Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Einstein relativity theory disproven by Electrical Engineer.
27 views
Skip to first unread message
Arend Lammertink
Oct 30, 2011, 12:46:39 PM10/30/11
to
Hi there,
I have studied quite a lot of alternative material on my own
discipline, Electrical Engineering, in which I hold a Masters degree
from the University of Twente.
Just recently, I have been able to disprove Einstein's relativity
theory once and for all. It is based on a fundamental thinking error
when formulating the Maxwell equations. Maxwell assumed the fields to
be caused by matter, while we know matter and (particular) EM waves
are one and the same thing. So, how can matter be the cause for the
fields, if these same fields are causing the matter to exist? When
you correct for that error, really the floor drops from underneath the
whole relativity theory...
So, I am convinced I managed to disprove Einstein's relativity theory
and uncovered the root of the error in it.
See my article on the subject, which may be freely republished if you
like:
"Last week the newspapers were filled with the discovery of
"impossible" particles traveling faster than the speed of light. A
month ago an "impossible" star was discovered and earlier the Pioneer
space probes also refused to adhere to the law. This way, the
scientific establishment will slowly but surely be forced to return to
reality, the reality of the existence of a real, physical ether with
fluid-like properties. The inevitable result of that will be that
Einstein's relativity theory will go down in the history books as one
of the biggest fallacies ever brought forth by science. In the future
they will look back to relativity with equal disbelief as to the
"Earth is flat" concept. The relativity theory not only goes against
common sense, as Tesla already said in 1932, a fundamental thinking
error has been made by Maxwell in his equations. This eventually lead
to the erroneous relativity theory, as is proven in this article. It
is therefore no exaggeration to state that the scientific
establishment is going to have a religious experience."
Read more: http://www.tuks.nl/wiki/index.php/Main/Ruins96YearsEinsteinRelativity
Kindest regards,
Arend Lammertink, MSc.
Goor, The Netherlands.
I have studied quite a lot of alternative material on my own
discipline, Electrical Engineering, in which I hold a Masters degree
from the University of Twente.
Just recently, I have been able to disprove Einstein's relativity
theory once and for all. It is based on a fundamental thinking error
when formulating the Maxwell equations. Maxwell assumed the fields to
be caused by matter, while we know matter and (particular) EM waves
are one and the same thing. So, how can matter be the cause for the
fields, if these same fields are causing the matter to exist? When
you correct for that error, really the floor drops from underneath the
whole relativity theory...
So, I am convinced I managed to disprove Einstein's relativity theory
and uncovered the root of the error in it.
See my article on the subject, which may be freely republished if you
like:
"Last week the newspapers were filled with the discovery of
"impossible" particles traveling faster than the speed of light. A
month ago an "impossible" star was discovered and earlier the Pioneer
space probes also refused to adhere to the law. This way, the
scientific establishment will slowly but surely be forced to return to
reality, the reality of the existence of a real, physical ether with
fluid-like properties. The inevitable result of that will be that
Einstein's relativity theory will go down in the history books as one
of the biggest fallacies ever brought forth by science. In the future
they will look back to relativity with equal disbelief as to the
"Earth is flat" concept. The relativity theory not only goes against
common sense, as Tesla already said in 1932, a fundamental thinking
error has been made by Maxwell in his equations. This eventually lead
to the erroneous relativity theory, as is proven in this article. It
is therefore no exaggeration to state that the scientific
establishment is going to have a religious experience."
Read more: http://www.tuks.nl/wiki/index.php/Main/Ruins96YearsEinsteinRelativity
Kindest regards,
Arend Lammertink, MSc.
Goor, The Netherlands.
Dono.
Oct 30, 2011, 12:54:39 PM10/30/11
to
On Oct 30, 11:46 am, Arend Lammertink <lam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Arend Lammertink, MSc.
> Goor, The Netherlands.
You need to post your discovery all over the internet. In triplicate.
>
>
> Arend Lammertink, MSc.
> Goor, The Netherlands.
Helmut Wabnig
Oct 30, 2011, 1:11:13 PM10/30/11
to
from recognizing the work of his contemporaries.
While he was tinkering with giant toys, called TESLA COILS,
others proceeded and invented radio.
Arend Lammerlink the Goor is senile stubborn squared and does not
recognize that a TESLA COIL is nothing more than a broadband radio
transmitter. Contemporary technology has proceeded to use
narrowband radio transmitter technology which allows worldwide
communication. Running a large TESLA COIL will soon attract
radio monitoring control services and police will rush in your place.
Arend Lammerlink de Goor is a stupid fuck who does not know
how a radio works, except there are ON and OFF buttons to press.
w.
Arend Lammertink
Oct 30, 2011, 2:59:53 PM10/30/11
to
http://inventors.about.com/od/tstartinventions/a/Nikola_Tesla.htm
"Tesla is now credited with inventing modern radio as well; since the
Supreme Court overturned Guglielmo Marconi's patent in 1943 in favor
of Nikola Tesla's earlier patents. When an engineer (Otis Pond) once
said to Tesla, "Looks as if Marconi got the jump on you" regarding
Marconi's radio system, Tesla replied, "Marconi is a good fellow. Let
him continue. He is using seventeen of my patents.""
So you better get your facts straight, before you start calling names.
Otherwise, you may end up harvesting what you are sowing...
-- Arend --
Arend Lammertink
Oct 30, 2011, 3:00:48 PM10/30/11
to
to be harder than cracking relativity theory ;)
-- Arend --
jon car
Oct 30, 2011, 3:26:46 PM10/30/11
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
Someone has replaced it.
eric gisse
Oct 30, 2011, 5:57:28 PM10/30/11
to
Arend Lammertink <lam...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:cb2195bb-1f5f-40d2...@gy7g2000vbb.googlegroups.com:
> Hi there,
>
> I have studied quite a lot of alternative material on my own
> discipline, Electrical Engineering, in which I hold a Masters degree
> from the University of Twente.
>
> Just recently, I have been able to disprove Einstein's relativity
> theory once and for all. It is based on a fundamental thinking error
> when formulating the Maxwell equations. Maxwell assumed the fields to
> be caused by matter, while we know matter and (particular) EM waves
> are one and the same thing. So, how can matter be the cause for the
> fields, if these same fields are causing the matter to exist? When
> you correct for that error, really the floor drops from underneath the
> whole relativity theory...
[snip rest]
Your argument is asinine. Matter is not an electromagnetic field.
news:cb2195bb-1f5f-40d2...@gy7g2000vbb.googlegroups.com:
> Hi there,
>
> I have studied quite a lot of alternative material on my own
> discipline, Electrical Engineering, in which I hold a Masters degree
> from the University of Twente.
>
> Just recently, I have been able to disprove Einstein's relativity
> theory once and for all. It is based on a fundamental thinking error
> when formulating the Maxwell equations. Maxwell assumed the fields to
> be caused by matter, while we know matter and (particular) EM waves
> are one and the same thing. So, how can matter be the cause for the
> fields, if these same fields are causing the matter to exist? When
> you correct for that error, really the floor drops from underneath the
> whole relativity theory...
Your argument is asinine. Matter is not an electromagnetic field.
admformeto
Oct 30, 2011, 6:00:39 PM10/30/11
to
"Arend Lammertink" <lam...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:cb2195bb-1f5f-40d2...@gy7g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
system based on that observation is not understood my many".
Your article is good but the words do not brake the SR theory and for that
you need a convincing experiment.
See how easily they manipulate publics opinion:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyWbNNnn7-Y
ps. Maxwell equations model EM waves correctly and he never stated that
space has speed limit of c.
His works is considered as reverse engineering.
admformeto
Oct 30, 2011, 6:09:45 PM10/30/11
to
news:386937ce-3d02-4bc7...@x20g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
Helmut defies logic.
You have better lack talking to a German who uses logic in his
interpretation of science and he is also an engineer.
http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/
You have better lack talking to a German who uses logic in his
interpretation of science and he is also an engineer.
http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/
admformeto
Oct 30, 2011, 6:58:40 PM10/30/11
to
news:cb2195bb-1f5f-40d2...@gy7g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
Maxwell did not make any errors and he correctly modeled EM wave propagation
including a case where EM waves propagate trough the vacuum of empty space
for which he assigned artificial constant just to satisfy the math agreement
with 'c' the speed of light which agrees with speed of radio waves generated
by normal source like an antenna.
It is the same with capacitor which dielectric constant pertains to a atomic
matter as a dielectric and for the vacuum of empty space to satisfy
the math there is a number 1 which simply state that there is no influence
at all.
So, dielectric property of the vacuum of empty space does not exist just
like Maxwell's space permeability.
Those are only numbers to satisfy the math.
Space has no property other than containment of matter.
including a case where EM waves propagate trough the vacuum of empty space
for which he assigned artificial constant just to satisfy the math agreement
with 'c' the speed of light which agrees with speed of radio waves generated
by normal source like an antenna.
It is the same with capacitor which dielectric constant pertains to a atomic
matter as a dielectric and for the vacuum of empty space to satisfy
the math there is a number 1 which simply state that there is no influence
at all.
So, dielectric property of the vacuum of empty space does not exist just
like Maxwell's space permeability.
Those are only numbers to satisfy the math.
Space has no property other than containment of matter.
Koobee Wublee
Oct 31, 2011, 1:24:17 AM10/31/11
to
On Oct 30, 9:46 am, Arend Lammertink wrote:
> Just recently, I have been able to disprove Einstein's relativity
> theory once and for all. It is based on a fundamental thinking error
> when formulating the Maxwell equations. Maxwell assumed the fields to
> be caused by matter, while we know matter and (particular) EM waves
> are one and the same thing. So, how can matter be the cause for the
> fields, if these same fields are causing the matter to exist? When
> you correct for that error, really the floor drops from underneath the
> whole relativity theory...
>
> Read more:http://www.tuks.nl/wiki/index.php/Main/Ruins96YearsEinsteinRelativity
> Just recently, I have been able to disprove Einstein's relativity
> theory once and for all. It is based on a fundamental thinking error
> when formulating the Maxwell equations. Maxwell assumed the fields to
> be caused by matter, while we know matter and (particular) EM waves
> are one and the same thing. So, how can matter be the cause for the
> fields, if these same fields are causing the matter to exist? When
> you correct for that error, really the floor drops from underneath the
> whole relativity theory...
>
Excellent remarks. Thanks.
He thinks Maxwell did not make any mistakes. It was Ampere who made
the mistake, and we should not blame Ampere for that since he did not
know a lot about what we have discovered since his time. That is
another chapter of discussion. <shrug>
Koobee Wublee
Oct 31, 2011, 1:18:51 AM10/31/11
to
On Oct 30, 3:58 pm, "admformeto" <admform...@onet.eu> wrote:
propagate through at a constant speed relative to the stationary
background of this medium. In doing so, what is observed as empty
vacuum exists this illusive and still undetected medium that gives the
properties of the permeability and the permittivity in free space.
<shrug>
> "Arend Lammertink" <lam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Just recently, I have been able to disprove Einstein's relativity
> > theory once and for all. It is based on a fundamental thinking error
> > when formulating the Maxwell equations. Maxwell assumed the fields to
> > be caused by matter, while we know matter and (particular) EM waves
> > are one and the same thing. So, how can matter be the cause for the
> > fields, if these same fields are causing the matter to exist? When
> > you correct for that error, really the floor drops from underneath the
> > whole relativity theory...
>
> > Just recently, I have been able to disprove Einstein's relativity
> > theory once and for all. It is based on a fundamental thinking error
> > when formulating the Maxwell equations. Maxwell assumed the fields to
> > be caused by matter, while we know matter and (particular) EM waves
> > are one and the same thing. So, how can matter be the cause for the
> > fields, if these same fields are causing the matter to exist? When
> > you correct for that error, really the floor drops from underneath the
> > whole relativity theory...
>
> Maxwell did not make any errors and he correctly modeled EM wave propagation
> including a case where EM waves propagate trough the vacuum of empty space
> for which he assigned artificial constant just to satisfy the math agreement
> with 'c' the speed of light which agrees with speed of radio waves generated
> by normal source like an antenna.
This is not true. Maxwell’s equations predict a medium for light to
> including a case where EM waves propagate trough the vacuum of empty space
> for which he assigned artificial constant just to satisfy the math agreement
> with 'c' the speed of light which agrees with speed of radio waves generated
> by normal source like an antenna.
propagate through at a constant speed relative to the stationary
background of this medium. In doing so, what is observed as empty
vacuum exists this illusive and still undetected medium that gives the
properties of the permeability and the permittivity in free space.
<shrug>
admformeto
Oct 31, 2011, 1:31:01 AM10/31/11
to
"Koobee Wublee" <koobee...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a8aa98dc-053e-4f60...@z28g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
points.
And just how does Maxwell manages to find the reference points of such
medium?
Arend Lammertink
Oct 31, 2011, 5:46:20 AM10/31/11
to
On Oct 31, 12:00 am, "admformeto" <admform...@onet.eu> wrote:
> "Arend Lammertink" <lam...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:cb2195bb-1f5f-40d2...@gy7g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> "Arend Lammertink" <lam...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:cb2195bb-1f5f-40d2...@gy7g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> You have a typo in the article and it should be 'by' and not 'my' "His
> system based on that observation is not understood my many".
Thanks, I fixed that.
> system based on that observation is not understood my many".
>
> Your article is good but the words do not brake the SR theory and for that
> you need a convincing experiment.
significant deviation of the speed of light compared to the speed of
light as measured on Earth. So, your experiment will have to be
performed such that a considerable distance is traveled trough space.
As far as I am aware, the best data we have is the data reported by
William H. Cantrell, Ph.D., as quoted in my article:
http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue59/adissidentview.html
"Evidence has surfaced that the speed of light is not c in deep space,
based on satellite data from Pioneer 10 and 11. Launched in 1972 and
1973 respectively, radio signals received from these satellites
contain an "anomalous" Doppler shift. Renshaw showed that this can be
explained by assuming classical Newtonian mechanics for the Doppler-
shifted radio signal in a heliocentric frame of reference. Staunch
relativists take note: Here is a clear case, for both satellites,
where classical theory gives the correct answer, but relativistic
corrections lead to the wrong results. Einstein’s relativity cannot
explain this result, and indeed, it is the cause of the problem in the
first place!"
"Wallace discovered that radar data for the planet Venus did not
confirm the constancy of the speed of light. Alarmed and intrigued by
these results, he noticed systematic variations in the data with
diurnal and lunar-synodic components. He attempted to publish the
results in Physical Review Letters, but he encountered considerable
resistance. His analysis indicated a heretical "c + v" Galilean fit to
the data, so as a result, he had no alternative but to publish
elsewhere. To say that Wallace was less than tactful would be
something of an understatement. He made heated claims that NASA had
noticed the very same results and was using non-relativistic
correction factors to calculate signal transit times."
And of course there is ample evidence that the speed of light is
influenced by the presence of particles, nothing other than a specific
kind of EM wave as evidenced by the wave-particle duality principle as
well as Quantum Mechanics:
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=99111&page=1
"Scientists have managed to slow down light so much that if it were a
car on a highway, it could get a ticket for not getting over to the
right-hand lane. [...] The experiment doesn’t invent any new
physics. When light passes through a material such as water or glass,
it slows down a bit as the photons interact with the surrounding
molecules. The new result merely set the world record for slowest
light."
So, we got:
1. The supposed fixed speed of light is not because of an observation
or something, but because that is being demanded by the Lorentz
transform, which was introduced because the Maxwell equations were not
invariant to the Galilean transform (Thornhill). And since with the
formulation of the Maxwell equations in their currently accepted form
a chicken-and-egg problem was introduced which ultimately causes the
current Maxwell equations not being Galilean invariant, you can easily
get rid of that problem by deriving the Maxwell equations directly
from Faraday's observations (Meyl). Then you end up with a more
general set of Maxwell equations that ARE invariant to the Galilean
transform AND put cause and effect in the correct order, aligning the
Maxwell equations with Quantum Mechanics. How come that two generally
accepted theories contradict one another on the cause and effect of
matter vs. EM waves, and noone seems to care about that?
2. Data that says that the speed of light is not fixed across the
real, physical Universe as well as a logical analysis that says the
the presence of EM waves effects the speed of light, because of the
wave-particle duality principle.
3. The supposed curving of space, the "curving" of the nothingness in
which the medium exists.
To me, that is convincing enough....
Added this to my "watch later" list...
>
> ps. Maxwell equations model EM waves correctly and he never stated that
> space has speed limit of c.
> His works is considered as reverse engineering.
and the currently accepted equations. According to Tom Bearden, Oliver
Heaviside made some changes to the original set, but I don't know the
details of that exercise.
-- Arend --
Arend Lammertink
Oct 31, 2011, 5:59:00 AM10/31/11
to
On Oct 31, 12:09 am, "admformeto" <admform...@onet.eu> wrote:
> "Arend Lammertink" <lam...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:386937ce-3d02-4bc7...@x20g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 30, 6:11 pm, Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 09:46:39 -0700 (PDT), Arend Lammertink
>
> >> <lam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >Hi there,
>
> >> >I have studied quite a lot of alternative material on my own
> >> >discipline,ElectricalEngineering, in which I hold a Masters degree
> "Arend Lammertink" <lam...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:386937ce-3d02-4bc7...@x20g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 30, 6:11 pm, Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 09:46:39 -0700 (PDT), Arend Lammertink
>
> >> <lam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >Hi there,
>
> >> >I have studied quite a lot of alternative material on my own
> >> >from the University of Twente.
>
> >> >Just recently, I have been able to disprove Einstein'srelativity
> >> >theoryonce and for all. It is based on a fundamental thinking error
>
> >> >Just recently, I have been able to disprove Einstein'srelativity
> >> >when formulating the Maxwell equations. Maxwell assumed the fields to
> >> >be caused by matter, while we know matter and (particular) EM waves
> >> >are one and the same thing. So, how can matter be the cause for the
> >> >fields, if these same fields are causing the matter to exist? When
> >> >you correct for that error, really the floor drops from underneath the
> >> >wholerelativitytheory...
>
> >> >So, I am convinced I managed to disprove Einstein'srelativitytheory
> >> >and uncovered the root of the error in it.
>
> >> >See my article on the subject, which may be freely republished if you
> >> >like:
> >> >"Last week the newspapers were filled with the discovery of
> >> >"impossible" particles traveling faster than the speed of light. A
> >> >month ago an "impossible" star was discovered and earlier the Pioneer
> >> >space probes also refused to adhere to the law. This way, the
> >> >scientific establishment will slowly but surely be forced to return to
> >> >reality, the reality of the existence of a real, physical ether with
> >> >fluid-like properties. The inevitable result of that will be that
> >> >Einstein'srelativitytheorywill go down in the history books as one
> >> >be caused by matter, while we know matter and (particular) EM waves
> >> >are one and the same thing. So, how can matter be the cause for the
> >> >fields, if these same fields are causing the matter to exist? When
> >> >you correct for that error, really the floor drops from underneath the
> >> >wholerelativitytheory...
>
> >> >So, I am convinced I managed to disprove Einstein'srelativitytheory
> >> >and uncovered the root of the error in it.
>
> >> >See my article on the subject, which may be freely republished if you
> >> >like:
> >> >"Last week the newspapers were filled with the discovery of
> >> >"impossible" particles traveling faster than the speed of light. A
> >> >month ago an "impossible" star was discovered and earlier the Pioneer
> >> >space probes also refused to adhere to the law. This way, the
> >> >scientific establishment will slowly but surely be forced to return to
> >> >reality, the reality of the existence of a real, physical ether with
> >> >fluid-like properties. The inevitable result of that will be that
> >> >of the biggest fallacies ever brought forth by science. In the future
> >> >they will look back torelativitywith equal disbelief as to the
> >> >"Earth is flat" concept. Therelativitytheorynot only goes against
> >> >common sense, as Tesla already said in 1932, a fundamental thinking
> >> >error has been made by Maxwell in his equations. This eventually lead
> >> >to the erroneousrelativitytheory, as is proven in this article. It
> >> >error has been made by Maxwell in his equations. This eventually lead
> >> >is therefore no exaggeration to state that the scientific
> >> >establishment is going to have a religious experience."
>
> >> >Read
> >> >more:http://www.tuks.nl/wiki/index.php/Main/Ruins96YearsEinsteinRelativity
>
> >> >Kindest regards,
>
> >> >Arend Lammertink, MSc.
> >> >Goor, The Netherlands.
>
> >> Tesla went bancrupt for senile stubbornness which kept him
> >> from recognizing the work of his contemporaries.
> >> While he was tinkering with giant toys, called TESLA COILS,
> >> others proceeded and invented radio.
>
> >> Arend Lammerlink the Goor is senile stubborn squared and does not
> >> recognize that a TESLA COIL is nothing more than a broadband radio
> >> transmitter. Contemporary technology has proceeded to use
> >> narrowband radio transmitter technology which allows worldwide
> >> communication. Running a large TESLA COIL will soon attract
> >> radio monitoring control services and police will rush in your place.
>
> >> Arend Lammerlink de Goor is a stupid fuck who does not know
> >> how a radio works, except there are ON and OFF buttons to press.
>
> >> w.
>
> > FYI, Tesla *did* invent radio:
>
> >http://inventors.about.com/od/tstartinventions/a/Nikola_Tesla.htm
>
> > "Tesla is now credited with inventing modern radio as well; since the
> > Supreme Court overturned Guglielmo Marconi's patent in 1943 in favor
> > of Nikola Tesla's earlier patents. When anengineer(Otis Pond) once
> >> >establishment is going to have a religious experience."
>
> >> >Read
> >> >more:http://www.tuks.nl/wiki/index.php/Main/Ruins96YearsEinsteinRelativity
>
> >> >Kindest regards,
>
> >> >Arend Lammertink, MSc.
> >> >Goor, The Netherlands.
>
> >> Tesla went bancrupt for senile stubbornness which kept him
> >> from recognizing the work of his contemporaries.
> >> While he was tinkering with giant toys, called TESLA COILS,
> >> others proceeded and invented radio.
>
> >> Arend Lammerlink the Goor is senile stubborn squared and does not
> >> recognize that a TESLA COIL is nothing more than a broadband radio
> >> transmitter. Contemporary technology has proceeded to use
> >> narrowband radio transmitter technology which allows worldwide
> >> communication. Running a large TESLA COIL will soon attract
> >> radio monitoring control services and police will rush in your place.
>
> >> Arend Lammerlink de Goor is a stupid fuck who does not know
> >> how a radio works, except there are ON and OFF buttons to press.
>
> >> w.
>
> > FYI, Tesla *did* invent radio:
>
> >http://inventors.about.com/od/tstartinventions/a/Nikola_Tesla.htm
>
> > "Tesla is now credited with inventing modern radio as well; since the
> > Supreme Court overturned Guglielmo Marconi's patent in 1943 in favor
> > said to Tesla, "Looks as if Marconi got the jump on you" regarding
> > Marconi's radio system, Tesla replied, "Marconi is a good fellow. Let
> > him continue. He is using seventeen of my patents.""
>
> > So you better get your facts straight, before you start calling names.
> > Otherwise, you may end up harvesting what you are sowing...
>
> > -- Arend --
>
> Helmut defies logic.
> You have better lack talking to a German who uses logic in his
> interpretation of science and he is also anengineer.
>
> http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/
Thanks a lot for that link!
> > Marconi's radio system, Tesla replied, "Marconi is a good fellow. Let
> > him continue. He is using seventeen of my patents.""
>
> > So you better get your facts straight, before you start calling names.
> > Otherwise, you may end up harvesting what you are sowing...
>
> > -- Arend --
>
> Helmut defies logic.
> You have better lack talking to a German who uses logic in his
> interpretation of science and he is also anengineer.
>
> http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/
Very interesting stuff there:
http://ekkehard-friebe.de/blog/
They have a whole topic of English critics on relativity theory:
http://ekkehard-friebe.de/blog/category/englischsprachige-kritik-der-relativitatstheorie/
-- Arend --
setti colle
Oct 31, 2011, 7:15:58 AM10/31/11
to
Arend Lammertink wrote:
>
> Thanks a lot for that link!
>
> Very interesting stuff there:
> http://ekkehard-friebe.de/blog/
>
> They have a whole topic of English critics on relativity theory:
> http://ekkehard-friebe.de/blog/category/englischsprachige-kritik-der-relativitatstheorie/
>
As an electrical engineer you will have learned and appreciated that
>
> Thanks a lot for that link!
>
> Very interesting stuff there:
> http://ekkehard-friebe.de/blog/
>
> They have a whole topic of English critics on relativity theory:
> http://ekkehard-friebe.de/blog/category/englischsprachige-kritik-der-relativitatstheorie/
>
light is an electromagnetic wave which propagates in perfect vacuum
(without medium) with a definite speed. You will also appreciate that an
observer moving in vacuum with constant speed still perceives the vacuum
the same (the same kind of emptiness) as the observer at rest.
Now this moving observer in his own frame of reference sees the same
physical phenomenon - an electromagnetic wave. It is clear that the
speed of propagation of the electromagnetic wave must be the same for
him, because the electric and magnetic field changes cannot propagate in
a vacuum with any speed other than c.
So there you have the speed of light, not postulated, but a consequence
of there existing only one kind of vacuum.
Dirk Van de moortel
Oct 31, 2011, 7:48:52 AM10/31/11
to
Arend Lammertink <lam...@gmail.com> wrote in message
cb2195bb-1f5f-40d2...@gy7g2000vbb.googlegroups.com
> Hi there,
>
> I have studied quite a lot of alternative material on my own
> discipline, Electrical Engineering, in which I hold a Masters degree
> from the University of Twente.
You sure it's not Electronic Engineer, like that other retired imbecile
>
> I have studied quite a lot of alternative material on my own
> discipline, Electrical Engineering, in which I hold a Masters degree
> from the University of Twente.
we have here?
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Engineer.html
Dirk Vdm
Androcles
Oct 31, 2011, 7:58:10 AM10/31/11
to
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:HWvrq.16182$ni4....@newsfe22.ams2...
| \ / (t,x)=(T,vT)
| \ / (t',x')=(T/gamma,0) x'_
| [A]._ (t",x")=(T/gamma,0) _.-''
| / `--._ __.-'
| / ``-.__ _.-'
| / _:-.:_
| / _.-' `--._
| / _.-'' ``-.._ x"
| / __.-' `--.
| / _.-'
___[E].=________________________________________
| E: Start event x
-- Insane Dork Van de Belgian Waffle, now 18 years older.
Alfonso
Oct 31, 2011, 8:31:33 AM10/31/11
to
On 30/10/11 16:46, Arend Lammertink wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> I have studied quite a lot of alternative material on my own
> discipline, Electrical Engineering, in which I hold a Masters degree
> from the University of Twente.
>
> Just recently, I have been able to disprove Einstein's relativity
> theory once and for all. It is based on a fundamental thinking error
> when formulating the Maxwell equations. Maxwell assumed the fields to
> be caused by matter, while we know matter and (particular) EM waves
> are one and the same thing. So, how can matter be the cause for the
> fields, if these same fields are causing the matter to exist? When
> you correct for that error, really the floor drops from underneath the
> whole relativity theory...
>
> So, I am convinced I managed to disprove Einstein's relativity theory
> and uncovered the root of the error in it.
Today's Physics is based on the dogma the Einstein's relativity is
> Hi there,
>
> I have studied quite a lot of alternative material on my own
> discipline, Electrical Engineering, in which I hold a Masters degree
> from the University of Twente.
>
> Just recently, I have been able to disprove Einstein's relativity
> theory once and for all. It is based on a fundamental thinking error
> when formulating the Maxwell equations. Maxwell assumed the fields to
> be caused by matter, while we know matter and (particular) EM waves
> are one and the same thing. So, how can matter be the cause for the
> fields, if these same fields are causing the matter to exist? When
> you correct for that error, really the floor drops from underneath the
> whole relativity theory...
>
> So, I am convinced I managed to disprove Einstein's relativity theory
> and uncovered the root of the error in it.
correct so nature must just put up with the fact. :^)
You cannot disprove an article of faith.
admformeto
Oct 31, 2011, 9:25:16 AM10/31/11
to
"setti colle" <kjf...@khf.iue> wrote in message
news:j8m06g$3q6$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
> Arend Lammertink wrote:
>>
>> Thanks a lot for that link!
>>
>> Very interesting stuff there:
>> http://ekkehard-friebe.de/blog/
>>
>> They have a whole topic of English critics on relativity theory:
>> http://ekkehard-friebe.de/blog/category/englischsprachige-kritik-der-relativitatstheorie/
>>
>
> As an electrical engineer you will have learned and appreciated that light
> is an electromagnetic wave which propagates in perfect vacuum (without
> medium) with a definite speed. You will also appreciate that an observer
> moving in vacuum with constant speed still perceives the vacuum the same
> (the same kind of emptiness) as the observer at rest.
>
> Now this moving observer in his own frame of reference sees the same
> physical phenomenon - an electromagnetic wave. It is clear that the speed
> of propagation of the electromagnetic wave must be the same for him,
> because the electric and magnetic field changes cannot propagate in a
> vacuum with any speed other than c.
It is clear assumption not a prove of anything.
>>
>> Thanks a lot for that link!
>>
>> Very interesting stuff there:
>> http://ekkehard-friebe.de/blog/
>>
>> They have a whole topic of English critics on relativity theory:
>> http://ekkehard-friebe.de/blog/category/englischsprachige-kritik-der-relativitatstheorie/
>>
>
> As an electrical engineer you will have learned and appreciated that light
> is an electromagnetic wave which propagates in perfect vacuum (without
> medium) with a definite speed. You will also appreciate that an observer
> moving in vacuum with constant speed still perceives the vacuum the same
> (the same kind of emptiness) as the observer at rest.
>
> Now this moving observer in his own frame of reference sees the same
> physical phenomenon - an electromagnetic wave. It is clear that the speed
> of propagation of the electromagnetic wave must be the same for him,
> because the electric and magnetic field changes cannot propagate in a
> vacuum with any speed other than c.
The constant speed of EM waves is defined by property of source and not a
property of vacuum.
>
> So there you have the speed of light, not postulated, but a consequence of
> there existing only one kind of vacuum.
admformeto
Oct 31, 2011, 9:29:14 AM10/31/11
to
news:2112807c-0e67-4dfa...@a17g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
I will publish my own experiment shortly at:
http://www.faster-than-light.us/
> On Oct 31, 12:00 am, "admformeto" <admform...@onet.eu> wrote:
>> "Arend Lammertink" <lam...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:cb2195bb-1f5f-40d2...@gy7g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>> You have a typo in the article and it should be 'by' and not 'my' "His
>> system based on that observation is not understood my many".
>
>
> Thanks, I fixed that.
>
>>
>> Your article is good but the words do not brake the SR theory and for
>> that
>> you need a convincing experiment.
>
> The problem with performing experiments is that these depend on a
> significant deviation of the speed of light compared to the speed of
> light as measured on Earth. So, your experiment will have to be
> performed such that a considerable distance is traveled trough space.
> As far as I am aware, the best data we have is the data reported by
> William H. Cantrell, Ph.D., as quoted in my article:
>
> http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue59/adissidentview.html
>
> "Evidence has surfaced that the speed of light is not c in deep space,
> based on satellite data from Pioneer 10 and 11. Launched in 1972 and
> 1973 respectively, radio signals received from these satellites
> contain an "anomalous" Doppler shift. Renshaw showed that this can be
> explained by assuming classical Newtonian mechanics for the Doppler-
> shifted radio signal in a heliocentric frame of reference. Staunch
> relativists take note: Here is a clear case, for both satellites,
> where classical theory gives the correct answer, but relativistic
> corrections lead to the wrong results. Einstein�s relativity cannot
>> "Arend Lammertink" <lam...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:cb2195bb-1f5f-40d2...@gy7g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>> You have a typo in the article and it should be 'by' and not 'my' "His
>> system based on that observation is not understood my many".
>
>
> Thanks, I fixed that.
>
>>
>> Your article is good but the words do not brake the SR theory and for
>> that
>> you need a convincing experiment.
>
> The problem with performing experiments is that these depend on a
> significant deviation of the speed of light compared to the speed of
> light as measured on Earth. So, your experiment will have to be
> performed such that a considerable distance is traveled trough space.
> As far as I am aware, the best data we have is the data reported by
> William H. Cantrell, Ph.D., as quoted in my article:
>
> http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue59/adissidentview.html
>
> "Evidence has surfaced that the speed of light is not c in deep space,
> based on satellite data from Pioneer 10 and 11. Launched in 1972 and
> 1973 respectively, radio signals received from these satellites
> contain an "anomalous" Doppler shift. Renshaw showed that this can be
> explained by assuming classical Newtonian mechanics for the Doppler-
> shifted radio signal in a heliocentric frame of reference. Staunch
> relativists take note: Here is a clear case, for both satellites,
> where classical theory gives the correct answer, but relativistic
> explain this result, and indeed, it is the cause of the problem in the
> first place!"
>
> "Wallace discovered that radar data for the planet Venus did not
> confirm the constancy of the speed of light. Alarmed and intrigued by
> these results, he noticed systematic variations in the data with
> diurnal and lunar-synodic components. He attempted to publish the
> results in Physical Review Letters, but he encountered considerable
> resistance. His analysis indicated a heretical "c + v" Galilean fit to
> the data, so as a result, he had no alternative but to publish
> elsewhere. To say that Wallace was less than tactful would be
> something of an understatement. He made heated claims that NASA had
> noticed the very same results and was using non-relativistic
> correction factors to calculate signal transit times."
>
> And of course there is ample evidence that the speed of light is
> influenced by the presence of particles, nothing other than a specific
> kind of EM wave as evidenced by the wave-particle duality principle as
> well as Quantum Mechanics:
>
> http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=99111&page=1
> "Scientists have managed to slow down light so much that if it were a
> car on a highway, it could get a ticket for not getting over to the
> right-hand lane. [...] The experiment doesn�t invent any new
> first place!"
>
> "Wallace discovered that radar data for the planet Venus did not
> confirm the constancy of the speed of light. Alarmed and intrigued by
> these results, he noticed systematic variations in the data with
> diurnal and lunar-synodic components. He attempted to publish the
> results in Physical Review Letters, but he encountered considerable
> resistance. His analysis indicated a heretical "c + v" Galilean fit to
> the data, so as a result, he had no alternative but to publish
> elsewhere. To say that Wallace was less than tactful would be
> something of an understatement. He made heated claims that NASA had
> noticed the very same results and was using non-relativistic
> correction factors to calculate signal transit times."
>
> And of course there is ample evidence that the speed of light is
> influenced by the presence of particles, nothing other than a specific
> kind of EM wave as evidenced by the wave-particle duality principle as
> well as Quantum Mechanics:
>
> http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=99111&page=1
> "Scientists have managed to slow down light so much that if it were a
> car on a highway, it could get a ticket for not getting over to the
http://www.faster-than-light.us/
setti colle
Oct 31, 2011, 9:37:31 AM10/31/11
to
admformeto wrote:
>
> It is clear assumption not a prove of anything.
> The constant speed of EM waves is defined by property of source and not
> a property of vacuum.
Not an assumption but a property of electromagnetic waves, i.e an
>
> It is clear assumption not a prove of anything.
> The constant speed of EM waves is defined by property of source and not
> a property of vacuum.
observation of the outcome of an experiment: let light propagate in
vacuum and you will see that it has a definite speed.
You will further observe that here on earth we are not finding ourselves
at night being hit by a multitude of light waves having different
propagation speeds. I challenge you to go out at night and find one bit
of light from the night sky with a speed other than c. This light is
emitted by a multitude of sources in space moving at considerable speeds
relative to the earth, thus constantly testing the theory of c' = c+v.
admformeto
Oct 31, 2011, 9:49:43 AM10/31/11
to
"setti colle" <kjf...@khf.iue> wrote in message
measured in a vacuum experiment.
Again, it is the property of source that makes it constant.
The only way to change it is to modify the basic mechanism of EM creation at
the source.
eric gisse
Oct 31, 2011, 11:00:22 AM10/31/11
to
Alfonso <Alf...@duffadd.com> wrote in
news:dPudndUnaI64CDPT...@bt.com:
> On 30/10/11 16:46, Arend Lammertink wrote:
>> Hi there,
>>
>> I have studied quite a lot of alternative material on my own
>> discipline, Electrical Engineering, in which I hold a Masters degree
>> from the University of Twente.
>>
>> Just recently, I have been able to disprove Einstein's relativity
>> theory once and for all. It is based on a fundamental thinking error
>> when formulating the Maxwell equations. Maxwell assumed the fields to
>> be caused by matter, while we know matter and (particular) EM waves
>> are one and the same thing. So, how can matter be the cause for the
>> fields, if these same fields are causing the matter to exist? When
>> you correct for that error, really the floor drops from underneath
>> the whole relativity theory...
>>
>> So, I am convinced I managed to disprove Einstein's relativity theory
>> and uncovered the root of the error in it.
>
> Today's Physics is based on the dogma the Einstein's relativity is
> correct so nature must just put up with the fact. :^)
>
> You cannot disprove an article of faith.
>
Just for fun, could you tell us about your experiences in a classroom that
teaches modern physics?
Do you have any education in the subject at all?
[...]
news:dPudndUnaI64CDPT...@bt.com:
> On 30/10/11 16:46, Arend Lammertink wrote:
>> Hi there,
>>
>> I have studied quite a lot of alternative material on my own
>> discipline, Electrical Engineering, in which I hold a Masters degree
>> from the University of Twente.
>>
>> Just recently, I have been able to disprove Einstein's relativity
>> theory once and for all. It is based on a fundamental thinking error
>> when formulating the Maxwell equations. Maxwell assumed the fields to
>> be caused by matter, while we know matter and (particular) EM waves
>> are one and the same thing. So, how can matter be the cause for the
>> fields, if these same fields are causing the matter to exist? When
>> you correct for that error, really the floor drops from underneath
>> the whole relativity theory...
>>
>> So, I am convinced I managed to disprove Einstein's relativity theory
>> and uncovered the root of the error in it.
>
> Today's Physics is based on the dogma the Einstein's relativity is
> correct so nature must just put up with the fact. :^)
>
> You cannot disprove an article of faith.
>
teaches modern physics?
Do you have any education in the subject at all?
[...]
Paul Cardinale
Oct 31, 2011, 10:21:43 AM10/31/11
to
On Oct 31, 4:48 am, "Dirk Van de moortel"
<dirkvandemoor...@nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote:
> Arend Lammertink <lam...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> cb2195bb-1f5f-40d2-af4a-7135f577d...@gy7g2000vbb.googlegroups.com
> Arend Lammertink <lam...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
>
> > Hi there,
>
> > I have studied quite a lot of alternative material on my own
> > discipline, Electrical Engineering, in which I hold a Masters degree
> > from the University of Twente.
>
> You sure it's not Electronic Engineer, like that other retired imbecile
> we have here?
> http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Engineer.html
>
> Dirk Vdm
Maybe he means "electronical"
> > Hi there,
>
> > I have studied quite a lot of alternative material on my own
> > discipline, Electrical Engineering, in which I hold a Masters degree
> > from the University of Twente.
>
> You sure it's not Electronic Engineer, like that other retired imbecile
> we have here?
> http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Engineer.html
>
> Dirk Vdm
Szczepan Bialek
Oct 31, 2011, 12:59:58 PM10/31/11
to
"Arend Lammertink" <lam...@gmail.com> napisal w wiadomosci
news:2112807c-0e67-4dfa...@a17g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
"Professor Challis[20] conceives magnetism to consist in currents of a fluid
whose direction corresponds with that of the lines of magnetic force; and
electric currents, on this theory, are accompanied by, if not dependent on,
a rotatory motion of the fluid about the axes of the current. Professor
Helmholtz[21] has investigated the motion of an incompressible fluid, and
has conceived lines drawn so as to correspond at every point with the
instantaneous axis of rotation of the fluid there. He has pointed out that
the lines of fluid motion are arranged according to the same laws with
respect to the lines of rotation, as those by which the lines of magnetic
force are arranged with respect to electric currents. On the other hand, in
this paper I have regarded magnetism as a phenomenon of rotation, and
electric currents as consisting of the actual translation of particles, thus
assuming the inverse of the relation between the two sets of phenomena."
From: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_Physical_Lines_of_Force
"the currently accepted equations" are the hydraulic analogy. Do the Gas
Analogy and all will be in agreement with the reality. Electricity is like
gas (electron gas) not like massles incompressible water.
S*
-- Arend --
black head
Oct 31, 2011, 2:15:20 PM10/31/11
to
On Oct 30, 4:46 pm, Arend Lammertink <lam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> I have studied quite a lot of alternative material on my own
> discipline, Electrical Engineering, in which I hold a Masters degree
> from the University of Twente.
>
> Hi there,
>
> I have studied quite a lot of alternative material on my own
> discipline, Electrical Engineering, in which I hold a Masters degree
> from the University of Twente.
>
> Just recently, I have been able to disprove Einstein's relativity
> theory once and for all.
Could it be that you're too ignorant to know what you're doing, and
> theory once and for all.
too stupid to consider the possibility that you've made an error?
I just don't see how's it's credible that the world'd finest
physicists with a PhD in physics don't see this supposed error found
by an electrical engineer with a masters degree.
> Kindest regards,
> [snipped rest]
Androcles
Oct 31, 2011, 4:14:49 PM10/31/11
to
"black head" <larry...@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:f6ca9af2-08d0-4903...@m19g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 30, 4:46 pm, Arend Lammertink <lam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> I have studied quite a lot of alternative material on my own
> discipline, Electrical Engineering, in which I hold a Masters degree
> from the University of Twente.
>
> Just recently, I have been able to disprove Einstein's relativity
> theory once and for all.
Could it be that you're too ignorant to know what you're doing, and
too stupid to consider the possibility that you've made an error?
I just don't see how's it's credible that the world'd finest
physicists with a PhD in physics don't see this supposed error found
by an electrical engineer with a masters degree.
=================================================
> Hi there,
>
> I have studied quite a lot of alternative material on my own
> discipline, Electrical Engineering, in which I hold a Masters degree
> from the University of Twente.
>
> Just recently, I have been able to disprove Einstein's relativity
> theory once and for all.
Could it be that you're too ignorant to know what you're doing, and
too stupid to consider the possibility that you've made an error?
I just don't see how's it's credible that the world'd finest
physicists with a PhD in physics don't see this supposed error found
by an electrical engineer with a masters degree.
Blind Larry "I just don't see" Harson is Blind Bobby Bellarmine reincarnate.
"Third. I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun was in
the center of the universe and the earth in the third sphere, and that the
sun did not travel around the earth but the earth circled the sun, then it
would be necessary to proceed with great caution in explaining the passages
of Scripture which seemed contrary, and we would rather have to say that we
did not understand them than to say that something was false which has been
demonstrated.But I do not believe that there is any such demonstration; none
has been shown to me."
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1615bellarmine-letter.asp
"I just don't see how's it's credible that the world'd finest
supposed error found by a mathematician with a telescope." -- Larry Harson,
shouting down Galileo Galilei.
You are a bigot and an ignorant cunt, Harson.
1treePetrifiedForestLane
Oct 31, 2011, 7:24:52 PM10/31/11
to
how about "electrons in various orbitals" in free space?
is there an absolute vacuum,
like Pascal thought, he had discovered?
how can one ascribe permeability & permitivity to "an" aether?
is there an absolute vacuum,
like Pascal thought, he had discovered?
how can one ascribe permeability & permitivity to "an" aether?
admformeto
Oct 31, 2011, 7:37:59 PM10/31/11
to
"1treePetrifiedForestLane" <Spac...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:70134a43-3e4d-4c03...@d37g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
They are irrelevant as one cannot reference geometry of space without
matter.
jim
Nov 1, 2011, 1:58:56 AM11/1/11
to
On Oct 31, 1:31 am, "admformeto" <admform...@onet.eu> wrote:
> "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote in message
You don't have to. Since the people who actually know how geometry
actually works, discovered infinite dimensional geometry for the
cranks in physics over a hundred years. Just like the people who
understand
numbers, discovered set theory, topology, Goedel's Theorems, and
Turing Machines.
Rather than just simply rediscovering logarithms forever.
> "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote in message
actually works, discovered infinite dimensional geometry for the
cranks in physics over a hundred years. Just like the people who
understand
numbers, discovered set theory, topology, Goedel's Theorems, and
Turing Machines.
Rather than just simply rediscovering logarithms forever.
admformeto
Nov 1, 2011, 5:17:27 AM11/1/11
to
"jim" <retnu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c006bc6e-f31e-4e99...@f36g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
If so, please explain how does one find reference points in empty space
using higher dimensions.
Better still, please explain how does one measure curved space.
jim
Nov 1, 2011, 5:25:52 AM11/1/11
to
On Nov 1, 5:17 am, "admformeto" <admform...@onet.eu> wrote:
> "jim" <retnuh2...@gmail.com> wrote in message
That's just the way it is. Since the people who actually
understand
the jerk curved space, discovered Dark Matter, rather than jerk
curved space.
> "jim" <retnuh2...@gmail.com> wrote in message
understand
the jerk curved space, discovered Dark Matter, rather than jerk
curved space.
admformeto
Nov 1, 2011, 5:41:26 AM11/1/11
to
news:f3911c8c-1fef-422a...@m19g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
>> >> > This is not true. Maxwell�s equations predict a medium for light to
Well, I guess then you are not one of them...
Rock Brentwood
Nov 1, 2011, 8:11:02 AM11/1/11
to
On Oct 30, 9:31 pm, "admformeto" <admform...@onet.eu> wrote:
> "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > This is not true. Maxwell’s equations predict a medium for light to
> > propagate through at a constant speed relative to the stationary
> > background of this medium. In doing so, what is observed as empty
> > vacuum exists this illusive and still undetected medium that gives the
> > properties of the permeability and the permittivity in free space.
> > <shrug>
>
> In geometry if you claim precise dimension you must have precise reference
> points.
> And just how does Maxwell manages to find the reference points of such
> medium?
Not reference points, but reference velocity. Early on, he introduced
> > propagate through at a constant speed relative to the stationary
> > background of this medium. In doing so, what is observed as empty
> > vacuum exists this illusive and still undetected medium that gives the
> > properties of the permeability and the permittivity in free space.
> > <shrug>
>
> In geometry if you claim precise dimension you must have precise reference
> points.
> And just how does Maxwell manages to find the reference points of such
> medium?
a reference velocity for the "stationary frame". Eventually, by the
time we get to the treatise, it got its own name, G; and generally
appears as the G vector (occasionally written just as v).
Since isotropy is not a boost-invariant property, then in an isotropic
frame one can generally define a unique "stationary" frame as the one
where the constitutive relations are isotropic. There is only one
occasion where the frame of isotropy is not unique -- only one
exception to the rule. That was the case found by Einstein. More on
that below.
The point of the title "on the electrodynamics of *moving bodies*" was
in fact to resolve the question of why every frame of references
appeared to be "stationary" (i.e. one where G = 0). The abstract of
Einstein's 1905 SR paper also makes mention of Maxwell's vector,
though not by name.
This is why the alphabet soup of letters, that Maxwell coined, now has
a gap where G used to be. The other Maxwell letters A, B, C, D, E, F,
G, I and J are still used (though C rarely so -- C was "total current"
= J + D_t; I somewhat rarely, we now use M for magnetization instead
of I).
Maxwell's constitutive law read D = KE. But his equation for E was E =
A_t + grad phi + G x B. Our E, nowadays, is defined by E = A_t + grad
phi. So, what Maxwell did -- when expressed in modern notation -- was
write the constitutive law D = K (E + G x B). His E is our E + G x B.
Maxwell's treatment of B and H was never fully resolved, and was
inconsistent (meaning both that (a) he changed his story from year to
year, from paper to paper and even from section to section in the
treatise and (b) he did the analysis of the transformation properties
wrong). On (b), Thomson corrected Maxwell's mistake on (b) and pointed
out that since H has to transform as H - (Delta v) x D under a change
in frame of reference by velocity Delta v, then the correct
constitutive law would NOT be anything like B = mu H, but B = mu (H -
G x D).
Hence, the Maxwell-Thomson account of the field would be that couched
in the constitutive laws
(1) D = epsilon (E + G x B)
(2) B = mu (H - G x D).
where K is rewritten in modern notation as epsilon.
The velocity G marks the motion of the "isotropic frame" -- the unique
frame of reference where the constitutive law becomes isotropic (D =
epsilon E, B = mu H).
Of necessity, in a Galilean-covariant theory, you have to write the
constitutive laws in this way in terms of a medium, since no in-vacuo
law is possible that produces a finite propagation speed (simply
because no finite speed is Galilei-invariant).
For that reason (and for an entirely separate, but much deeper reason
having to do with the self-force and self-energy problem), Maxwell
expressed doubt as to the existence of any such thing as a true honest-
to-goodness vacuum.
The passage over to Relativity does NOT eliminate G. You STILL have
the notion of an "isotropic frame" in any isotropic medium. Outer
space, it bears mentioning, is one such medium, since not even space
is a complete vacuum. (There is no such thing as an absolute vacuum).
The relativistic version of the Maxwell-Thomson relations are the
Einstein-Laub-Minkowski relations,
(3) D + a G x H = epsilon (E + G x B)
(4) B - a G x E = mu (H - G x D)
where a = (1/c)^2, and c is the invariant speed. In this setting, a
distinction is made between the in-medium speed of light V = 1/root(mu
epsilon) and the invariant speed that is often misnamed "the speed of
light".
You can solve these equations for (D, B) vs. (E, H) or for any of the
other modes; e.g. (E, H) in terms of (D, B); (B, E) in terms of (D, H)
or (D, H) in terms of (E, B).
One mode has a solution that remains regular as |G| -> c(!) ...
actually two of the modes do. One of the modes has a solution that
remains regular even as |G| goes ABOVE c (up to c/V^2). The other mode
is regular only up to |G| -> V.
If you go to a vacuum -- i.e. where mu epsilon = a -- then the vector
G will generally become "superfluous". It will generally be the case
that the equations above will be equivalent to their "stationary" (G =
0) forms:
(5) D = epsilon E
(6) B = mu H.
This can only occur if
* mu epsilon = a
* a > 0.
This is the one case where the frame of isotropy is no longer unique.
But it is also worth underscoring that these conditions are necessary
BUT NOT SUFFICIENT. That is, G does NOT necessarily become superfluous
-- not even for a relativistic vacuum. The one case where a vestige of
G remains is in the limit as |G| -> c and V -> c.
Ironically, that one exception is also the one case that provides the
answer to Einstein's question "what's it like to travel alongside a
light beam?"
set...@att.net
Nov 1, 2011, 8:35:11 AM11/1/11
to
On Oct 30, 12:46 pm, Arend Lammertink <lam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> I have studied quite a lot of alternative material on my own
> discipline, Electrical Engineering, in which I hold a Masters degree
> from the University of Twente.
>
> Hi there,
>
> I have studied quite a lot of alternative material on my own
> discipline, Electrical Engineering, in which I hold a Masters degree
> from the University of Twente.
>
> Just recently, I have been able to disprove Einstein's relativity
> theory once and for all. It is based on a fundamental thinking error
> when formulating the Maxwell equations. Maxwell assumed the fields to
> be caused by matter, while we know matter and (particular) EM waves
> are one and the same thing. So, how can matter be the cause for the
> fields, if these same fields are causing the matter to exist? When
> you correct for that error, really the floor drops from underneath the
> whole relativity theory...
>
> theory once and for all. It is based on a fundamental thinking error
> when formulating the Maxwell equations. Maxwell assumed the fields to
> be caused by matter, while we know matter and (particular) EM waves
> are one and the same thing. So, how can matter be the cause for the
> fields, if these same fields are causing the matter to exist? When
> you correct for that error, really the floor drops from underneath the
> whole relativity theory...
>
> So, I am convinced I managed to disprove Einstein's relativity theory
> and uncovered the root of the error in it.
>
> and uncovered the root of the error in it.
>
> See my article on the subject, which may be freely republished if you
> like:
> "Last week the newspapers were filled with the discovery of
> "impossible" particles traveling faster than the speed of light. A
> month ago an "impossible" star was discovered and earlier the Pioneer
> space probes also refused to adhere to the law. This way, the
> scientific establishment will slowly but surely be forced to return to
> reality, the reality of the existence of a real, physical ether with
> fluid-like properties. The inevitable result of that will be that
> Einstein's relativity theory will go down in the history books as one
> of the biggest fallacies ever brought forth by science. In the future
> they will look back to relativity with equal disbelief as to the
> "Earth is flat" concept. The relativity theory not only goes against
> common sense, as Tesla already said in 1932, a fundamental thinking
> error has been made by Maxwell in his equations. This eventually lead
> to the erroneous relativity theory, as is proven in this article. It
> is therefore no exaggeration to state that the scientific
> establishment is going to have a religious experience."
A new theory of relativity called IRT is available in the following
> like:
> "Last week the newspapers were filled with the discovery of
> "impossible" particles traveling faster than the speed of light. A
> month ago an "impossible" star was discovered and earlier the Pioneer
> space probes also refused to adhere to the law. This way, the
> scientific establishment will slowly but surely be forced to return to
> reality, the reality of the existence of a real, physical ether with
> fluid-like properties. The inevitable result of that will be that
> Einstein's relativity theory will go down in the history books as one
> of the biggest fallacies ever brought forth by science. In the future
> they will look back to relativity with equal disbelief as to the
> "Earth is flat" concept. The relativity theory not only goes against
> common sense, as Tesla already said in 1932, a fundamental thinking
> error has been made by Maxwell in his equations. This eventually lead
> to the erroneous relativity theory, as is proven in this article. It
> is therefore no exaggeration to state that the scientific
> establishment is going to have a religious experience."
link. IRT includes the SR math as a subset. However the equations of
IRT are valid in all aplications, including gravity. This means that
IRT can be used to replace GRT in cosmology applications. Also IRT
have no paradoxes.
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2100irt.dtg.pdf
PD
Nov 1, 2011, 9:31:12 AM11/1/11
to
On 11/1/2011 4:17 AM, admformeto wrote:
>
>
> Are you one of those people?
> If so, please explain how does one find reference points in empty space
> using higher dimensions.
> Better still, please explain how does one measure curved space.
This turns out not to be too complicated. You map straight lines.
>
>
> Are you one of those people?
> If so, please explain how does one find reference points in empty space
> using higher dimensions.
> Better still, please explain how does one measure curved space.
Straight lines are given by things that travel naturally in geodesics,
such as light or neutrinos. You can use such straight lines to map out,
say, triangles, and then you survey the sum of the angles. The sum of
the angles will be pi only if there is no curvature.
admformeto
Nov 1, 2011, 10:10:17 AM11/1/11
to
"Rock Brentwood" <federat...@netzero.com> wrote in message
news:1dd68bb0-2c4a-41fe...@a12g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 30, 9:31 pm, "admformeto" <admform...@onet.eu> wrote:
>> "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> > This is not true. Maxwell’s equations predict a medium for light to
>> > propagate through at a constant speed relative to the stationary
>> > background of this medium. In doing so, what is observed as empty
>> > vacuum exists this illusive and still undetected medium that gives the
>> > properties of the permeability and the permittivity in free space.
>> > <shrug>
>>
>> In geometry if you claim precise dimension you must have precise
>> reference
>> points.
>> And just how does Maxwell manages to find the reference points of such
>> medium?
>
> Not reference points, but reference velocity.
Reference velocity still needs reference points and how do you establish
>> "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> > This is not true. Maxwell’s equations predict a medium for light to
>> > propagate through at a constant speed relative to the stationary
>> > background of this medium. In doing so, what is observed as empty
>> > vacuum exists this illusive and still undetected medium that gives the
>> > properties of the permeability and the permittivity in free space.
>> > <shrug>
>>
>> In geometry if you claim precise dimension you must have precise
>> reference
>> points.
>> And just how does Maxwell manages to find the reference points of such
>> medium?
>
> Not reference points, but reference velocity.
reference points in vacuum?
admformeto
Nov 1, 2011, 10:25:18 AM11/1/11
to
"PD" <thedrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:j8osau$d53$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
You need to describe a physical situation with real objects and its geometry
to visualize your claim. Or else it is just meaningless to the subject of
aether or curvature of vacuum.
The curvature is defined as collection of straight line segments of unit
lengths. Line segments require precise points but there is none in vacuum of
space.
PD
Nov 1, 2011, 10:34:13 AM11/1/11
to
On 11/1/2011 9:25 AM, admformeto wrote:
>
>
> "PD" <thedrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:j8osau$d53$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>> On 11/1/2011 4:17 AM, admformeto wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Are you one of those people?
>>> If so, please explain how does one find reference points in empty space
>>> using higher dimensions.
>>> Better still, please explain how does one measure curved space.
>>
>> This turns out not to be too complicated. You map straight lines.
>> Straight lines are given by things that travel naturally in geodesics,
>> such as light or neutrinos. You can use such straight lines to map
>> out, say, triangles, and then you survey the sum of the angles. The
>> sum of the angles will be pi only if there is no curvature.
>>
>
> Line has infinite amount of points but there is none in vacuum.
> You need to describe a physical situation with real objects and its
> geometry
> to visualize your claim. Or else it is just meaningless to the subject
> of aether or curvature of vacuum.
Meaningless to YOU, perhaps. But trajectories of things like light and
>
>
> "PD" <thedrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:j8osau$d53$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>> On 11/1/2011 4:17 AM, admformeto wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Are you one of those people?
>>> If so, please explain how does one find reference points in empty space
>>> using higher dimensions.
>>> Better still, please explain how does one measure curved space.
>>
>> This turns out not to be too complicated. You map straight lines.
>> Straight lines are given by things that travel naturally in geodesics,
>> such as light or neutrinos. You can use such straight lines to map
>> out, say, triangles, and then you survey the sum of the angles. The
>> sum of the angles will be pi only if there is no curvature.
>>
>
> Line has infinite amount of points but there is none in vacuum.
> You need to describe a physical situation with real objects and its
> geometry
> to visualize your claim. Or else it is just meaningless to the subject
> of aether or curvature of vacuum.
neutrinos are real things to physicists.
I completely get, Mathew, that you have trouble getting your head
wrapped around anything other than material things you can put your
hands on and touch.
Rest assured, Mathew, that most people do not have the same limitations
that you suffer.
admformeto
Nov 1, 2011, 10:48:00 AM11/1/11
to
news:j8p012$n82$2...@speranza.aioe.org...
That is an evasive answer. The physics is a science of reality and reality
is matter in motion contained in property-less space.
If you cannot describe your claims in terms of motion geometry of material
objects then you are crossing the boundary of physical reality and science
fiction.
is matter in motion contained in property-less space.
If you cannot describe your claims in terms of motion geometry of material
objects then you are crossing the boundary of physical reality and science
fiction.
PD
Nov 1, 2011, 11:16:53 AM11/1/11
to
ideas, and you are demanding an answer that DOES conform to your ideas.
That will not fly. You must be prepared to accept that your own ideas
may not be entirely correct, and that is YOU that must alter your
preconceptions.
> The physics is a science of reality and
> reality is matter in motion contained in property-less space.
matter what YOU think physics SHOULD be. And above all, it really does
not matter what YOU think nature should be like. Nature doesn't give a
damn what you think it is. You have to ask nature what it is, not try to
tell nature what it is.
Over the course of the last 150 years, we have learned that reality
consists of MORE THAN matter in motion -- there are things that beyond
that which have firm physical reality. And on top of that, we have
learned that space is NOT devoid of properties at all. Again, TELLING
nature that its space must be property-less by definition is pointless.
All that produces is that this thing you call property-less space (which
is property-less by definition) doesn't have any bearing on our reality,
because the space that we *observe* DOES have physically measurable
properties.
Finally, let me say that if you want to know what physics is, you ask a
physicist. You are not a physicist -- at best, you are an electronic
technician with some background in 3D projection technology. A lawyer
would not be able to tell an electrical engineer that what he is doing
is not proper electrical engineering, and a surgeon would not be able to
tell an architect that what he is doing is not architecture.
> If you cannot describe your claims in terms of motion geometry of
> material objects then you are crossing the boundary of physical reality
> and science fiction.
contained in the box that you want to try to stuff it in.
admformeto
Nov 1, 2011, 1:01:41 PM11/1/11
to
news:j8p2h3$u8m$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
I guess you will not provide anything useful.
Floods with words and excuses for answers.
I will not attempt to converse with you any more since you comments are
science-less and you defy logic.
Floods with words and excuses for answers.
I will not attempt to converse with you any more since you comments are
science-less and you defy logic.
PD
Nov 1, 2011, 1:11:53 PM11/1/11
to
> news:j8p2h3$u8m$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>>
>>> If you cannot describe your claims in terms of motion geometry of
>>> material objects then you are crossing the boundary of physical reality
>>> and science fiction.
>>
>> No sir. All that has happened is that physical reality cannot be
>> contained in the box that you want to try to stuff it in.
>
> I guess you will not provide anything useful.
> Floods with words and excuses for answers.
> I will not attempt to converse with you any more since you comments are
> science-less and you defy logic.
That's completely up to you.
However, my remarks stand. If you want to know what science is, you ask
a scientist. You don't get to choose what is science and what is not, as
you are not a scientist. Science does not conform to your expectations
of being *strictly* about matter in motion in property-less space.
Tough. That doesn't make it non-science, even though it doesn't meet
your expectations.
As far as logic is concerned, you apparently confuse logic with your
common-sense. You believe that if something conflicts with your common
sense and your preconceived ideas (e.g. that everything MUST be about
matter, and that space CANNOT have any properties), then it defies
logic. But that isn't illogic. It just means your preconceived notions
are not shared.
As far as providing anything useful, what use do you expect to get out
of this newsgroup? You haven't asked for any answers (instead, you've
just made a string of incorrect statements), and so you won't get
answers. The ONE time you asked for anything (demonstrations of light
traveling in non-straight paths), I gave it to you.
As far as usefulness is concerned, there is only ONE THING that YOU have
offered, and that is a demonstration of an experiment with instantaneous
communication. Since you have yet to produce this, your usefulness has
been rather thin yourself.
PD
>>
>>> If you cannot describe your claims in terms of motion geometry of
>>> material objects then you are crossing the boundary of physical reality
>>> and science fiction.
>>
>> No sir. All that has happened is that physical reality cannot be
>> contained in the box that you want to try to stuff it in.
>
> I guess you will not provide anything useful.
> Floods with words and excuses for answers.
> I will not attempt to converse with you any more since you comments are
> science-less and you defy logic.
However, my remarks stand. If you want to know what science is, you ask
a scientist. You don't get to choose what is science and what is not, as
you are not a scientist. Science does not conform to your expectations
of being *strictly* about matter in motion in property-less space.
Tough. That doesn't make it non-science, even though it doesn't meet
your expectations.
As far as logic is concerned, you apparently confuse logic with your
common-sense. You believe that if something conflicts with your common
sense and your preconceived ideas (e.g. that everything MUST be about
matter, and that space CANNOT have any properties), then it defies
logic. But that isn't illogic. It just means your preconceived notions
are not shared.
As far as providing anything useful, what use do you expect to get out
of this newsgroup? You haven't asked for any answers (instead, you've
just made a string of incorrect statements), and so you won't get
answers. The ONE time you asked for anything (demonstrations of light
traveling in non-straight paths), I gave it to you.
As far as usefulness is concerned, there is only ONE THING that YOU have
offered, and that is a demonstration of an experiment with instantaneous
communication. Since you have yet to produce this, your usefulness has
been rather thin yourself.
PD
1treePetrifiedForestLane
Nov 1, 2011, 9:24:51 PM11/1/11
to
he never answers me, so why should he answer
such a wordy thing?... but, yes, indeedy,
"there ain't no absolute vacuum,
what Pascal assumed he had found."
> Of necessity, in a Galilean-covariant theory, you have to write the
> constitutive laws in this way in terms of a medium, since no in-vacuo
> law is possible that produces a finite propagation speed (simply
> because no finite speed is Galilei-invariant).
>
> For that reason (and for an entirely separate, but much deeper reason
> having to do with the self-force and self-energy problem), Maxwell
> expressed doubt as to the existence of any such thing as a true honest-
> to-goodness vacuum.
>
> The passage over to Relativity does NOT eliminate G. You STILL have
> the notion of an "isotropic frame" in any isotropic medium. Outer
> space, it bears mentioning, is one such medium, since not even space
> is a complete vacuum. (There is no such thing as an absolute vacuum).
>
> The relativistic version of the Maxwell-Thomson relations are the
> Einstein-Laub-Minkowski relations,
> (3) D + a G x H = epsilon (E + G x B)
> (4) B - a G x E = mu (H - G x D)
> where a = (1/c)^2, and c is the invariant speed. In this setting, a
> distinction is made between the in-medium speed of light V = 1/root(mu
> epsilon) and the invariant speed that is often misnamed "the speed of
> light".
given that Sun reaches only about 23.5 degrees over the horizon,
at the poles, what is the angle of total reflection of water?
both Al Gore's, Junior and Senior, careers were funded
by Occidental Petroleum (Armand Hammer). Gore, Jr.,
was responsible for many of the problems of poor Bill Clinton,
partly because of a long-term policy of "co-presidency"
since H-Dubya finagled his way into the Reagan Admin., and
partly because of the *soto voce* organization known
as the Principals Cmte., which is the VP running the Cabinet
with his own "foreign intel" advisor, who was an awful Israeli hawk
under Gore, whenever the President is incapacited,
such as during the impeachment that Gore promoted (that
was when the al-Shifa plant was bombed, or
it was when Clinton was blamed for bombing Iraq,
after some fake story from the Bushwhackers;
see http://tarpley.net for the first edition of _The Unauth. Bio.
of GHWB_).
such a wordy thing?... but, yes, indeedy,
"there ain't no absolute vacuum,
what Pascal assumed he had found."
> Of necessity, in a Galilean-covariant theory, you have to write the
> constitutive laws in this way in terms of a medium, since no in-vacuo
> law is possible that produces a finite propagation speed (simply
> because no finite speed is Galilei-invariant).
>
> For that reason (and for an entirely separate, but much deeper reason
> having to do with the self-force and self-energy problem), Maxwell
> expressed doubt as to the existence of any such thing as a true honest-
> to-goodness vacuum.
>
> The passage over to Relativity does NOT eliminate G. You STILL have
> the notion of an "isotropic frame" in any isotropic medium. Outer
> space, it bears mentioning, is one such medium, since not even space
> is a complete vacuum. (There is no such thing as an absolute vacuum).
>
> The relativistic version of the Maxwell-Thomson relations are the
> Einstein-Laub-Minkowski relations,
> (3) D + a G x H = epsilon (E + G x B)
> (4) B - a G x E = mu (H - G x D)
> where a = (1/c)^2, and c is the invariant speed. In this setting, a
> distinction is made between the in-medium speed of light V = 1/root(mu
> epsilon) and the invariant speed that is often misnamed "the speed of
> light".
> Ironically, that one exception is also the one case that provides the
> answer to Einstein's question "what's it like to travel alongside a
> light beam?"
thus:
> answer to Einstein's question "what's it like to travel alongside a
> light beam?"
given that Sun reaches only about 23.5 degrees over the horizon,
at the poles, what is the angle of total reflection of water?
both Al Gore's, Junior and Senior, careers were funded
by Occidental Petroleum (Armand Hammer). Gore, Jr.,
was responsible for many of the problems of poor Bill Clinton,
partly because of a long-term policy of "co-presidency"
since H-Dubya finagled his way into the Reagan Admin., and
partly because of the *soto voce* organization known
as the Principals Cmte., which is the VP running the Cabinet
with his own "foreign intel" advisor, who was an awful Israeli hawk
under Gore, whenever the President is incapacited,
such as during the impeachment that Gore promoted (that
was when the al-Shifa plant was bombed, or
it was when Clinton was blamed for bombing Iraq,
after some fake story from the Bushwhackers;
see http://tarpley.net for the first edition of _The Unauth. Bio.
of GHWB_).
jim
Nov 1, 2011, 10:12:00 PM11/1/11
to
On Nov 1, 8:11 am, Rock Brentwood <federation2...@netzero.com> wrote:
> On Oct 30, 9:31 pm, "admformeto" <admform...@onet.eu> wrote:
>
> > "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > > This is not true. Maxwell’s equations predict a medium for light to
> > > propagate through at a constant speed relative to the stationary
> > > background of this medium. In doing so, what is observed as empty
> > > vacuum exists this illusive and still undetected medium that gives the
> > > properties of the permeability and the permittivity in free space.
> > > <shrug>
>
> > In geometry if you claim precise dimension you must have precise reference
> > points.
> > And just how does Maxwell manages to find the reference points of such
> > medium?
>
> Not reference points, but reference velocity. Early on, he introduced
> a reference velocity for the "stationary frame". Eventually, by the
> time we get to the treatise, it got its own name, G; and generally
> appears as the G vector (occasionally written just as v).
Well, since they had to modify Maxwell's equation about 1000 times
> On Oct 30, 9:31 pm, "admformeto" <admform...@onet.eu> wrote:
>
> > "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > > This is not true. Maxwell’s equations predict a medium for light to
> > > propagate through at a constant speed relative to the stationary
> > > background of this medium. In doing so, what is observed as empty
> > > vacuum exists this illusive and still undetected medium that gives the
> > > properties of the permeability and the permittivity in free space.
> > > <shrug>
>
> > In geometry if you claim precise dimension you must have precise reference
> > points.
> > And just how does Maxwell manages to find the reference points of such
> > medium?
>
> Not reference points, but reference velocity. Early on, he introduced
> a reference velocity for the "stationary frame". Eventually, by the
> time we get to the treatise, it got its own name, G; and generally
> appears as the G vector (occasionally written just as v).
to make displacement current make any sense. What many can't still
understand is that by the time they got that done, the people who
know how constitutive things work had already discovered
radioactivity,
DSP, Goedel's Thereoms, Fractals, DNA, integrated circuits, and
Lasers.
Szczepan Bialek
Nov 2, 2011, 4:07:59 AM11/2/11
to
news:cb2195bb-1f5f-40d2...@gy7g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
fascinnating stories.
Did you disprove it?
>It is based on a fundamental thinking error
> when formulating the Maxwell equations. Maxwell assumed the fields to
> be caused by matter, while we know matter and (particular) EM waves
> are one and the same thing. So, how can matter be the cause for the
> fields, if these same fields are causing the matter to exist? When
> you correct for that error, really the floor drops from underneath the
> whole relativity theory...
Now you do not know who wrote the "Maxwell equations" and the rest of
fascinating stories for students.
If you hold a Masters degree and want to know how the reality works you
should red the oryginal papers of Faraday, Stokes and Tesla.
S*
> Hi there,
>
> I have studied quite a lot of alternative material on my own
> discipline, Electrical Engineering, in which I hold a Masters degree
> from the University of Twente.
>
> Just recently, I have been able to disprove Einstein's relativity
> theory once and for all.
If you went to kindergarten you was told about St. Nicolas and the rest of
>
> I have studied quite a lot of alternative material on my own
> discipline, Electrical Engineering, in which I hold a Masters degree
> from the University of Twente.
>
> Just recently, I have been able to disprove Einstein's relativity
> theory once and for all.
fascinnating stories.
Did you disprove it?
>It is based on a fundamental thinking error
> when formulating the Maxwell equations. Maxwell assumed the fields to
> be caused by matter, while we know matter and (particular) EM waves
> are one and the same thing. So, how can matter be the cause for the
> fields, if these same fields are causing the matter to exist? When
> you correct for that error, really the floor drops from underneath the
> whole relativity theory...
fascinating stories for students.
If you hold a Masters degree and want to know how the reality works you
should red the oryginal papers of Faraday, Stokes and Tesla.
S*
0 new messages