posted on Nov, 18 2019 @ 06:02 AM
An aether update: A consistent derivation of Maxwell's Equations and the Lorentz Force Equation appears to be correct and complete on my most recent
pass through the derivation. I am writing the paper in verbose mode ("=" appears 383 times) and the paper is 56 pages double-spaced right now. I have
written it so that anyone can check all the math just by reading along and should not need to ask "how did he get that?". My son with an undergraduate
physics degree is able to follow along and understand. It is my belief things are close now from an electrodynamics standpoint. The last two times I
reviewed it for errors I found a factor of two error on the first pass, and then found a sign error on the second pass. Such errors required only
small changes of the initial postulates. While it still needs more checking, by myself and others, it appears very close now and my guess is that if
there are any errors they can be correctable with slight changes to the few postulates. Two years ago my goal was electrodynamics, and if that
remained the goal I would now be adding a summary and moving toward publication. However, I think I now have important ideas concerning gravity as
well, and so I will tarry on for a bit longer (perhaps several months).
I continue to think about your objections to my dark matter modeling, but do not yet have a sufficiently good response for you. I will continue to
think this over. I believe I am making progress, but it is always hard to predict how fast I will get done.
Your thread has now seen a couple of instances of how my science advances. Both with the quantum eraser and now with dark matter, I proposed something
that wasn't quite right early on. You raised objections. I countered by improving upon my earlier proposals. Thank you. (You had no comment on my last
quantum eraser post, so I am thinking you now have no objection.) This illustrates the critical importance of admitting when we are wrong and then
modifying our proposed axioms.
Recent commentary here shows the problem one has with what are called cranks. My efforts are serious, involve a lot of math, aim for consistency with
all experimental data, and critically, I constantly consider whether I myself might be the one who is wrong. Realizing one might be wrong is the
crucial first step at getting things right.
I think it was on another thread that I criticized an author for "attacking the ball carrier" in his presentation on the aberration of stellar
binaries, and you remarked that I had also criticized cranks in the past and asked why I was defending an incorrect actor in that instance. The issue
there was that the attack on relativity was coming from physicists who were confused by an inappropriate position regarding relativity - they were
focusing only on the relativity between an emitting star and the receiver and they were not taking into account a third entity - the photon. One would
hope that they would have quickly realized their error once the correct derivation was pointed out, and there should have been no need for ad hominem
attacks on them. If however they continued to dig in their heels, then they deserved the full dressing down delivered. Here on ATS, the electric
universe, pendulum measures time, time-isn't-real, flat-earth, astronauts float rather than orbit, etc., crowd really hurt. They just want to win an
argument. If winning is simply never saying "I am wrong", well that's pretty easy to do. Then, when a serious alternative comes out that has similar
themes to what the cranks are saying (such as opposing relativity) the serious work is immediately rejected without consideration. It is a real
Mainstream science is certainly a good approximation to reality. Even excellent. We do an enormous amount with it. However, there are several
significant issues with it. The cosmological constant, infinities of point-like particles, the inability to find the source of dark matter and dark
energy, the generational problem (why are there three?), and perhaps above all, the OP concerning the inability to reconcile quantum mechanics,
relativity and realism within a single universe. My work addresses all of these problems, and yet bows to any experimental data that shows it could be
wrong. That's the real deal.