Correction of our definition for gravity

On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 11:58 PM, Koen van Vlaenderen wrote: h

You defined and 'aether current', P = v rho, since rho is an 'aether density'. What unit of measure does aether density have in your theory? (is it mass density or something else?)
The same question for vector field 'v' with respect to the definitions of A and Phi (is this a speed vector or what? it is undefined).

Yes, rho is the mass density of the aether and v is the bulk aether flow velocity, and it is defined under the paragraph "Paul Stowe's Aether model" under "using the continuum hypothesis".

So, rho is in [kg/m³] and v in [m/s]. I added these to the article for clarity.

OF COURSE!

I hadn't given this much thought, I just copied Stowe's : "And let us also add Stowe's definition for the gravity."

Heck, the gradient of a vector field isn't even defined AFAIK!

<note>: our original definition for gravity was:

{$$\mathbf{G} = \nabla \mathbf{E} = - \nabla (\nabla (\nabla \cdot \mathbf{v}))$$}

<end note>

Since in our definition, E is curl free, we cannot use the curl operator to define a derived field. So, the only choice we have for defining gravity is to define a scalar gravitation potential field [V] as follows:

[V] = div [E]

{$$\mathbf{V} = \nabla \cdot \mathbf{E}$$}

And then [G] becomes:

{$$\mathbf{G} = \nabla \mathbf{V} = \nabla (\nabla \cdot \mathbf{E})$$}

And since this field is rotation free, the Laplacian for the gravity field is given by:

{$$\nabla^2 \mathbf{E} = \nabla (\nabla \cdot \mathbf{E})$$}

So, then gravity is essentially associated with standing longitudinal waves. And as you would expect, this matches exactly to "cymatics", which show how this works in water, which reveals how this mechanism is responsible for shaping atoms, etc. This picture says it all.

You cannot call this a theory yet, because of the introduced symbols with unknown units.
Once the units of measure are defined clearly for all the introduced physics qualities in your 'story', then we can call it theory, that can be falsified or verified by experiments (if the theory is logically consistent in the first place).

I think the units of measurements are clear, although I did not mention these explicitly in all cases. They can de derived naturally from the basic postulate, as explained above.

Please try again, and make a theory that predicts all well known 'Maxwellian' electrodynamics results and more!

I am pretty sure it does predict electrodynamics properly, since Stowe already solved a number of anomalies in his paper. As we have found, his fundamental proposal (i.e. how to model the aether itself) is ROCK SOLID, but his attempt to working it out into a complete model contains some inconsistencies, such as the one you found regarding gravity.

However, I'm 99.9% sure that when we work this further out, all known physics will naturally follow from our field definitions.

The aether-fluid analogy isn't necessarily true, aether might also be a plasma of unknown very light particles beyond the Planck scale.

Well, we don't actually describe the fundamental "particles" or whatever the aether consists of, since we're using the continuum hypothesis, which has a limited range of validity in the sense that a lower limit in terms of scale applies.

Does fluid physics laws also apply to a gas or plasma? You move in the right direction, there is 'something' beyond Maxwell's theory, on the level of classical electrodynamics, which might explain the "fundamental statistical" quantum behavior of "elementary" particles. Keep up the good work, thanks Arend, for sharing.

Yes, the properties of the gas, plasma or fluid are parametrized in the mass density (called permittivity in the standard EM model) and what is called the permeability in the EM model. The permeability can now be understood to be a parameter describing the vorticity of the medium at hand. At his moment, it is unclear how this is called in fluid dynamics, but I'm sure the concept also exists within fluid dynamics....

Koen van Vlaenderen wrote:

It is instantly false, in case your theory does not predict (describe) Faraday's law of induction. Your 'theory' seem to disagree with well established experimental results that confirm Faraday's law of induction, since your definitions of the E and B fields exclude Faraday's law of induction.

Yes and no.

The basic idea is that Faraday's law of induction *should* follow naturally from working out our field definitions.

Please note that our field description is in differential notation, whereby we have decomposed the velocity field [v] into a rotation free part and a divergence free part, along the Helmholtz / Laplacian decomposition.

We found that the term dA/dt, which essentially introduces Faraday's law of induction into the model, has been introduced in a mathematically inconsistent way, which is the fundamental error in the standard model which leads to relativity. And leaving the underlying assumption of the existence of a real, physical medium implied, is the fundamental error in the standard model which leads to gauge freedom, which leads to Quantum Weirdness.

Also, this mathematically inconsistent introduction of Farday's law into the standard model leads to a recursive problem, shortly described as follows:

Simply stated, the wave-particle duality principle says that all known matter as well as all known forms of electromagnetic radiation are basically the same thing. In other words, the wave-particle duality principle says (or should say IMHO) that particles ARE some kind of electromagnetic phenomenon.

So, if particles ARE electromagnetic in nature, and you attach the concept of "charge" as the cause for electromagnetism to "particles", you are actually saying:

1. electromagnetism is caused by charge;

2. charge is is a property of "particles";

3. "particles" are electromagnetic along the wave-particle duality principle;

4. "particles" are therefore caused by moving charge;

5. goto 2;

And there's your recursive problem, which is wrong IMHO.

Now that we have removed this recursive problem and have come to a complete and mathematically consistent field description in differential notation, working out the consequences should be trivial c.q. should follow naturally from the field definitions given.

> Yes and no.
It is Yes (it cannot be both).

No, it does not disagree with Faraday's law of induction, because that should follow naturally by working out the unified field description.

"Charge" is no longer considered to be a property of matter, but by working our way back from the definition for Phi, the problem can be resolved. Stowe has shown how to do this, by starting out by modelling the electron as being a vortex ring in his paper (and elsewhere).

We are forced to let go of the concept of "charge" and currents in the shape of "charge movements".

We need to work or way back from postulating the electron to be a vortex ring and then the traditional consideration should follow naturally.

You are trying to give an aether mechanism to Maxwell's theory. Bur what you are doing is changing Maxwell's theory to fit your mechanism.
You claim that with an aether velocity vector field of {$\mathbf{v}$}, we can add {$\mathbf{B}+\mathbf{E} = - \nabla^2 \mathbf{v}$} and that {$\nabla \times \mathbf{E} = \mathbf{0}$}. But, your results directly conflict with Maxwell's theory wherein you cannot add {$\mathbf{B}$} and {$\mathbf{E}$} and ∇×𝐄 + ∂𝐁/∂ t =0 always. You have shown that your aether mechanism gives a model that disagrees with Maxwell's theory and therefore disagrees with observation.
In the paper, you postulate an aether velocity field 𝐯 as the mechanicsm for Maxwell's theory. This leads to 𝐄+𝐁 = -∇²𝐯 and ∇×𝐄=0 anoung other expressions. Either your 𝐄 and 𝐁 fields are the Maxwell 𝐄 and 𝐁 fields or they are not.
• If they are the Maxwell 𝐄 and 𝐁 fields then there is a problem since Maxwell;s 𝐄 and 𝐁 are different fields and cannot be directly added. They are related by ∇×𝐄+ ∂𝐁/ ∂t = 0. Your results are in clear contradiction to Maxwell's theory.
• If they are not the Maxwell 𝐄 and 𝐁 fields then there is a problem since you have created a non-Maxwellian model that clearly conflicts with the empirically verified Maxwell model. In the least, you have not shown how your 𝐄 and 𝐁 relate to Maxwell's 𝐄 and 𝐁 which is what your aether model is claimed to support.

This is an excellent question, which is addressed right at the fundamental difference between Maxwell's model and ours. Koen van Vlaenderen pretty much made the same point, which you can read along with my answers just above.

Since our model is a revision of Maxwell's, it's obviously not the same. So, in that sense, one can say it's a non-Maxwellian model. In practice, however, the field definitions should lead to the same predictions as Maxwell's insofar as currently "empirically verified'. And you are correct that I have not yet worked out c.q. shown how our definitions relate to Maxwell's. In my answer to Koen, I already addressed the fundamental problem I have identified in Maxwell's model, which I refer to as the "recursive problem".

In my historical background article this problem is referred to as a "non sequitur" and a "recursive" issue:

This illustrates the "non sequitur" issue we encountered above, namely that electromagnetic waves are considered to be produced by moving "charged particles", while these particles show this "wave particle duality" behaviour themselves, as does "EM radiation" on it's turn. In other words: electromagnetic radiation is essentially considered to be produced by movements of "quanta" of electromagnetic radiation, called either "photons" or "particles". Kind of a dog chasing it's own tail, or recursion as software engineers call it.

Search for the term "sequitur" on that page for more background information.

What I (obviously) argue is that our approach does not contradict Maxwell's theory (insofar as empirically verified), because the concept of "charge", being a property of certain particles, should be introduced at the particle modelling level and NOT at the medium level.

In other words: because we have identified a recursive problem in the logical inter-relations between Maxwell's charge definition and that of "particles" or "photons", the concept of charge should *not* be included in the field model.

It should be included in the particle or photon model and NOT in the medium model.

In his paper and elsewhere, Stowe has pretty much shown, as far as I understand, that when a toroid topology is considered as a model for the electron, it is possible to calculate the value for the elemental charge e. In my notes, I wrote the following on this:

The basis of Stowe's theory is the definition of a simple model for describing the aether as if it were a compressible, adiabatic and inviscid fluid. Such a fluid can be described with Euler's equations:

The equations represent Cauchy equations of conservation of mass (continuity), and balance of momentum and energy, and can be seen as particular Navier–Stokes equations with zero viscosity and zero thermal conductivity.

In other words, with such an aether model, we can describe the conservation of mass, momentum and energy and if the hypothesis of the existence of such a kind of aether holds, these are the only three quantities that are (fundamentally) conserved.

The definition of his aether model is straightforward and can be found in his "A Foundation for the Unification of Physics" (1996) (*):

We will start by defining a single vector entity (a basic quantum [not a photon, neutrino, graviton]). The fundamental properties of this quantum entity is; it has momentum P, occupies space consisting of volume s, obeys Newton laws of motion, exerts no force, and no external forces are exerted on it. These quanta therefore move through four dimensional space (x,y,z,t) at velocity V and have an apparent mass m, equal to (P/V).
Next, a population of n of these quanta, having random orientation, occupying volume s', [...] results in a system described by basic kinetic theory (without friction or interacting forces {a superfluid state}). Since each quantum, by definition, has an intrinsic momentum P, the system momentum p_s, becomes simply n[p].

With this definition, all kinds of considerations can be made, for example about the question of whether or not an aether model should be compressible or not. In a Usenet posting dated 4/26/97 he wrote(*):

A little history of Maxwell's work. Maxwell fully acknowledges that his Treatise's were, of necessity, incomplete (or as he phrased it: "in our current state of ignorance"). He take the classical simplification of assuming an incompressible medium. This is done because it significantly simplifies the resulting derivations, and unless the media departs significantly from its equilibrium density, such compressibility has very little (negligible) impact on the results under consideration. But compressibility does affect the basic properties. Assumption of incompressibility mathematically defines the divergence of field velocity v as:

{$$div \, \mathbf{v} = 0$$}

where v is the media's particulate velocity. A direct consequence of this definition is that waves cannot be created or propagated in such a system (wave speed is infinite). But, as we all know, even though we assume incompressibility, every media (even liquids and solids) are not incompressible. The consequence of this is, for field velocity v:

{$$div \, \mathbf{v} > 0$$}

Thus the momentum field property (p = mv) is

{$$div \, \mathbf{p} > 0$$}

This has measurable physical consequences, and IS A FUNDAMENTAL UNIQUE PROPERTY of the field! Given that divergence is defined as:

{$$div = \lim_{V \to 0} \oint \frac{\delta A}{\delta V} \qquad \qquad \text{(A is area)}$$}

and has physical units of inverse distance (meters), Div v become the measure of an oscillation in the velocity field at any point in the continuum. The resulting momentum fluctuation is ... elemental charge, a unique property that is a consequence of the field's compressibility.

This statement illustrates the reasoning which led to Stowe's interpretation of the concept of charge, which he interprets as being a property of the field c.q. the medium. In "A Foundation for the Unification of Physics" (1996) he explained that in order to calculate the value of e, one needs to consider a torroidal topology, whereby both the enclosed volume as the surface area can be expressed in terms of the large toroidal radius, R, and the poloidal axis,r (*):

We can define the systemic fluctuations in the momentum content of a limiting volume element. This is known as the divergence. Divergence is defined as:

{$$div \, S = \lim_{S \to 0} \frac{\int \delta A}{\delta S}$$}

Where A is the surface area of volume S.
Taken for momentum we get:

{$$div \, \mathbf{P} = \lim_{S \to 0} \frac{\mathbf{P} \int \delta A}{\delta S}$$}

(Image from later paper)

This term e, becomes $\pm 2 \mathbf{P} / r$ in a torroidal topology (predominantly consisting of vortex rings {this is an assumption based on the spinor topology of superstring theories and consistent with the earlier atomic vortex theories}), $A = 4 \pi^2 R r$ and $S = 2 \pi^2 R r^2$ {R is the large toroidal radius and r the poloidal axis} and represents an intrinsic fluctuation of the quantized particulate momentum in the limiting volume element.

This is a truly remarkable finding, which finally gives us a basis for understanding what charge is and how the effect it causes, the electric field, propagates trough the medium. However, as we will see, we will have to refine Stowe's interpretation in order to come to a complete understanding of the phenomena of charge and the electric field.

Nonetheless, it is the particular idea of considering a toroidal topology within the context of the postulated existence of a physical aether which enables us to "adapt the theoretical foundation of physics to this new type of knowledge (Quantum Theory)", as Einstein once put it.

(*) Slightly edited for clarity, replaced ascii formulas with math symbols, added epmhasis, etc.

To sum this up:

I argue that our theory does not contradict Maxwell's because fundamentally Faraday's law should follow naturally from a particle model which still has to be defined on top of our current aether model. Stowe's work suggests this is pretty straightforward to do by considering the above line of reasoning.

A reaction from Sabine Hossenfelder

I posted the following comment on her article, which she did not approve:

Blogger lamare said...
"Having a look at the history of science, one can observe that working theories are always conserved rather than revised in front of contradictory evidence. This is because it is always possible to form a local hypothesis in order to explain away an anomaly rather than abandoning the whole theory."
In principle, that is a good approach. However, at some point one should ask the question:
How much sense does the theoretic body we have constructed in the standard model make, considering the history of how it all evolved from Maxwell's model describing the Electromagnetic field?
What sense does it make, to postulate gravity being caused by a curvature of space-time itself and considering the gravitational force to be a fictitious force? This was already heavily criticized by Nikola Tesla, for example:
"It might be inferred that I am alluding to the curvature of space supposed to exist according to the teachings of relativity, but nothing could be further from my mind. I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have no properties. [...] To say that in the presence of large bodies space becomes curved, is equivalent to stating that something can act upon nothing. I, for one, refuse to subscribe to such a view."
How much sense does it make to consider "spooky action at a distance" to be a real phenomenon? I mean, that would require infinite force propagating at an infinite speed. This was already heavily criticized by Albert Einstein, for example:
"[O]ne can hardly view the quantum-theoretical description as a complete representation of the physically real. If one attempts, nevertheless, so to view it, then one must assume that the physically real in B undergoes a sudden change because of a measurement in A. My physical instincts bristle at that suggestion.
However, if one renounces the assumption that what is present in different parts of space has an independent, real existence, then I don't see at all what physics is supposed to be describing. For what is thought to be a "system" is after all, just conventional, and I do not see how one is supposed to divide up the world objectively so that one can make statements about parts."
What I have done, is analyze the history of how all this came to be, and what led to what:
My conclusion was that Maxwell's equations need to be revized, so I re-derived them from the same basic hypothesis Maxwell is supposed to have started from: the aether hypothesis.
What I found was shocking: Maxwell's definition for the electric potential is found to be mathematically inconsistent. When we correct that error, all known branches of physics convert naturally into one Phsyical, Unified theory based on one fundamental idea:
A physical, fluid-like medium called Aether exists.
Occam's razor comes to mind...
7:16 AM, October 13, 2016

Her reaction:

Everyone:
I'm getting a lots of comments to this post in which people propose their own theories for what dark matter might be. You are wasting your time. I do not approve such comments. If you want to discuss your own theory of something, please do so elsewhere.
2:58 AM, October 14, 2016

Let us note that, apparently, "a lots of"[sic] people have a problem with the "dark matter" idea...

Now let's compare this with the reaction by @lemouth, Benjamin, professor at Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris:

Your theory cannot cope with ALL the problems solved by the dark matter hypothesis. The only viable atlernative IMO consists of the MOND theories. Definitely not yours.
Now concerning crackpots in my field, they all have something in common: they all claim modern physics is a pseudoscience. That is not a good start. First, as modern physics works amazingly well (confronting predictions to all data from the microscopic world). Therefore, if you want to propose something else, you need to show your something else can do as good on all aspects. Stating that whatever is your theory, it is the truth and everything else (including a 100+ years old theory that is consistent up to now) is crackpottery sounds either very selfish to me. The other viable option being of course that you are not understanding a clue about modern physics...

Well, if the all say the same thing, they're probably right. ^_^

I've had contact with Sabine Hossenfelder on this subject before and it is quite interesting to find a pattern emerging when confronting main stream scientists with the obvious errors in their approach. This is part of an e-mail I sent her on September 18th, 2016, titled "The Trouble With Physics and the road to a future of energy abundance":

<begin quote>

Please allow me to share my perspective on the above subject with you, talk about the foundation of our current theories, the obvious errors that were made, how these led to the (pardon my French) absolute mess we have found ourselves in and propose a plan (roadmap if you will) towards creating a future wherein mankind will never have to worry about energy again.

"Philosophy used to be part of the natural sciences – for a long time [3]. For long centuries during which our understanding of the world we live in has progressed tremendously. There is no doubt that times change, but not all changes are a priori good if left without further consideration. Here, change has resulted in a gap between the natural sciences where questioning the basis of our theories, and an embedding into the historical and sociological context used to be. Even though many new specifically designed interdisciplinary fields have been established, investigating the foundations of our current theories has basically been erased out of curricula and textbooks. Those who scratch their heads are the ones that are just too stupid to understand – and many questions fell into the domain of pop science. Thus the eye rolling among my colleagues whenever someone brings up one of these topics (the free will in quantum mechanics, anybody?)

[...]

No, I am definitely not claiming the world needs more Lee Smolins. That’s not the point. The point is its not a good idea to neglect an approach to understand nature, especially one that has proved to be so important during the history of science."

The trouble with physics is indeed that it neglected "questioning the basis of of our theories", which caused it to divert ever further from the path it should be following, known as the scientific method. Now that we have questioned the basis of our theories and found an astonishing inconsistency, we have no other option but to conclude that the divergence away from natural philosophy began when Maxwell's equations began to make a life on their own. By 1948, it was clear to Einstein that something was going terribly wrong somewhere, but at that point, even he neglected to question Maxwell. In a Letter to Max Born (March 1948) (published in Albert Einstein-Hedwig und Max Born (1969) "Briefwechsel 1916-55") titled "What must be an essential feature of any future fundamental physics?" Einstein wrote:

"I just want to explain what I mean when I say that we should try to hold on to physical reality.
We are … all aware of the situation regarding what will turn out to be the basic foundational concepts in physics: the point-mass or the particle is surely not among them; the field, in the Faraday-Maxwell sense, might be, but not with certainty. But that which we conceive as existing ("real") should somehow be localized in time and space. That is, the real in one part of space, A, should (in theory) somehow "exist" independently of that which is thought of as real in another part of space, B. If a physical system stretches over A and B, then what is present in B should somehow have an existence independent of what is present in A. What is actually present in B should thus not depend the type of measurement carried out in the part of space A; it should also be independent of whether or not a measurement is made in A.
If one adheres to this program, then one can hardly view the quantum-theoretical description as a complete representation of the physically real. If one attempts, nevertheless, so to view it, then one must assume that the physically real in B undergoes a sudden change because of a measurement in A. My physical instincts bristle at that suggestion.
However, if one renounces the assumption that what is present in different parts of space has an independent, real existence, then I don't see at all what physics is supposed to be describing. For what is thought to be a "system" is after all, just conventional, and I do not see how one is supposed to divide up the world objectively so that one can make statements about parts."

In hindsight, we have no other option to conclude that the obvious error c.q. simplification we find in Maxwell's equation, has not been properly addressed. Instead, we are seeing a process, whereby science attempts to tape-over the latest found consequence of "Maxwell's hole". Thus, science lost track ever more in a process whereby theoretical physicists kept themselves busy with the "Ducktape of the decade", meanwhile directing experimental physicists to try and find proof for the existence of all kinds of literally fantastic phenomena, who are all based on the - obviously erroneous - notion that there should be "gauge freedom" in the definition of the EM fields.

When considered this way, the process of taping over Maxwell's hole of the decade & trying to find evidence, is a process which exactly follows Einstein's definition of insanity: trying the same thing over and over again, and expecting different results. Note the irony that this includes Albert himself.....

<end quote>

The pattern I mean is perhaps best illustrated in his conversation with @lemouth.

What is wrong with the current paradigm? Please explain it to me in a few words. I don't want to read a 10 pages essay. There is no such a recursive relation with charge and when you quote that matter is an electromagnetic phenomenon, this is just meaningless to me. Can you please state how you understood the wave-particle duality? Your starting points sound non-understandable to me.

And of course, one gives a reasonable answer:

Simply stated, the wave-particle duality principle says that all known matter as well as all known forms of electromagnetic radiation are basically the same thing. In other words, the wave-particle duality principle says (or should say IMHO) that particles ARE some kind of electromagnetic phenomenon.
So, if particles ARE electromagnetic in nature, and you attach the concept of "charge" as the cause for electromagnetism to "particles", you are actually saying:
1. electromagnetism is caused by charge;
2. charge is is a property of "particles";
3. "particles" are electromagnetic along the wave-particle duality principle;
4. "particles" are therefore caused by moving charge;
5. goto 2;
And there's your recursive problem, which is wrong IMHO.

Which subsequently leads to "end of conversation":

This has nothing to do with modern physics. Sorry.

To sum this up:

"Its not a good idea to neglect an approach to understand nature" except when the approach contains the word "aether" or dares to question concepts in the standard model which are violently opposed to just about all laws of nature known to mankind and even to common sense. Let alone when the approach dares stating that the mentioned concepts are therefore, at the very least, bordering on the edge of pseudo-science.

I received quite a lot of suggestions for further consideration and/or information. Since almost all of them contain online references, I might as well share them here for your consideration also.

I have taken a short cut here, by publishing first and then asking for permission, so it may be some of these will disappear, although that is not likely since it concerns already published information.

In no particular order.. Well, actually, in approximate chronological order of receiving.

Louis Rancourt

I read your article with interest because Maxwel field equations cannot explain an interesting experimental fact: If a charge object is moved back and forth near a sensor positioned at 3 meters, the sensor will react to these change of intensity. If a wooden ruler is placed in line between the sensor and the object. the sensor does not sense the changes of intensity as if something real was going in strait line between the sensor and the object. That something is blocked by the ruler. We cannot block something that is not in motion. That something is probably going at the speed of light and cannot be electrons.
His theory cannot explain that. Yours can.
Since light does block gravity, it really seems that what makes light and what causes the force of gravity is made of the same stuff...
I am working on a generator that would be activated by gravity and light.
Please find the on-line published updated paper at http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/apr/issue/view/1345

Further Experiments Demonstrating the Effect of Light on Gravitation Louis Rancourt, Philip J. Tattersall

Abstract

In The Effect of Light on Gravitation Attraction, published in 2011 (Rancourt, 2011), a purpose built horizontal-torsion pendulum apparatus, based on the Cavendish apparatus, was used to measure the effect of light on freely moving masses. Tests indicated a laser light on one side of a freely movable mass caused the mass to move toward the light. It was hypothesised that light has a screening effect on gravitational force.

In view of these findings the present authors designed a series of experiments using a specially designed light system to further test the effects of light on gravitation.

This paper describes a series of experiments in which layers of light are directed above and below a test mass connected to a sensitive weighing device. The aim being to determine whether light would affect weight readings.

Todd Grigsby

1. Does not Maxwell's equations show that only 1 wave can exist in any point in space and time?
Here is a link that shows an error in the principal of superposition that supports the above statement. Check and see if point 1 is true from your theory perspective and let me know.

Alan Aversa

You'd be interested in my translation:
Pierre Maurice Marie Duhem, The Electric Theories of J. Clerk Maxwell, trans. Alan Aversa, vol. 314, Boston Studies in the Philosophy and History of Science (Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2015).
It is the first 20th century history of 19th century E&M, and it is very critical of Maxwell, esp. his ad hoc introduction of the displacement current.
You'd also be interested in the work on Ampère's and Weber's force laws by Prof. Assis (freely available online).
Maxwell's equations are hardly even Maxwell's. See my StackExchange answer and question

Robert French

Thanks for sending me this. I agree with you that there is a problem with Maxwell's equations at least as they relate to light, if for no other reason than that light from single atoms is isotropic, while the derivation from Maxwell's equation assumes a dipole model with resulting radiation which is not isotropic. You can find more details in the Ebook at my website http://www.quantumrealism.net/

Steven Zins

I suggest that you study http://uft6.zins.org/

From the web site:

This book describes a new theory in theoretical physics and related experiments. The name of this theory is A Unified Field Theory in Six Dimensional Space (UFT6).
The target audience for this book is PhD physicists. Readers with a BS in physics will likely understand most concepts.

George Bugh

I have a 3 part video that explains the connection between the electromagnetic force and the gravitational force in case you are interested but you must watch all 3 parts to fully understand.

Zbigniew Modrzejewski

I received an e-mail from Zbigniew, with quite a lot of interesting information, including an image from a patent by T.T. Brown regarding the Biefeld-Brown effect. This shows details regarding the construction of his actual asymmetric capacitor, which should be considered further when attempts are made to reproduce the effect which bares his name. Since there was so much information in there that I could not easily transfer it to this page, I made his complete mail available at pdf, with his permission:

The TT Brown patent is available in my patent collection here:

Unfortunately, the image that caught my attention is not in there...

Wolfgang Engelhardt

I agree with you that Maxwell's equations are inconsistent. Faraday's law and Maxwell's flux law are incompatible.

Ramzi Suleiman

The major pitfall all the theories I encountered, which are advanced by scholars who reject Einstein's relativity is that they regress back to the notion of Ether.

I took a different approach which so far has proven to be successful beyond my initial expectations. Instead of rehashing the notion of Ether, I released relativity from all axioms. No Ether and no constant c in vacuum. The two assumptions has no value whatsoever. The theory has no axioms, but is rather based on two experimentally valid facts of nature: 1. That at very low (non-relativistic) velocities all the laws of classical physics are good approximations. 2. that in any physical system, information is sent from one point in configuration space to another via an information carrier with finite velocity. That is all what I needed to derive a theory of everything.

You will see that the theory is not only elegant, but also simple and beautiful with many Golden Ratio symmetries.

Another much shorter paper which might interest you, recently published in Physics Essays, is:

Hans van Leunen

I approached Maxwell equations from a different starting point. I am developing a quaternionic quantum theory that uses quaternionic Hilbert spaces. As a result I developed a complete quaternionic differential calculus that applies the quaternionic nabla. Quaternions put strict prescriptions on how the partial differential equations can be formulated. The quaternionic differential can be split into well-defined components. These components correspond to subfields. These subfields correspond to similar physical fields. These subfields have their own names and symbols. Quaternionic differential calculus supports two different second order partial differential equations. One of them can be split into two first order partial differential equations. The other is a wave equation. I have analyzed the similarity between the set of quaternionic differential equations and the set of Maxwell differential equations and I concluded that the set of Maxwell equations is incomplete.
See: "Quaternionic Versus Maxwell Based Differential Calculus"; http://vixra.org/abs/1506.0111.
You can take a look at my ideas at docs.com/hans-van-leunen. "The Hilbert Book Test Model" offers a complete overview of my insights. http://vixra.org/abs/1603.0021
On my website I publish my papers both in pdf and in docx format. I do not ask copyright. http://www.e-physics.eu

kexuetansuoze

(probably machine translated from Chinese)

Cold nuclear fusion reactor and new modern physics works
We give you the cold nuclear fusion reactor, continuous automatic gear box for a patent for invention, the new modern physics works in scientific research, although already published on the Internet and personal blog website, even in the United States open for electronic publishing also published on the website. But this time to you is by the author recently revised manuscript again. One of the new modern physics book catalog part give up now, see the attachment.
Hope your journal with the aid of Internet electronic publishing platform, strongly recommend to assist the international mainstream thermonuclear fusion related engineering field, automatic transmission engineering community and the modern physics experts scholars for academic exchanges. This is all mankind's greatest feats in the history of science, can greatly enhance the current international mainstream thermonuclear fusion engineering community, automatic gear transmission engineering community and the level of the understanding and research of modern physics. Don't care about these already on the Internet and the electronic journal of the public for the scientific research achievements. Don't worry about your author's copyright. Study authors at their own expense, now have retired, request a free publication.
For original author and the international scientific community, with a few more Internet electronic publishing platform repeated publication, increases the chances of academic exchanges with mainstream scholars. For your journal, and to promote the early civilization cradle of science and technology, from earth to the universe civilization across time and space technology to your journal opportunity comes once in a blue moon.

Attachments available here:

Lew Price

My work is so very different from the "established" physics that uses words like "field" and "quantum theory" that I have trouble reaching other people.
The idea of standard textbook fluid dynamic vector theory for an ideal compressible non-viscous Newtonian fluid is what I have shown to be the case. If this shows Maxwell's equations are inconsistent, then I believe they must be inconsistent.
The light waves I have found to exist are such that any longitudinal component is cancelled out, leaving only the transverse portions to be the key to Planck's constant.
The idea of near field and far field effects are someone's conception based upon the standard model. They are not very adequate as compared to what I have found to be true. My work on magnetism, radio, and charge makes current standard concepts obsolete.
I am not familiar with Stowe and Mingst. What I have found is based upon the electron as a starting point because it has obviously been misunderstood.

Roychoudhuri, Chandra

We all map the cosmic system differently. We must learn to discover conceptual continuity between our diverse observations by imposing logical and causal congruence between them all.
I am working from the button up.
I have found that EM wave amplitudes do not interact. I call it "Non-Interaction of Waves (NIW) (See the 1st attachment). Interacting material dipoles, after absorbing energy out of the stimulating superposed fields, display the Superposition Effect. As I have tried to integrate the concept in optics, I was forced extend this concept to accept that space is a Complex Tension Field (see the 2nd attachment).
My philosophy follows the ancient Indian story of "Five blinds" trying to model the "Cosmic Elephant". Then I found also Plato's allegorical story how deep cave dwelling people will theorize external cosmic system by studying only the shadows projected inside their cave.
We are those "blind men" and the "cave people"!

Attachments available here:

Roland H. Dishington

Modern physics books are honeycombed with strange if not bizarre philosophical ideas. The student is told to abandon his intuition, cause and effect and the deterministic world. He is offered, instead, a statistical numbers game, a space and time done with mirrors, and an abstract view of the world comformable only to pure mathematicians. The work presented in this volumw returns to the simple physical approach to experimentaql data and understanding.
Physics is an intuitively understandable deterministic description of the real world with no paradoxes. It consists of cause and effect explanations of observed phenomena in successively lower levels of abstraction. At the bottom is a remaining unexplained metaphysical base. The goal is a visulaizable unified field theory of particles, energy, charge, electricity and magnetism, gravitation and nuclear forces. The following outlines in considerable detail such a description of the world.
The qualitative deterministic picture is almost complete. The quantitative level is varied. Chapters 1 though 7 are well known material, slightly rearranged and modified. Chapters 8 and 9 (The Electron) are reasonably rigorous. Chapters 10 (Rods, Clocks and Plumb Bobs), 11 (Mechanics) and 12 (The Atom) are solidly rigorous. On the other hand, Chapters 13 (The Nucleus) and 14 (The Particles) are highly speculative, but based on ideas from 8 through 12. Chapters 15, 16 and 17 are rigorous where possible.
One thing should be clear from the reading:
Fuzzy atoms are out, Determinism is in. - From the Preface.

I retrieved his old web site from archive.org, which is available here

Ray Tomes

You might be interested in my own work called Harmonics Theory (also presented at the California conference). It is a new domain that should follow from an aether theory just as GR and QM do. The important point is that the wave equations for the universe must be non-linear, which leads to standing waves that are harmonics of existing waves.
Please see http://ray.tomes.biz/maths.html for the mathematical overview. Much more on Youtube, Cycles Research Institute web site and elsewhere.

Jan Olof Jonson

I myself was also once very engaged in working with Maxwell's Equations.
The result of this research may be studied through my papers, please see attached list of publications!
However, a comprehensive overview of my achievements can most easily be attained through reading my late 2016 paper, entitled 'Extended Use of Coulomb’s Law in Relation to Established Laws within Electromagnetism', Journal of Basic and Applied Physics, Vol. 5, Iss.1, PP. 40-46, http://www.academicpub.org/jbap/paperInfo.aspx?PaperID=17217
I attach my most recent list of publications, two Word files (i.e. doc and docx respectively) and one pdf file.

Attachments available here:

Tom Hollings

Have you read my web page http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/carmam/Hollings.html#gravity where I prove that the equivalence principle is wrong?

From the web page:

The Equivalence Principle (chapter XX) states "It is not possible by experiment to distinguish between an accelerating frame and an inertial frame in a suitably chosen gravitational potential, provided that the observations take place in a small region of space and time".

First of all, the motivation for returning to an aether theory. Let us briefly sketch the history of how this all came to be:

1) Maxwell wrote his equations, based on Faraday's experiments, in a time where the aether theory was commonly accepted.

2) He discovered wave propagation was predicted, which coincided with the speed of light.

3) It was found that his equations were not invariant to the Galilean transform.

4) The Lorentz transform was invented to "correct" this flaw.

5) With Young's experiment, it wave-particle duality was established.

6) Since it was found that there was "gauge freedom" in Maxwell's equations, this freedom was used to invent all kinds of "gauge fixes", which forms the basis for Quantum Mechanics.

Now since Maxwell's equations have not changed, one cannot say that the aether is no longer part of the framework. From that perspective, it is rather strange that "gauge freedom" is found to be included in Maxwell's equations. And the reason this freedom is there, is because Maxwell abstracted the vorticity of the aether away. There is just no connection to the basic model of the time in his equations.

Now when we *DO* make that connection to the underlying aether assumption explicit in our model, by starting out with standard fluid dynamics vector theory, we get equations that are very similar to Maxwell's, except for the extra term dA/dt.

When we take that away, we're back at point 2, yet pont 3 does not apply and neither does point 6, while in return we get a complete theory which predicts three types of wave phenomena:

1) transverse (as Maxwell predicted)

2) (expanding) vortex rings and other vortex related structures

3) longitudinal waves.

With 1 and 2, we get a clear explanation for the difference between the "near" and "far" fields, which are known to exist, yet are not predicted by Maxwell's equations. So, there you have the first experimental proof our approach gives the correct prediction, while the standard model needs to invent "virtual photons" in order to do so, while that approach contradicts with every day Electrical Engineering practice, namely the simulation of Maxwell's equations.

See in dept historical analysis for more:

I am aware of the normal SI units, which do not have a connection to the underlying aether model in which they were originally modeled.

Since I re-derived Maxwell's equations from a basic fluid model, you get units which are expressed in terms of properties of the medium, the fluid within the model, which is confusing of course, BUT it enables us to validate the consistency of the units of measurements within the whole model.

Of course, these are equivalent with the normal SI units. It's just that because the connection to the underlying model has been made explicit, we get further insight in the meaning of what are currently "abstract" fields.

One does not necessarily have to perform experiments by one's self. If one can explain a number of anomalies, one is already a big step further. Stowe already handled a couple, and I expect that "Fast Light" experimental data can be used to confirm our theory:

Another possible experiment handles around the "Biefeld Brown Effect".

Our theory predicts Martin Tajmar's expriments to yield different results when the geometry of the capacitor is optimized for maximizing grad E over as big a volume as possible...

Further, since our theory predicts longitudinal dielectric waves to also exist AND that they propagate at a speed of sqrt(3) times c, undeniable proof could be obtained by performing a longitudinal moonbounce, as I suggested a while ago:

However, that turned out to be very, very challenging without simulation software. I propose to adapt an existing fluid dynamic simulator, which would allow us to design a longitudinal antenna:

And of course, Wheatstone's 1834 experiment could be repeated with modern equipment:

Yes, we keep a full determinism approach. I have addressed that in an earlier article about Quantum Mechanics:

Do you really believe a "photon" with a wavelength of no less than 21 cm is emitted, because a *single* electron decides to change it's orbit along it's nucleus by a *minute* amount??

So, how about the idea that these orbital transitions occur in harmony or resonance, like in any normal radio antenna, including those designed for the 21 cm band?

The math is essentially equal to how one would describe any fluid, like water, with the main difference that in our fluid model, there is no viscosity and there are no losses. In other words: an ideal, compressible fluid.

The description of the electric and magnetic field is a decomposition, whereby the compressibility is considered in the electric part of the decomposition, while curl or vorticity is considered in the magnetic part of the decomposition.

One of the solutions of such a model are classic transverse waves, as you can see in this image:

In this image, the rotational movement goes clockwise, so B will point away from you. You also see compression involved, which moves left-right back and forth, and that is the direction of the electric field E. All 100% analogous to real fluids, except for the losses c.q. dampening.

The other type of waves, the longitudinal ones, are 100% analogous to sound waves, as they occur in water, air and other materials. See for example this animation:

As you can see on the image, this is a compression wave, which is represented by the electric field E, which points in the same direction as the wave movement and can be either positive or negative, since you have both compression and expansion involved with the propagating wave.

So, the beauty of this model is that it translates virtually 1:1 to the waves (and vortexes for that matter) we observe in the waters and air all around is. So, any wave-like phenomenon you can observe and play with in, for instance, water is 99.99% equivalent to the wave-like phenomena which take place in what we call the aether. One of these is expanding vortex or smoke rings, which can be used to explain what "particles" or "photons" are. This picture says more than 1000 words in that sense:

This is both an image of a vortex structure you could create in a bathtub filled with water, as well as an image of *a* particular "particle" or "photon".

As you can imagine, this particular structure is just one example of hundreds and perhaps thousands of possible structures involving vortexes.

Just think of a single vortex as a brick of LEGO, with which you can build countless structures. The single vortex ring is the simplest example, and the above structure the next one.

Fundamental idea, though, is that vorticity IS magnetism, as can be shown by this very simple experiment:

In other words: when you have, a wave or vortex phenomenon in a fluid or a gas, this can be translated pretty much 1:1 to an analogous phenomena in the aether, and that goes all the way from the sub-atomic to galaxy scale.

I don't know if you already took the time to watch David LaPoint's video, but that is one of my absolute favorites, because - with the picture I painted above - he demonstrates in the laboratory how this all works. When you watch this, with the idea that magnetism IS vorticity in the back of your mind (first watch the short video just above for a practical visualization of an actual magnetic field), I'm sure you will be astonished to see how beautifully this all fits together and how powerful this model is:

And my second favorite is this simple experiment by Nassim Haramein, which also shows and visualizes practically how important "rotation" is in the Universe, with nothing more than a piece of rope and a simple motor:

I have done this, too, with an ordinary drilling machine. It's so simple to do, yet teaches you so much about how atoms and molecules actually look like. I mean, if you like visualization, you just *have* to try this, if you can. My kids loved it, too. :)

In the end, the math is just a formal language with which you can describe these kinds of phenomena unambiguously and with which you can do accurate calculations and predictions, for instance with a computer.