3 hours ago, William.Walker39 said:

Here is a very simple logical proof that I have just come up with

That's the difference between ''logical proof' ( as in made-up ) and experimental proof ( as in observed ).
One of those can be purely delusional.
We only 'know' reality by measuring, and measurements support relativity, not your incredulity.

And every good physicist knows the distinction.

3 hours ago, William.Walker39 said:

and no theory based on a logical falicy can be correct no matter how many experiments claim to prove it.

Your physics is wrong for several reasons that have been pointed out. But here's another one: Logical fallacy implies a bad use of the rules of arguing in order to prove a point; it says nothing about being right or wrong regarding that point. 

Thus, even a theory based on false assumptions could be correct in the sense that it provides you with the right mathematical model. Ironically, that's what happened with Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism. He pictured mechanical tensions on a medium, which totally was the wrong idea, as later found out. But it gave the right equations, which in turn led to the right ideas that unfurl the amazing generalisation which is relativity, which you don't seem to understand.

 

11 hours ago, William.Walker39 said:

According to Relativity, the stationary observer will see the Train contracted (L/r, where r is the Relativistic gamma), whereas an observer on the Train will see it not contracted (L). So the Train is both contracted (L/r) and not contracted (L) depending on the observer.

Yes, it depends on the observer. 

Functionally no different than claiming the train can’t be moving and stationary. But in the train’s frame it is stationary and in the station’s frame it is moving.

11 hours ago, William.Walker39 said:

This is a complete contradiction (L not equal L/r) and can not be true if length is real.

You can’t be moving and stationary if motion is “real” - can’t have <whatever amount> of kinetic energy and zero - it’s the same misunderstanding of relativity

On 12/27/2023 at 6:17 AM, William.Walker39 said:

According to Relativity, two inertial moving observers will see each others space contract and time dilate. This is a complete contradiction and a physical impossibility if the effects are real. Objects and the passage of time can not be both small and large at the ""SAME"" time for the ""SAME"" observer. The only possible explanation is that the observed effects are an optical illusion.

It is not a contradiction, it just isn't compatible with the Newtonian model of time and space. And at its heart, Relativity uses a completely different model for these. In Relativity these measurements are not absolute but frame dependent.

An analogy would be these images of two lines:

The same set of lines, just viewed from different perspectives.  In the first image the red line is "taller" than the green, and in the bottom image the green line is "taller" than the red.  The point being that in Relativity, time and space are measured more like the "height" of the lines in the images and not by their absolute length.

22 minutes ago, Janus said:

The same set of lines, just viewed from different perspectives.  In the first image the red line is "taller" than the green, and in the bottom image the green line is "taller" than the red.  The point being that in Relativity, time and space are measured more like the "height" of the lines in the images and not by their absolute le

I've not seen that analogy before, +1

On 12/28/2023 at 12:41 PM, studiot said:

I've not seen that analogy before, +1

Here this analogy has been developed somewhat further:

This comes from:

41 minutes ago, Genady said:

Here this analogy has been developed somewhat further:

Thanks. +1

On 12/28/2023 at 5:29 PM, Janus said:

The same set of lines, just viewed from different perspectives.  In the first image the red line is "taller" than the green, and in the bottom image the green line is "taller" than the red.  The point being that in Relativity, time and space are measured more like the "height" of the lines in the images and not by their absolute length.

Brilliant.

This is my favourite way of talking about discrepacies in measured lengths and times for different observers, and I love that you just used it. Moving is like taking an angle. In fact, that's exactly what it is: Being at an angle with respect to another "mover". Somewhere else I've explained this as just another kind of foreshortening. Consequences of foreshortening are real enough for anybody trying to --eg-- get a large object through a short door by tilting it.

Of course, if you change your state of motion, your previous tilting parameter (your velocity) is no longer the same. This is at the core of so many people trying to "point out" to everybody else that "something is wrong" with relativity.

We present a paper that has just been peer reviewed and accepted for publication in the EM journal IRECAP. In the paper an experiment is presented where an Electromagnetic pulse is propagated 1.5 m  in the nearfield and no propagation delay was observed. The effect is predicted by standard electromagnetic theory, which is also presented. This proves that the front speed or information speed is instantanneous in the nearfield. The result is completely incompatible with Relativity. Here is preprint of the paper: 

https://www.techrxiv.org/doi/full/10.36227/techrxiv.170862178.82175798/v1

Dr. William Walker - PhD in physics from ETH Zurich, 1997

 

Edited August 1, 20241 yr by William.Walker39

18 minutes ago, William.Walker39 said:

We present a paper that has just been peer reviewed and accepted for publication in the EM journal IRECAP. In the paper an experiment is presented where an Electromagnetic pulse is propagated 1.5 m  in the nearfield and no propagation delay was observed. The effect is predicted by standard electromagnetic theory, which is also presented. This proves that the front speed or information speed is instantanneous in the nearfield. The result is completely incompatible with Relativity. Here is preprint of the paper: 

https://www.techrxiv.org/doi/full/10.36227/techrxiv.170862178.82175798/v1

Dr. William Walker - PhD in physics from ETH Zurich, 1997

 

IRECAP seems to be an obscure journal published by an outfit called “Praise Worthy [sic] Prize”, about which I found some amusing comments: https://sites.massey.ac.nz/library/2013/01/23/good-guys-bad-guys-and-open-access-journals/

 

On 8/1/2024 at 6:33 PM, William.Walker39 said:

The effect is predicted by standard electromagnetic theory, which is also presented.

On 8/1/2024 at 6:33 PM, William.Walker39 said:

The result is completely incompatible with Relativity.

The physical content of Maxwell’s equations is invariant under Lorentz transformations, so any physics predicted by them is guaranteed to be compatible with relativity.

As you say, this effect is well known - the speed here is the phase velocity of the wave packet, not the propagation speed of any individual wave front. There’s no upper limit to phase velocity, and no information can be transmitted superluminally in this way.

On 8/22/2023 at 11:26 AM, William.Walker39 said:

This instantaneous nature of light and gravity near the source has been kept from the public and is not commonly known.

Laser rangefinders don't work and it is a worldwide scam?

 

Edited August 3, 20241 yr by Sensei

On 8/1/2024 at 5:33 PM, William.Walker39 said:

The result is completely incompatible with Relativity.

And every test of relativity has shown it to be consistent with observed reality.
So your result is incompatible with reality.
Or "wrong" as we would usually describe it.

Thank you for saving me teh trouble of even opening, never mind reading, it.

Edited August 3, 20241 yr by John Cuthber

The EM Pulse experiment was published in the EM journal IRECAP, 2024 showing an EM pulse propagating across 1.5m instantaneously in the near field by tracking the FRONT speed which is known to be both the speed of causal action and the speed of information. The experiment is Hertz's famous radio wave experiment done in the near field, but uses a modern oscilloscope to measure the propagation delay. The experiment was 100 percent repeatable and was repeated hundreds of times with the exact same results. The paper also states that this is the second time that an independent researcher has done the experiment and arrived at the exact same results and conclusions. The experiment disproves both the second postulate of relativity as well as relativity's prediction that causal action and information cannot propagate faster than speed C without violating causality hence disproving relativity and any theory based on it including general relativity, and even QED. This experiment challenges all of modern physics.

According to relativity all physical phenomena are embedded in space time. Therefore all physical phenomena must abide by the rules of relativity. So if any physical phenomena at all, whether near field or far field, show a violation of relativity, relativity is disproved. The following thought experiment will clarify this even further. Assume you have a long enclosed box with a button on the front and a light at the other end of the box. If when the button is pressed the light turns on faster than speed C, relativity is disproved . It does not matter what is in the box, how it works, why it works , or how physicists think it works. All that matters is that it works. Clearly inserting the EM pulse experiment in the box satisfies the condition that it works, hence disproving relativity and any theory based on it .

The EM pulse paper also shows that this instantaneous near field effect It's predicted exactly by Maxwell's equations when the source terms that come from Gauss's law and Ampere's law are included in the wave equation. This was not done by Maxwell and is the reason why his constant speed C solution is wrong, and because Einstein used Maxwell's incorrect constant speed C solution in his theories, both special and general relativity are wrong . When the source terms are included in the wave equation, the solution clearly shows that the speed of light is instantaneous in the near field of the source, reduces and changes speed with distance from the source, and then converges asymptotically towards speed C in the far field starting about 1 wavelength from the source, and never reduces to exactly constant speed C, ever. This solution has now been independently reproduced by many researchers arriving at the exact same results and conclusions . This solution clearly shows that Maxwell's constant speed C solution is only valid at infinite distance from the source, which does not exist in a finite size universe such as ours. So Maxwell's constant speed C solution is not physical and is absolutely wrong ! The EM pulse experiment confirms this because it shows that causal action and information propagate instantaneously in the near field of EM sources.

If the second postulate of relativity is wrong, what remains is the first postulate: Galilean relativity where time and space are absolute and independent. In addition, instantaneous signals violate the relativity of simultaneity which is the heart of relativity. This is because instantaneous signals will appear to be the same for all inertial frames of reference. This can be seen by inserting C equal Infinity into the Lorentz transformation yielding the Galilean transformation where time and space are absolute and independent. What we see in the near field is real and follows according to the law of Galilean relativity. But what we see in the far field is not real and is subject to relativistic illusions such as time dilation and length contraction. Assume a fast moving body is being observed with light. If instantaneous near field light is used then no relativistic effects will be observed. This can be seen by inserting C equal Infinity into the Lorentz transformation yielding the Galilean transformation where time and space are absolute. But if far field approximate speed C light is used, then relativistic effects will be observed. So simply by changing the frequency of the light relativistic effects can be turned off and on. But because time and space are real for the moving object and cannot depend on the frequency of the light being used to observe it, one must conclude that the effects of relativity are not real and are just a type of optical illusion created by how light propagates in the far field from the source. 

This can be more easily understood using the concept of aberration which occurs when one is walking in the rain that is falling straight down but appears to be coming down at an angle. Assume you have a fast moving rod with length that is moving perpendicular to your line of sight. If instantaneous near field light is used, then no aberration will occur because the light propagates instantaneously to your eye and the rod has not moved during that time. But if far field approximate speed C light is used then aberration will occur, causing the object to appear slightly rotated, hence its length will appear shorter, hence appearing length contracted. The same occurs for fast moving wave fronts with periodicity. If instantaneous near field light is used the no aberration will occur and the observed periodicity will remain the same. But if far field approximate speed C light is used then aberration will occur causing the wave fronts to appear rotated, hence the periodicity Of the wave fronts will appear shorter or time dilated. 

Yes, there are many experiments that claim to validate relativity. But according to the scientific method, no experiment or observed phenomena can prove a theory, but can only provide evidence that a theory might be right. So relativity has not been proven. This is because the phenomena observed can be due to effects not considered or unknown !!! But also according to the scientific method one experiment can absolutely disprove a theory , by either disproving a premise in the theory , and/or is proving a prediction of the theory. The EM pulse experiment does both. It disproves not only the second postulate of relativity, but also relativity's prediction that causal action and information cannot propagate faster than speed C without violating causality, hence disproving relativity and any theory based on it.

I am a retired physics/engineering professor and I've been working on this specific topic for 35 years which started as a PHD thesis at ETH Zurich Switzerland, 1990 to 1997, which is one of the best universities In the world. There I discovered that both the speed of gravity and the speed of light are instantaneous in the near field of the source. After that I worked as a professor at many universities where I extended the theory to the far field, and developed several experiments confirming the theory. The EM pulse experiment is one of those experiments. During these 35 years many researchers have now duplicated both my experiments as well as my theoretical arguments showing that the speed of light is not constant at all, and is in fact instantaneous in the near field of the source, which disproves relativity and any theory based on it. Both the PHD thesis review and ETH Zurich as well as the reproduction of my Experimental and theoretical results by other researchers is the highest form of peer review. For more information see, New interpretation of Relativity by William Walker, and specifically see all the papers supporting this research in the description of the video.

12 hours ago, William.Walker39 said:

The experiment disproves both the second postulate of relativity as well as relativity's prediction that causal action and information cannot propagate faster than speed C

No. Thus has already been explained multiple times now - yes, the experimental setup shows an apparent superluminal speed, but what is measured here is the phase velocity of the entire packet due to anomalous dispersion, not signal velocity of individual waves in a medium. There is no upper limit to phase velocity, and you can’t use this to transmit information. This is a well known phenomenon in the literature (often called “evanescent waves”), and is perfectly compatible with Maxwellian EM, which is Lorentz invariant. See here for example:

PubMed

On the apparent superluminality of evanescent waves - PubMed

There have been many recent theoretical and experimental reports on the propagation of light pulses at speeds exceeding the speed of light in vacuum $c$ within media with anomalous dispersion, either

I think it's worth looking at this phenomenon a little more closely. In general, an antenna's dipole field is mainly made up of terms like

\[e^{i(kr-\omega t)}\]

But in the near field, there are also extra terms involving powers of \(\frac{1}{kr}\). Thus, the total phase of the field isn't just \(kr-\omega t\). Now, the velocity of the phase fronts (!) in the near field regime next to the antenna is

\[v_{\phi}=\frac{\omega}{d\phi/dr}\]

which can exceed c. It can, in fact, become arbitrarily large. This is quite a common phenomenon in areas like X-ray spectroscopy, quantum tunneling (see Hartmann effect), radio wave guides etc. It's often called evanescence in the literature. The important point to understand is that the phase velocity of the near field is not the same as the signal velocity of the overall EM field - the superluminal phase velocities are just a mathematical property of the field's phase structure, but you cannot use this to transmit any kind of information, and the Poynting vector (net energy flow) associated with these phases is zero. If you start to modulate the current in the antenna, then this disturbance propagates outward at c, and a new near field configuration is established as a result. This is entirely consistent with SR, which forbids superluminal propagation of causal influences, but not superluminal phase velocities.

The situation is analogous to gravity - stationary fields act instantaneously even though they are spatially extended, but changes in gravity propagate at c.

25 minutes ago, Markus Hanke said:

phase velocity

It is also worth noting that a wavefunction obeying the Klein-Gordon equation (a relativistic form of the Schrödinger equation) for a massive particle has a phase velocity that is greater than c. But the group velocity is the classical velocity of the particle and is less than c.

Edited 5 hours ago5 hr by KJW

1 hour ago, KJW said:

It is also worth noting that a wavefunction obeying the Klein-Gordon equation (a relativistic form of the Schrödinger equation) for a massive particle has a phase velocity that is greater than c. But the group velocity is the classical velocity of the particle and is less than c.

Exactly.

I find it amazing that so many people have no issues whatsoever with Galilean Relativity, where no experiment carried out in an inertial frame can determine if you are moving, then when Einstein uses this principle in his thought experiment of riding on a beam of light, holding a mirror in front of his face, and being required to see his reflection, meaning that the speed of light is strictly observer dependent ( and all that implies ), all of a sudden, it's an issue.
The laws of Physics have to be self-consistent.