Let's see if I can roughly paraphrase it. The correct laws (equations) of physics ought to be independent of the frame of reference. That, more or less, is the principle of relativity. It appears that the authors of that statement never stopped to talk to the ordinary guys who deal with elastic waves in solids, acoustic waves in fluids, et cetera. Anybody knows that the equations are only going to be simple in the reference frame stationary with respect to the medium of propagation. So you see, we've gone down a bad road. Some smart guys, for example, got completely fooled by the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment.
You know, I'm definitely not the 'smartest guy in the room', and I've been wrong about lots of things. But I can say these things with honest conviction. I'm not actually a threat to anybody. I'm not in academia. My work is not published in the prestigious journals. I have nothing to lose by being perfectly honest about how I see it. And (scary thought) I just possibly might be right.
Anyway, my advice: don't try to make electromagnetic radiation special. Electromagnetic radiation is a disturbance propagating in a medium. The real task is in trying to understand that medium and exactly how it works. Progress will not be made until we stand toe-to-toe with Faraday and Maxwell and think more deeply about the problem than they did.
One more thing: Maxwell's Negative Energy Difficulty wherein a vector theory of gravity is supposedly not possible? If (as is most likely) there is no separate force of gravity (i.e., gravity is a purely electromagnetic phenomenon), then Maxwell's arguments are without merit. I dare to claim that this, along with the invalidity of the principle of relativity, completely undercuts the General Theory of Relativity, not to mention the special Theory of Relativity.
No shame; we've all gone down bad roads. Now is a good time to exercise a little humility, admit that it was all wrong, and start over again.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Hi Lee,
I missed this article having bookmarked the "August" archive. I see now how to keep track.
Lee, I think you are correct about many things in this article. I agree that waves "need" a medium. To create the concept of "waves which don't need a medium" just adds further superfluous concept which can not be experienced or proven. Just complicates matters, IMHO.
A wave should by definition require a medium. Why? Because we observe waves which require a medium. There is no justifiable reason to complicate some waves by the assumption that it is special in not requiring a medium of propagation.
Regarding Maxwell's Negative Energy Difficulty, I am not familiar with that argument. Could you explain it more detail?
One last thing, what if I told you I suspect that gravity is equivalent to positive electric field? What if I told you I suspect that strong nuclear force is the inertial effects of gravity which balance the repulsive forces of field. That protons may oscillate (due to delay) between states of high inertial attraction and high electric repulsion keeping the nucleus bound? Crazy stuff I know.
In any event, I have found that the field of electrons is like a stress in the medium with momentum being expressed outwardly. While gravity is like a stress in the medium with momentum being expressed inwardly. Perhaps these kinds of conceptualization can advance the progress to which you referred.
Thanks a bunch for your correspondence on the concept of the accelerated free fall. I appreciate your thoughts greatly.
Your friend, Phil
Post a Comment