About "A New Light In Physics"

[martillo]

Wow! Gee, sounds like somebody I know!
Irrespective, as I have said three times [or was that four?] if you believe you have anything concrete or substantial to invalidate relativity, then submit a paper for peer review. As you know forums such as this are open to all sorts, that can claim whatever they please and dream up.
I predict though, like the hundreds that have gone before you, this will be more wasted paper, time, and bandwidth, undertaken by the usual over inflated ego, tall poppy syndrome and/or religious baggage.

I don't have a paper, I have a book. Do you know someone that could have the credentials you would like and be interested to analyze it? Let me know. Some samples are purchased times to times but I'm not having feedback...

 

[paddoboy]

I don't have a paper, I have a book. Do you know someone that could have the credentials you would like and be interested to analyze it? Let me know. Some samples are purchased times to times but I'm not having feedback...

And yet you still havn't got the message?

 

[martillo]

And yet you still havn't got the message?

Well, here is where different interpretations can come from the same phenomenon. As a good physicist you think you are which is yours?

 

[Dr_Toad]

Martillo has been around for many years.

Long enough for him to have learned to speak and write in English, but not long enough to have discovered Vixra, I guess.

 

[martillo]

Martillo has been around for many years.

Long enough for him to have learned to speak and write in English, but not long enough to have discovered Vixra, I guess.

That is like to enroll in the "Natural Philosophy Alliance" just to have some place to stay while disagreeing with everybody there. Sorry, prefer to go on alone on my own way.

 

[billvon]

That's a waste of time, resources and minds!

Certainly sounds like you don't waste your time on physics.

 

[paddoboy]

just to have some place to stay while disagreeing with everybody there. Sorry, prefer to go on alone on my own way.

Yes we have many with the same combination of problems such as inflated egos, tall poppy syndrome and delusions of grandeur.
We'll see you at Stockholm next year, OK?

 

[martillo]

Yes we have many with the same combination of problems such as inflated egos, tall poppy syndrome and delusions of grandeur.
We'll see you at Stockholm next year, OK?

If you would dedicate all that effort just trying to bother people in some physics subject you could achieve something knowledgeable in the physics' area but you don't... Why don't you try something in psychology about the lack of motivations? It could even help lot of many people like you...

 

[quantum_wave]

Exactly.

I don't treat GR. Getting SR wrong is enough. SR wrong implies GR wrong but this is not the point here.
You are right that SR assume constant velocities but someway in the examples treated the moving object reached that state isn't it? How it reached the movement doesn't matter for SR but the concept that there was a mass increase exist and has its proper equation relating m=m0/(1 - v^2/c^2)^1/2
In Section 2.3 are treated two known experiments where this mass is considered in the calculations of the trajectories of electrons which differ from the classical predictions. What I state is that the same kinematics results are obtained if in spite of considering that increase on mass we consider the correspondent decrease in the electric and magnetic forces applied. This way redefining the fields including the factor s=(1 - v^2/c^2)^1/2 the same trajectories are obtained but there was no space-time distortion but just the natural action of the electric and magnetic fields which decrease with the velocity of the electrons.

There are paradoxes in a lot of areas that I entertain myself with, but unlike in politics where justice is denied by the justice department, people's efforts to resolve paradoxes in science are of particular interest to me. I have no interest in running for office, but the inconsistencies in the generally accepted scientific theories are things that I personally feel free to try to sort out for myself, to my own satisfaction. I think we are somewhat the same to that extent.

So in the case of future improvement to the physics of relativity, that will evolve over time, there will be changes necessary to better describe what I call the invariant natural laws of the universe. One of the changes that I hope will come along, and that maybe you and I agree on, is that the physical mechanics of gravity will unfold, as in the discovery of a quantum solution to gravity. That will involve a lot of new details about the true nature of the forces involved, and you are right to dig in.

The the math of General Relativity, which describes the curvature of spacetime and the geodesics that objects follow as they move relative to reach other, may someday have a mechanistic explanation that will give essentially the same predicted outcomes; maybe even with more precision. I'm saying that the math of GR works amazing well, but the physical explanations are as yet lacking. Even though we may not mutually understand each others "model", we share the enthusiasm to keep the investigation alive at our layman level.

 

[origin]

If you would dedicate all that effort just trying to bother people in some physics subject you could achieve something knowledgeable in the physics' area but you don't...

Says the guy who wrote a book about (his mistaken ideas) physics when he has admitted and demonstrated he does not know much about the subject.

 

[billvon]

Says the guy who wrote a book about (his mistaken ideas) physics when he has admitted and demonstrated he does not know much about the subject.

Yep. We have reached the phase where the crank gets angry that people are questioning him rather than complimenting him on his out-of-the-box brilliance. I predict we will see the grand trampling exit next, where he expresses amazement that he ever bothered with this bunch of closed-minded losers to begin with.

 

[martillo]

origin:
I said I would look for a topic to have your opinion. What do you think on Section 7.1 where I state:

"The deduction of the existence of "electromagnetic waves" from Maxwell Equations is wrong because of a missing step.
Once the planar waves are deduced as possible solutions to the set of four equations from Maxwell Equations it is absolutely necessary to ask: Which source for the electric and magnetic fields can generate those possible fields? If not, if no source is related to the fields, we will be leaved to admit that infinite waves exist in the space of all frequencies, intensities and in any direction.

The solution for the electric and magnetic fields is an infinite plane with the same (constant) field, parallel to the plane, in the entire plane. Sources for them are just impossible. There's no source of field possible to generate that kind of fields. Even an infinite series of those solutions would have no possible source for their fields.

Then it can be stated that "electromagnetic waves" cannot exist."

... ... ...

I would like to invite billvon and paddoboy too to share their opinion.
Anyone else is also welcome of course, particularly quantum_wave.

 

[origin]

origin:
I said I would look for a topic to have your opinion. What do you think on Section 7.1 where I state:

"The deduction of the existence of "electromagnetic waves" from Maxwell Equations is wrong because of a missing step.
Once the planar waves are deduced as possible solutions to the set of four equations from Maxwell Equations it is absolutely necessary to ask: Which source for the electric and magnetic fields can generate those possible fields? If not, if no source is related to the fields, we will be leaved to admit that infinite waves exist in the space of all frequencies, intensities and in any direction.

The solution for the electric and magnetic fields is an infinite plane with the same (constant) field, parallel to the plane, in the entire plane. Sources for them are just impossible. There's no source of field possible to generate that kind of fields. Even an infinite series of those solutions would have no possible source for their fields.

Then it can be stated that "electromagnetic waves" cannot exist."

My opinion is that this is silly and completely at odds with reality.

Perhaps you could explain your reasoning a bit more.

 

[paddoboy]

If you would dedicate all that effort just trying to bother people in some physics subject you could achieve something knowledgeable in the physics' area but you don't... Why don't you try something in psychology about the lack of motivations? It could even help lot of many people like you...

Not much effort required at all. In general, I am able to sort the wheat from the chaff...In your case it was particularly easy.
But anyway, when you take up my challenge and write a paper for peer review, we'll all see the "method in your madness" or lack thereof.

 

[billvon]

"The deduction of the existence of "electromagnetic waves" from Maxwell Equations is wrong because of a missing step.
Once the planar waves are deduced as possible solutions to the set of four equations from Maxwell Equations it is absolutely necessary to ask: Which source for the electric and magnetic fields can generate those possible fields? If not, if no source is related to the fields, we will be leaved to admit that infinite waves exist in the space of all frequencies, intensities and in any direction.

No.

Infinite fields are useful theoretical concepts with no mirror in reality. (Similar to those "massless balls" and "frictionless planes" often used in high school physics courses.) In reality, sources produce all the EM fields we observe - and these sources are well explained within the framework of Maxwell's Equations. Indeed, antenna designers specialize in this sort of work; they build the sources.

Then it can be stated that "electromagnetic waves" cannot exist."

A silly and nonsensical statement. Of course they exist, and the existing equations demonstrate how.

 

[quantum_wave]

origin:
I said I would look for a topic to have your opinion. What do you think on Section 7.1 where I state:

"The deduction of the existence of "electromagnetic waves" from Maxwell Equations is wrong because of a missing step.
Once the planar waves are deduced as possible solutions to the set of four equations from Maxwell Equations it is absolutely necessary to ask: Which source for the electric and magnetic fields can generate those possible fields? If not, if no source is related to the fields, we will be leaved to admit that infinite waves exist in the space of all frequencies, intensities and in any direction.

The solution for the electric and magnetic fields is an infinite plane with the same (constant) field, parallel to the plane, in the entire plane. Sources for them are just impossible. There's no source of field possible to generate that kind of fields. Even an infinite series of those solutions would have no possible source for their fields.

Then it can be stated that "electromagnetic waves" cannot exist."

... ... ...

I would like to invite billvon and paddoboy too to share their opinion.
Anyone else is also welcome of course, particularly quantum_wave.

Thank you for encouraging member inputs.

We both have some pretty alternative ideas about electromagnetic waves. Apologetically, I'll comment about the model that I am working on, in order to give some context to my opinion about your view of EM.

In my model of cosmology of the universe, there is wave energy filling all space; light waves and gravitational waves, coming and going in all directions at all times, at the local speed of light. The density of those waves in the local space accounts for the local wave energy density, it varies directionally, and I refer to that as the energy density of space.

Electromagnetic waves don't have to self-propagate, because every medium, whether we a talking about the medium of space, or more dense mediums like air, water, glass, etc., have a specific level of oscillation based on the atomic composition of the medium, and the resulting wave energy density of that medium governs the rate of oscillation.

The oscillation of the local medium is encountered by wave energy, both light and gravity waves, as they pass through, and the oscillations assist the advance of the energy wave through what ever medium. The wave energy density of the medium governs the velocity of light through that medium, and the varying wave energy density of different mediums accounts for the change in light velocity, and therefore, the refraction of light as it passes for one medium to another.

The difference between your account of EMR, and mine, is that I accept the Maxwell equations at face value, out of respect for the history of science, and with the stipulation the they are generally accepted to have a fit with various theories, especially GR. In the case of GR, they are compatible because they are purported to be able to self propagate through a vacuum. However, there is nothing that says that they have to self propagate if there is some other means to account for their advance. That means of propagation, in my view, would be the oscillations that are natural to all environments that are composed of wave energy. Note that there is no vacuum in my model since all space is filled with wave energy.

Given the proposed wave energy background of space, and with reference to some old ideas like the Huygens principle, light doesn't have to self-propagate. That energy background might equate with the missing source of energy fields that you mention. That does not mean that light isn't electromagnetic waves though; I would have to say that they exist, but in my view they advance through space based on a different explanation than in the standard model.

 

[martillo]

Thanks everybody for giving the opinions I asked.
Enough for me.

 

[quantum_wave]

Thanks everybody for giving the opinions I asked.
Enough for me.

I suspect you will check back, and if so, I should say that my last post left out a very important premise that I thought might come out in the discussion, if you responded, based on a look at the chapter headings and some samples of your book. I apologetically mentioned some aspects of my model to give context to my response to your view of EM, but that context did not include the part about the nature of light which includes the bit about the wave particle duality of the photon.

In my model, photons have mass. All particles and objects with mass contain and are composed of wave energy, and they both absorb and emit gravitational wave energy. Therefore particles are complex patterns of standing waves that have two components, the directionally inflowing gravitational wave energy from other particles and objects, and the spherically out flowing wave energy component that traverses space, and can be absorbed by distant particles and objects.

The premise I thought might come up in discussion with you is that light wave energy is the out flowing gravitational wave energy component emitted by photons, meaning that light and gravity are one and the same, but are differentiated by their frequency.

 

[martillo]

I suspect you will check back, and if so, I should say that my last post left out a very important premise that I thought might come out in the discussion, if you responded, based on a look at the chapter headings and some samples of your book. I apologetically mentioned some aspects of my model to give context to my response to your view of EM, but that context did not include the part about the nature of light which includes the bit about the wave particle duality of the photon.

In my model, photons have mass. All particles and objects with mass contain and are composed of wave energy, and they both absorb and emit gravitational wave energy. Therefore particles are complex patterns of standing waves that have two components, the directionally inflowing gravitational wave energy from other particles and objects, and the spherically out flowing wave energy component the traverses space, and can be absorbed by distant particles and objects.

The premise I thought might come up in discussion with you is that light wave energy is the out flowing gravitational wave energy component emitted by photons, meaning that light and gravity are one and the same, but are differentiated by their frequency.

There's not much we can discuss since we have opposed models. In my theory everything is particles while in yours everything is waves. Electromagnetic waves and De Broglie waves just don't exist for me. The lambda in De Broglie formula is a distance between particles travelling in trains of particles and what antennas emit and receive are photons (electromagnetic particles) not any wave. Interference, diffraction and refraction are well explained with the concept of trains of particles. The criticism I can make on your model of everything as waves is that waves in a medium can only interfere with each other and so how forces could be explained? There are no forces between waves. How do you explain electric and magnetic attractions and repulsions? How do you explain the forces between protons, neutrons and electrons to form an atom or the forces involved in their collisions? How do you explain the force between two macroscopic objects in general?

 

[quantum_wave]

There's not much we can discuss since we have opposed models. In my theory everything is particles while in yours everything is waves. Electromagnetic waves and De Broglie waves just don't exist for me. The lambda in De Broglie formula is a distance between particles travelling in trains of particles and what antennas emit and receive are photons (electromagnetic particles) not any wave. The criticism I can make on your model of everything as waves is that waves in a medium can only interfere which each other and so how forces could be explained? There are no forces between waves.

When energy waves intersect, there is a high energy density spot at the point of intersection. The spot exists because each converging wave carries a specific amount of energy, and at the point of intersection, that spot has the combined energy of the two or more converging waves. The spot grows in volume as the parent waves form an overlap, and the energy in the overlap space is the combined energy of the two parent waves. The high density spot thus expands to become the energy in the overlap space, and thus the expansion of the energy in that space has become a new expanding wave.

One force involved is the force of wave energy density equalization, which is simply the fact that the high energy density overlap space equalizes with the energy density of the surrounding space.

I'll be glad to discuss all of your objections, but I think what you mean is that because our models are so opposed, nothing I say will be a valid explanation in regard to how you would explain the same phenomenon.