation in vacuum for many types of physical boundary conditions. Your problem is that Maxwell's equations are PDE's, not ODE's, so your point is completely incorrect.

Shhhhhhh, can you hear that? That's the sound of a bad theory going kaput.

Because your math is wrong. That's why you need to deeply understand.

 

I looked at your relativity "notes", and your supposed paradox has pretty much almost the exact same solution as the paradox of the twins, with all observers agreeing on the final result. Your use of the Lorentz time transforms is incorrect, as you, like many others, forgot to include the relativistic time shift. Relativity specifically says that events simultaneous in one frame need not be simultaneous in other frames.

The Lorentz time transformation is \(t'=\frac{t-vx/c^2}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}\). You won't understand these concepts properly just from a quick brushthrough of a freshman-level textbook, which seems to be your primary source of info.

 

AH-HA!!!

Now your crackpottery is standing out VERY plainly for all to see. We've seen a few people like you here before - the ones that think tens of thousands of professional physicists are all wrong because they been "indoctrinated" or brainwashed by common modern physics.

The simple little thing you fail to understand is that all those professionals actually USE "modern physics" in their work because those principles DO work! And along comes a little partially-educated little pipsqueak like you that claims he knows more than all those scientists combined!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:bugeye:

Ignorant people like you make me sick to my stomach!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Eat more yogurt, it cures indigestion.

 

You have forgooten that in the "electromagnetic waves" análisis periodical solutions are looked for (in the form X = A.exp (- jwt) and here is where the general partial differential equation becomes an ordinary differential equation.
That was what Alphanumeric did and all references do.
But you have forgotten that...

You think I could be against something on current "Modern Physics"? You should take a look at my "Final Note" to the manuscript: http://www.geocities.com/anewlightinphysics/sections/Final_Note.htm
I'm very conscient about what I'm confronting...

 

Then noone will EVER take you seriously. As I said, if you cannot convince a PhD student you're competant at the area you talk about you'll never convince reviewers of journals. Which, incidentally, I've done on this very topic.

This was explained to you, PDEs don't follow the same rules as ODEs. And you cannot reduce a PDE to an ODE in general (or they would obey the same rules).

I even gave you an example, the solution to the wave equation in an interval.

Ah, the excuse of the crank. Why learn something you know is wrong, despite you being proven wrong many times on even the simple things?

You're the guy who cannot do vector calculus or PDEs. So your statement is pure hypocrisy.

Wrong. You just picked a particular solution and then claimed it's a general solution.

For a start, the plane wave general solution to the wave equation is e^(ikx-wt). I even told you this. That's a function of 2 variables. The wave equation and Maxwell's equations are PARTIAL differential equations. You cannot say "They reduce in general to ODEs" because if they did, everyone would use the ODE form which are, in general, considerably easier.

Maxwells equations are multivariable differential equations in multiple dimensions. Hell, when you're not in 3 dimensions you don't even have equal numbers of electric and magnetic field degrees of freedom (there's n-1 for E and n(n-1)/2 for B). In cartesian coordinates they are not coupled, so you can solve the PDEs seperately. In other coordinates, like spherical coordinates, they are coupled and you have to consider them all simultaneously.

This is a FACT of basic vector calculus. Nothing to do with physics, the maths is unavoidable.

None of us made that mistake.

But you don't actually know any of it. Prove me wrong. I'm calling you a liar and a fraud.

Have you tried to get your work published? If not, why not. If so, what did the referee say?

 

Nope, I haven't forgotten that, this statement is blatantly wrong as well. You're not solving for \(X(t)\), there's no such thing in this case. Classical waves aren't calculated as particles moving through space- every coordinate \(x\) at time \(t\) in the volume of interest has an associated electric field \(\vec{E}(x,t)\). Working in Cartesian coordinates, the standard basis set for the expansion of a 1-dimensional wave is, in your notation, \(e^{jk(x-ct)},\ e^{jk(x+ct)}\), running over all values of \(k\) which fit the boundary conditions. In this notation, standard for electrical engineers, we write \(j=\sqrt{-1}\). As you can see, every function in this basis set is a function of both position and time. Your proposed basis set only includes time, because you think you're solving the equation for a spring, which is just plain silly.

Here and on physorg.com, you've made bad proposals and then people have corrected you by pointing you to math articles on Wikipedia. You have then demonstrated a specific pattern of skim-reading these articles, not bothering to study the material in proper detail (which takes months or years), and then coming back to us mere days later with a new attempted proof which just shows your misunderstanding of the articles we referred you to in the first place. You are determined to find a flaw somewhere in Maxwell's theory, even though it's 100 times easier to poke holes in your own theory. The alternative would be to give up your theory, take your book down from amazon.com and start from scratch, but you'd rather run the gambit of challenging Maxwell from every ignorant point of view possible before you do that.

As I mentioned above, your attempt to discredit relativity by inventing a new paradox is meaningless, because your paradox disappears when the equations of relativity are used properly, which you didn't. See the equation I wrote for the Lorentz time transform, then go look up Lorentz Transformations on Wikipedia. The reason you didn't know this stuff is because you're trying to learn relativity out of a freshman-level general physics textbook, and you won't learn how to do these types of calculations from such resources, they only cover the basic ideas.

 

You know, CptBork and Alphanumeric, what I wanted to discuss it have been already done and I have found the way to prove "electromagnetic waves" do not exist even in the more general case of superposition of waves (including infinite addition).
It doesn't matter what you say because I know my point was right, may be it need some poolishment but is a right approach. You are not able to discuss with me in a more conceptual approach because as students you have a mind totally fullfilled with "advanced math" and you only want to talk about "advanced math". I know because I have already passed that stage. The main problems in Physics are conceptual and not mathematical which are easier to solve since math has a complete methodology to follow to solve problems but there is no methodology to solve conceptual problems.

I'm sorry but I cannot waste more time in this kind of discussion and so I'm leaving.
Good luck.

 

Ahh-ha-ha-ha!!! The words of a looser.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

(Passed that stage, eh? With a first-level text book???????)

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

And good riddance!!!!

 

Both Cpt and I have pointed out that your 'general superposition' is wrong. You assume X = X(t). This is known as a stationary wave because the wave doesn't move in space, it just varies in time. THIS IS WRONG.

For instance, you cannot form the travelling wave solution \(X(x,t) = e^{i(kx-wt)}\) with your 'general solution'. Go on, check that's a solution for Maxwell's equation given a particular constraint on k and w. So you are not considering the general case.

How are you right when we can give a simple counter example? It's like saying "No even number is prime" and then someone saying "What about 2?".

You think this is advanced maths? As I said, I teach this to 1st years. If you wanted 'advanced maths' then I suggest you look at QED, the quantum model of photons. Something else I'm competant at.

No, you haven't. We've proven you cannot do the maths of PDEs or vector calculus.

But you cannot solve even maths problems.

If it's so straight forward, why aren't you a maths professor? Did you do maths at university? I did.

Typical crank cop out.

I notice you don't answer my question about weather you've tried to get your work published. Afraid to admit it's been rejected? If you cannot stand up to even questions from maths/physics graduates, you'll never get your work published.

So you should be able to answer our questions, because our questions are peer review.

I bet you $100 you never get your work published in a reputable journal. I you ever get your work published in JHEP email me and I'll send you the money.