Maybe, comments on Maxwell-Hertz Equations by Branko Petrovic will open the eyes of Newman and many others who don't believe you.

In order to conveniently access my last essay, you might click here . While I understand and respect your firm trust in standard mathematics, I cannot hide that e.g. Heaviside and perhaps also Gibbs are to blame for not following Hertz. I am fully aware that average mathematicians will reject my criticism too.

Above I gave you already an opportunity to simply click my essay 1364.

Best, Eckard

  • [deleted]

  • Post #34

Thomas,

Many, many thanks. From the bottom of my heart, many thanks.

Your explanation of how clock timing for the GPS system works is something I have desired to know for years. It makes perfect sense to me. All the clocks are adjusted to be consistent in the receiver's frame of reference. I may use your essay as a citation for this subject.

The v/c correction that you include in the equation for Lorentz force is very interesting to me. I am working with quaternions and attempting to express physics using them. I have proposed that the LT be expressed as follows:

LT = cos(theta) i*sin(theta) = sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) (v/c)*i.

I have not yet attempted to place this into the Maxwell Equations, but when I do, I suspect that the term you have added will be present. Now I have a plausible explanation for it.

Best Regards and Good Luck,

Gary Simpson

    Thanks for our favorable words.

    I have always been interested in quaternions, but never found a way to use them.

    It is good that someone is keeping abreast of the problem.

    Best, Tom Phipps

    Dear Tom,

    It is a saying in Africa that if you want to hear the truth, go to an elderly man. At 90, you are no longer looking for money, grants, job promotion, etc. All you wish for now is that Truth should rise again in our physics. Only those you called 'first class citizens' will oppose you.

    Your analysis of the Maxwell equations was superb. Although you mentioned GPS, I observe that you did not make mention other experiments showing that earth motion can affect light arrival times, contrary to the Michelson-Morley findings. The challenge is how to reconcile the two seemingly discordant findings. I use Galilean transformation and invariance principles to suggest a solution in this paper.

    My essay is also here, and I will be happy for a truth seeker to view and criticize.

    Best regards,

    Akinbo

    4 days later

    Dear Tom,

    It's great to hear from you again after all these years! (Jeff K. of "The Alternate View" fame was quite happy to be told you had appeared here.) I'm sorry that we just went unconnected for awhile. I appreciate your giving a good Referee report to get my first journal publication, for Physics Essays. I find your gadfly Socratic challenges to be refreshing and thought-provoking, even if I am not convinced of your grand vision. I do think it's important to look into longitudinal field issues, whatever the explanation.

    You (and others) will surely be interested in my own offering this time. It's about EM interactions extrapolated to higher-dimensional spaces. In particular, I take up the problem you referred to in Heretical Verities as the "left-behind potential hill". This is in essence the "4/3 paradox" about electromagnetic mass, and how does one explain it "directly" in terms of primary EM interactions PLUS that special correction from the internal stresses. I show how to solve that not just in 3-D space, but all spaces with analogous physics - and find that it will not work OK unless D = 3, number of spatial dimensions (taking one of time for granted.)

    Then I give my philosophical thoughts, which I hope are interesting but I'm proud I could provide some actual physics meat there too. Well an email address is given in my essay, so drop me a line sometime. And still going strong at 90, that is great. You remind me of my 87 y.o. mother. Cheers.

    Hi Tom,

    Once again you have encapsulated so concisely and elegantly the philosophical and mathematical woes of the current physics paradigm. I think specifically your discussion of the GPS clocks makes clear the inconsistencies that many present physicists are happy to accept. Fortunately the GPS system was developed by engineers who were quite happy to accept "Newtonian" time if that was required to make the system measure unambiguous locations on earth. This demonstrates that the mathematics of falsifiable engineering is always more useful than the fanciest of untestable field theories.

    I thought your development of a new way of expressing the Ampere force by combining the methodology of Ampere, Neumann and Weber is an interesting development and one I look forward to exploring further.

    In the meantime, I encourage your continuing efforts to try and make the scientific funding bodies aware of how unimaginative and wasteful their current grant awarding strategies are. Maybe this essay will bring this to their attention and we can see more research into longitudinal forces in fusion plasmas and other technologies in which unclosed or flexible circuits will highlight the existence and potential benefits of longitudinal EM force.

    Congratulations on a very encouraging and poignant essay.

    Regards

    Neal

    6 days later

    Tom

    This is one of the best essays, I've read in a long time. All of it was good including your comments on relativity and Maxwell's Eqs. Particularly good were your comments about covariance and invariance. Many are with you on the surface problems (e.g., relativity), but those comments provide even deeper insight!

    Nick Percival

    Dear Nick,

    Thanks for the words of encouragement.

    For Neal Graneau:

    I have been thinking a bit more about the plasma instability problem. Deep within the body of a plasma there must be perfect symmetry in all directions. So, any new force term can be expected to exert no net observable effect. But near any boundary there is asymmetry, and a new force term may produce unexpected results. That is as far as I can go without calculation.

    Best, Tom

    8 days later

    Tom,

    I see the "genuinely modern physics" as that which uses the quantum world to explain the macro to be quite intriguing. I marvel at the unfolding understanding of the classical world by studying the very small in the field of quantum biology regarding navigation of birds, DNA, and the LHC. I do believe "reality checks" can be warped by false interpretations, but see progress in modern studies like peer-reviewed BICEP2 and searching for the origins of Earth's water -- asteroids vs. comets -- by landing on comets and studying them.

    Not being a mathematician, I don't know if "over-mathematized" is a continuing threat. I do believe that its worship as divorced from pure physics is not good.

    I also see too much attribution of the classical world's behavior to the quantum world.

    Enjoyed your essay, Tom. Thanks for sharing.

    Jim

    Dear Jim,

    Yes, the quantum world is much used to explain the world of our senses. But the opposite is also true. For instance there is the Drude theory of electrical and thermal conduction, which uses the classical kinetic theory of gas dynamics to treat the valence electrons in a conductor as a gas. And so on. That might fit your observation about "attribution of the classical world's behavior to the quantum world."

    I am glad you could tolerate my essay. I think most physicists would not feel that way about it.

    Best, Tom

      Incidentally, Tom, I worked for a short time at NOTS, later called Naval Weapons Station, in 1968. The sand was bad for my pregnant wife and we went to the Naval undersea Warfare Center.

      Jim

      6 days later

      Dear Professor Phipps,

      I think Newton was wrong about abstract gravity; Einstein was wrong about abstract space/time, and Hawking was wrong about the explosive capability of NOTHING.

      All I ask is that you give my essay WHY THE REAL UNIVERSE IS NOT MATHEMATICAL a fair reading and that you allow me to answer any objections you may leave in my comment box about it.

      Joe Fisher

      Dear Tom,

      All surfaces must travel at the same constant speed no matter the apparent separation and seeming solid, liquid or vaporous physical conditions of observed surfaces.

      One must only be able to see real surface. Dreamers can only ever see dream surfaces. Alert mirage watchers can only ever see mirage surfaces. LSD shooters can only ever see psychedelic surfaces.

      Unfortunately, telescopes and microscopes and cameras utterly distort all real human observation of surface. But even those instruments confirm that it is physically impossible to identify a non-surface, therefore all surfaces must travel at the same constant speed at all times.

      Gratefully,

      Joe Fisher

        Please keep in mind that you have always had a real complete skin surface. All natural objects such as real planets, real trees, real mountains, and real blades of grass each have a real complete surface. The real surface of a fabricated sphere could only travel at the same constant speed as the real surface of a fabricated cube whether the sphere had been physically induced to spin or not. All you have to do to prove this is to look at a real spinning sphere that has been placed on a flat surface next to a real cube. You see both partial surfaces instantaneously and simultaneously.

        As I advised you, Newton, and Einstein were completely wrong about the abstract motion of abstract objects.

        Joe Fisher

        There are many things that you state that are true and consistent with observations and there are many things that you state that are demonstrably inconsistent with observations. Math has nothing to to with it.

        You do not mention whether mass is equivalent to energy in your model...it if is, then LT follows. If MEE is not well enough demonstrated by the countless observations including nuclear defects, it is not clear what observations would invalidate MEE for you.

        You mention GPS clock corrections for gravity, which are true. GPS clocks are synchronized for gravity and that change is constant, but that does not invalidate the fact that gravity affects clocks. You also state that GPS accounts for velocity by changing clocks, but this is not true. The relative velocity of a GPS sattelite does affect its clock and that change must accounted for continuously by knowing velocity.

        Since the Lorentz transformation works so well and satellite velocity relative to the ground an easy calc, the LT is an easy calc and GPS gives very precise locations. But there is no such thing as a uniform GPS time.

        Dear Steve,

        I take it you are a relativist. If so. thanks for taking the time to set me straight. Most would not bother.

        That said, I must confess to being mystified, rather than enlightened, by your two criticisms.

        First, you bring up E = mc^2 as justifying the LT. The LT does not refer to mass or energy, so this is a bit of a stretch. There are even some who attribute E = mc^2 to others than Einstein.

        Your second point, about GPS time, escapes me. But let us suppose you are right, and GPS time does not flow uniformly. ("There is no such thing as a uniform GPS time.") In that case forget GPS time and call uniformly flowing time by some other name, say, Collective Time (CT). This is achieved in the way I described. Namely, by correcting clock running rates for gravity and motion, so that all clocks run in step. Yes, the motion corrections have to be continually up-dated to bring this about. Then CT flows uniformly, just as Newton said. "Time" is freed from the infirmities of clocks. Just as, in thermodynamics, "temperature" is freed (by corrections) from the infirmities of thermometers. No? Impossible? Impossible only if we live "in" Minkowski space.

        I should like to end our argument here, since otherwise I fear (as in the case of Joe Fisher) we shall merely begin to repeat ourselves, so that argument is reduced to the dueling of mantras.

        Best, Tom

          I actually am a quantumologist, not really a relativist per se. The equation for LT, gamma, comes from the ratio of energies or masses, and so is dimensionless. However, equating mass and energy is the key to LT and that is my point.

          There are some serious flaws in GR, but LT is not one of them. The equivalence of mass and energy (MEE) is the underpinning of my universe and yet there are many things misleading about obsessing with the speed of light being constant. While that is a useful principle in many contexts, it is MEE that is the overarching principle, not LT.

          While it is possible to synchronize clocks in gravity fields as GPS time, a moving clock ticks slower than a clock at rest. If you synchronize rest and moving frame GPS clocks, the direction of motion no longer dilates, but the other two dimensions then expand, so then you need to account for that change. The bottom line is that GPS clocks time more slowly according to their relative velocities.

          There is an absolute clock in the CMB, which is a z = 1091, so if you want an absolute time, that would be the clock to use. Local time is our Cs-133 atomic clock, but we actually need both dimensions of time to know what time it is, absolute time and local time. This is the proper time of relativity, but velocity still makes moving clocks tick more slowly than the CMB clock, which is the clock of the universe.

          Dear Steve,

          In 1960, before you were born, I published my one and only Phys. Rev. paper, "Generalization of Quantum Mechanics." I guess I was a quantumologist then, without knowing it. But, needless to say, I failed to revolutionize quantumology.

          I do not know about those other two dimensions expanding that you speak of. That's not standard 1905 SRT in any case. And about needing "to account for that change," I am also at sea. Account how? The moving clock has already been set in a certain way. Are we to reset it, or does it reset itself? In any case, we agree "that GPS clocks time more slowly according to their relative velocities" -- provided we are talking about proper time and uncompensated clocks. If the clocks have been fiddled with, they could run faster, slower, or anything.

          I agree that one can get fooled by over-emphasizing light speed constancy. The definition of speed depends on the way time is measured. In fact the modification of Maxwell's equations I proposed predicts variable light speed, when the wave equation is solved. I did not want to get into that, since a recent paper of mine in Physics Essays does so.

          I completely buy the mass-energy equivalence as physics. It is the logical link to the LT that I question. But, as I said, we are in danger of merely reiterating our positions. Remember, "time" in the LT is always proper time. Deviate from that and it is a new ballgame.

          GPS time or CT, as I choose to see it, requires a "Master Clock" showing its proper time, at rest in any inertial system. ("Slave" clocks in other states of motion are corrected to run in step with this Master.) That could include your CMB system, but does not require it.

          Best, Tom

          Tom,

          Time grows short, so I am revisiting essays I've read to assure I've rated them. I find that I rated yours on 3/28, rating it as one I could immediately relate to. I hope you get a chance to look at mine: http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2345.

          Jim

          Dear Professor Phipps

          I enjoyed your essay - the sense of indignation at what is being fobbed on us as physics, and reading your assured corrections (Maxwell Eq.) or demolitions (the alleged symmetry of space and time).

          In my Beautiful Universe Theory (BU) I have proposed a universal theory starting from scratch - in which time is nonexistent, just the accounting of the 'now' state of an evolving universe. No time dilation just changing clock time as you propose. And certainly no space contraction, just physical change in the length of meter sticks. In BU effects are local, discrete and causal, and 'spacetime' a dirty word. Clever mathematics has allowed Einstein to propose a fixed speed of light c and everything else, space and time contort according to an observer. Why is an observer - your Tom Thumb or his cousin, perhaps - necessary? Gravity works much better without a fixed c, but one in which light slows down in a gravitational field, as Eddington proposed. You mention Hertz - he died too soon without explaining his concept of an electric universe: an ether encompassing both space and matter made of the same stuff - much as in my theory - explaining the Michelson Morely experiments.

          I wish I had your ability to juggle algebraic concepts to beat the physicists at their own game, but I only visualize geometrically.

          Congratulations on your longevity at XC years. May you enjoy happy healthy light-years at C and beyond and see your views vindicated!

          Vladimir