"Electromagnetic waves" do NOT EXIST!!!

[Jay-qu]

no they dont, you can choose Cartesian, spherical polar or even cylindrical polar coordinates, but the fact remains you have to consider a 3-dimensional coordinate system. That is the difference, the world is 3-D, the equations must therefore make us of a 3D coordinate system when being solved. This is because there is nothing restricting the waves to travel in any one direction.

[ronthepon]

Ronthepon:

 

 

Sorry but the solutions to an equation does not anyway depend on the system of coordinates choosen to solve it. The solution will be the same just expressed in another system of coordinates.

 

Now I think you're just turning your head the other way. I'll break it down to points, then.

• As you, and Jay Qu correctly say, The coordinate systems have nothing to do, whatsoever, with the result. -I officially acnowledge it.
  
• Deleting two dimensions, however, will change the result.
  

For the second point, I had written the second post, even brushed up on my latex to have it represented to show the assumption used to bring the plane wave to the picture. [math]\frac {\partial^2}{\partial x^2} + \frac {\partial^2}{\partial y^2} + \frac {\partial^2}{\partial z^2} = \frac {\partial^2}{\partial x^2}[/math]

Does this have no effect? Nay, please don't ignore this any further, please tell me how a plane wave shall form when we don't ignore the y and z axes.

 

(And to do that impossible task, if it were possible, I'd suggest the usage or polar coords, and that's where the polar found it's place in the thread.)

[martillo]

InfiniteNow:

No. They've held up extremely well so far, so your handwaving, frankly, is NOT enough. You either need to show something which explains the same things and also works better or shut up.

Well you can take a look at my site: A New Light In Physics to see how all the "same things" are perfectly explained in other way: light interference, diffraction, refraction, quantum behavior, prediction of subatomic particles, pair creation and annihilation, photoelectric emission and absortion, etc, etc. May be you would like to start with Section 7.3: "Communicating with photons".

[martillo]

Jay-qu and Ronthepon:

 

I think you are making the same mistake as other people in other forums.

YOu are considering just the general equation for waves and nothing more while the "electromagnetic waves" comes by considering 4 (four) Maxwell's equations! The solution is much moree constrained.

You should study deeper the derivation of the "electromagnetic waves", not any wave.

For example at wikipedia: Electromagnetic radiation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You can see near the end of the page: "But these are only two equations and we started with four, so there is still more information pertaining to these waves hidden within Maxwell's equations..."

 

I'm not ignoring the "y" and "z" axis, the problem is that if the direction of propagation is choosen initially (arbitrarly) as the "x" axis the final solutions are independent of the "y" and "z" axis what simply shows that they are planes. The problem get stronger wheen we realize that the fields must be constant over the entire lane (not in time and in the "x" axis) and more: parallel to those planes. Here is where the impossibility of a source for the fields come out.

[InfiniteNow]

InfiniteNow:

 

Well you can take a look at my site: A New Light In Physics to see how all the "same things" are perfectly explained in other way: light interference, diffraction, refraction, quantum behavior, prediction of subatomic particles, pair creation and annihilation, photoelectric emission and absortion, etc, etc. May be you would like to start with Section 7.3: "Communicating with photons".

 

In what journals have you published your work? My preference is to refer to those, as opposed to some website that any 5th grader could put up.

 

Once you've told me in which peer-reviewed journals your work has been published, it would be quite useful for you to tell me also which issue so I can go and read them.

 

 

Thanks! :cup:

[Overdog]

I don't know how anyone can claim that electromagnetic waves do not exist. Are you suggesting that we call them something else, or does your radio not work?

[Jay-qu]

Jay-qu and Ronthepon:

 

I think you are making the same mistake as other people in other forums.

YOu are considering just the general equation for waves and nothing more while the "electromagnetic waves" comes by considering 4 (four) Maxwell's equations! The solution is much moree constrained.

 

So this isnt the first party you have crashed.. well Im not surprised.

 

You dont suppose that because so many educated people have disagreed with your theory and pointed out flaws, that you refuse to rectify, is an indication that you are wrong?

[C1ay]

Jay-qu and Ronthepon:

 

I think you are making the same mistake as other people in other forums.

 

I think you're making the same mistake as some of the other trolls that pass through here making absurd unsupported claims and then trying to direct people to their misinformation site that contains no more proof of their claims than what you've posted in this thread....zilch. Back your claims up or move on.

[martillo]

InfiniteNow:

In what journals have you published your work? My preference is to refer to those, as opposed to some website that any 5th grader could put up.

 

Once you've told me in which peer-reviewed journals your work has been published, it would be quite useful for you to tell me also which issue so I can go and read them.

No journal. First of all the new theory is still under development. Second, I don't believe too much in journals and surelly is not my dream to publish something in any journal, I believe in the internet.

[martillo]

Overdog:

I don't know how anyone can claim that electromagnetic waves do not exist. Are you suggesting that we call them something else, or does your radio not work?

You should take a look on Section 7.3 of my manuscript: Communication with photons

May be other sections would be good for you but I doubt you would have the necessary open mind to analise this at this time.

[InfiniteNow]

InfiniteNow:

 

No journal. First of all the new theory is still under development. Second, I don't believe too much in journals and surelly is not my dream to publish something in any journal, I believe in the internet.

 

Yeah... Let me know when you've decided that your work is worth the effort of peer review and I'll start to care. Until that time, I plan to write you off as another random tripe peddler not worth my time.

 

Nothing personal, but I've read a LOT of crap on the internet. Let's just say that I've read enough to realize that peer-review is there for a reason.

 

I do hope you'll consider my comments as a way to move your ideas forward. Like I said, let me know when you publish and I will care.

[martillo]

Jay-Qu:

So this isnt the first party you have crashed.. well Im not surprised.

"Crashed"? When that I haven't realized?

 

You dont suppose that because so many educated people have disagreed with your theory and pointed out flaws, that you refuse to rectify, is an indication that you are wrong?

"Flaws"? "Refused to rectify"? Where that I don't remember. I remember well to have defended very well my propositions and to have recognized if I was wrong in something like my firsts arguments against Relativity Theory what just inspired me to find better ones.

 

I remember well that nobody ever discussed any of the propositions in my new theory but large discussions about my disagreements with some current theories.

 

My way of thinking is the opposite, I spended much effort in finding the right things while very little in demonstrating what is wrong. At the end I accomplished both...

[martillo]

InfiniteNow:

Yeah... Let me know when you've decided that your work is worth the effort of peer review and I'll start to care. Until that time, I plan to write you off as another random tripe peddler not worth my time.

 

Nothing personal, but I've read a LOT of crap on the internet. Let's just say that I've read enough to realize that peer-review is there for a reason.

 

I do hope you'll consider my comments as a way to move your ideas forward. Like I said, let me know when you publish and I will care.

The problem is that I'm not interested in you or people like you to read my theory.

[martillo]

C1ay:

think you're making the same mistake as some of the other trolls that pass through here making absurd unsupported claims and then trying to direct people to their misinformation site that contains no more proof of their claims than what you've posted in this thread....zilch. Back your claims up or move on.

I cannot answer this since is not a rational argumentation towards or against any reasoning expressed by me in this thread.

[InfiniteNow]

InfiniteNow:

 

The problem is that I'm not interested in you or people like you to read my theory.

 

See, now you're lying. If that were TRULY the case, you wouldn't be posting here at all. Let's at least try to maintain an internal consistency in our positions, shall we?

[C1ay]

C1ay:

 

I cannot answer this since is not a rational argumentation towards or against any reasoning expressed by me in this thread.

 

Well, that there is the problem. You haven't expressed any reasoning in this thread and you haven't supported your claim in any scientific fashion that electromagnetic waves don't exist. Your website doesn't contain any conclusive evidence either. That said, we expect you to support your claims. Post the math, post the physics, post the repeatable experiments and show that your claim has merit. Now, can you support your claim or not?

[martillo]

See, now you're lying. If that were TRULY the case, you wouldn't be posting here at all. Let's at least try to maintain an internal consistency in our positions, shall we?

Lying? why? Not all the people in this forum think like you. For example Craig D thoughts demonstrate much more intelligence and common sense.

You abandoned any rational analisis for a personal disregarding just showing that there are no more arguments from you only agression in the "fall".