"Electromagnetic waves" do NOT EXIST!!!

[martillo]

C1ay:

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.

Only if you haven't read what has been written in the cited page and the posts.

 

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?

There's no more bline than who don't want to see.

[martillo]

By the way, I used to expect a different way of thinking in this forum... I was wrong.

[freeztar]

By the way, I used to expect a different way of thinking in this forum... I was wrong.

 

What "way of thinking" are you referring to?

[InfiniteNow]

That's all well and good, but we're still waiting for evidence which is something more than a personal website which most 5th graders could build.

[CraigD]

Wht I intend? I think it is to recover the old particles' approach for light and any kind of "electromagnetic radiation" presenting a totally new model for the elementary particles which describe very well all known Physics' experiments, the particles' model ones and the "wave-like" behaviors ones, determining that the "wave-particle duality" proposition is not a right "theory", that in reality there are no such waves but only particles.

…

I don't have new predictions for the new "model" …

Scientifically, this last statement is the most troubling – as the scientific method depends critically on the testing of theoretical predictions, the failure to make any relegates an idea to the status of “not yet a scientific theory”. To be discussed scientifically, it must be possible to at least suggest a plan for eventually making predictions. Otherwise, the idea is effectively an appeal to intuition, esthetics, or other psychological tendencies. Such ideas can be fun, but unless they can be coaxed into it, never be science.

 

Fortunately, emission theories (also called “particle only”, “corpuscle” and “ballistic”) of light (not that “light” in this context applies to all electromagnetic radiation, not just that which falls into the range sensible to human eyes) have been around a very long time, and have been much tested.

 

The main challenge of an emission theory is explaining easily observed, clearly wave-like light phenomena, such as interference patterns such as those produced by double-slit experiments. The usual explanation is that the particles interact with one another to produce these patterns. This explanation, however, doesn’t explain that interference patterns occur even when the rate at which they are built is so low that only one particle is present at any time in the experimental apparatus at any time. One of the most counterintuitive, let consistently and easily reproduced experimental results in physics is that an interference pattern (usually recorded on photographic film) is independent of the rate (brightness) at which it’s produced.

 

Returning to the need to make testable predictions, a simple particle-only theory of light predicts that, at sufficiently low brightness, the double-slit experiment will cease to produce an interference pattern. Experiments show that this prediction to be false.

[martillo]

I have received an infraction of "Rude and Offensive Behavior" because I wrote: "By the way, I used to expect a different way of thinking in this forum... I was wrong."

What about C1ay wrote: "I think you're making the same mistake as some of the other trolls that pass through here..." and he is an Administrator and Senior Editor of the forum!

 

I have expected more cordiality and a much more serious discussion in this forum. I have expected that even being wrong (although I don't think so) to be refuted in a seious and rational manner. Only "Craig D" behaved this way.

 

I don't see what is "rude and offensive" in my comment.

 

I really don't understand what is happening here...

 

 

"C1ay" also wrote: "You haven't expressed any reasoning in this thread..."

How can he say that after all the posts I wrote.. May be he don't understand what I wrote but there is enough reasoning on them to perfectly explain my conclusion.

He also wrote: "Your website doesn't contain any conclusive evidence either. That said, we expect you to support your claims." (And I have received another infraction for "unsupported claims").

I don't know what would be "conclusive" for you. Each one would need different demonstrations and/or proofs. I have made a theoretical work with strong rational arguments with math (although not such high math that someones could expect just because it is not necessary) which present a new possible theory that is still under development. Some experiment are only suggested because I don't have the time and resources to make them but I think some otherones could made them because they are feasible.

 

I don't understand these infractions and claims and I think I will not post anymore here.

[freeztar]

I have received an infraction of "Rude and Offensive Behavior" because I wrote: "By the way, I used to expect a different way of thinking in this forum... I was wrong."

What about C1ay wrote: "I think you're making the same mistake as some of the other trolls that pass through here..." and he is an Administrator and Senior Editor of the forum!

 

Yes, he is! And as such, it's wise to listen to what he has to say.

You were given a warning prior to this infraction. Rather than heeding the warning, you chose to reply that you expected a different way of thinking here. I've already asked you what you meant by that, so I will not ask again. C1ay called you a troll because you are behaving like one. You insist that your theory is the right theory and then fail to present any evidence, make predictions, or perform experiments. As CraigD pointed out above, you're biggest challenge is to match your theory with what has been observed. If you can not do that, then I suggest thinking about the scientific method and how you can apply it to your theory. If you can not do that, then it is not science, and I would suggest that you abandon the theory.

[C1ay]

I don't understand these infractions and claims and I think I will not post anymore here.

 

Well, if you want to leave so be it. I'll not ask you to stay but I will ask for you to take this with you....

 

science • noun

 

1 the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

 

2 a systematically organized body of knowledge on any subject.

 

Science does NOT begin with proclamations like "Electromagnetic waves do NOT EXIST!!!" indicative of a conclusion. When scientists see such proclamations it indicates that a body of systematic study has been completed, that the experiments have been done, the data collected and analyzed and that the proclamation is supported by the results.

 

Science does begin with a falsifiable hypothesis or theory to explain some phenomenon of the physical and natural world. It begins with observation and an attempt to describe what structure and behavior, what processes are responsible. Tests and experiments are done and the results observed, not only in an attempt to support the theory but to find if they refute it as well. Science embraces review and tests for failures to find results that refute the hypothesis help to strengthen trust that the hypothesis is true.

 

Science is objective and looks at criticism as an opportunity to find and fix weaknesses in the hypothesis, to revise it and test it to see that it holds up to further review. It looks for critics to find these weaknesses so they can be fixed, not so it can argue with them for finding them. Science depends on knowing that there are no weaknesses in the hypothesis because ultimately true knowledge is the goal.

 

Good luck in your pursuit. Do not let blind faith become an obstacle to your efforts. Seek out people to help you find the flaws in your theory with desire for them to seek those flaws. Listen to them and fix the holes if they can be fixed and then ask them to try again to break your theory. Finally, when you can find no one that can refute your theory then you will be ready to make your proclamations.

[Overdog]

Overdog:

 

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.

 

Ok, it's Friday evening, nothings happening on the forum, I'm bored, so I looked at your site.

 

I am demonstrating an open mind by reviewing your work.

 

My conclusion is that your work is a work of fantasy that is so fantastic that I can not fathom how your mind could have produced it.

 

Prove me wrong.

[martillo]

Overdog:

Ok, it's Friday evening, nothings happening on the forum, I'm bored, so I looked at your site.

 

I am demonstrating an open mind by reviewing your work.

 

My conclusion is that your work is a work of fantasy that is so fantastic that I can not fathom how your mind could have produced it.

 

Prove me wrong.

Not to do that because I agree, is fantastic, but also true and I think also right but I'm not infallible (furthermore I make mistakes everyday).

So, you prove me wrong.

 

I think is a good challenge that could inspire you to make something great in Physics.

If I would be right at least in a part of my manuscript lot of new things could be done in Physics...

[martillo]

C1ay:

Science does NOT begin with proclamations like "Electromagnetic waves do NOT EXIST!!!"

Why not? Someones need to make claims to review some things for Science to develop further or just to ensure it is in the right way. Even if one does not have a complete and total prove it is good for others to receive a good claim. Of course you will say that mine is not a good claim but sorry, I do believe I'm right.

I have been discussing here and in other forums, thinking more, and I realize now that may be I was wrong in stating that only infinite plane waves would be accepted as possible solutions for Maxwell's equations. Superpositions of different plane waves in different directions (interference patterns) are also solutions.

Anyway, may be other solutions are possible but the main claim still stand: "There is no possible source of electric and magnetic fields for the "electromagnetics waves" solutions derived from the Maxwell's equations."

 

I know this is true for infinite plane waves but now I must work further considering other possible solutions.

 

May be others in this thread could help in determining if this is really true or not.

[Overdog]

Overdog:

 

....

 

So, you prove me wrong.

 

 

You're looking at this the wrong way. As others have pointed out, many, if not all, of the ideas that you are claiming are true were already considered, tested, and shown to be false ages ago by scientists far more capable than I.

 

Instead of thinking of this in terms of me (and others) claiming that you are wrong, think of it instead as you claiming that Einstein is wrong.

 

I'm afraid it is you who are going to have to do the proving, if you want to be taken seriously.

[C1ay]

C1ay:

Science does NOT begin with proclamations like "Electromagnetic waves do NOT EXIST!!!"

 

Why not? Someones need to make claims to review some things for Science to develop further or just to ensure it is in the right way. Even if one does not have a complete and total prove it is good for others to receive a good claim. Of course you will say that mine is not a good claim but sorry, I do believe I'm right.

 

Just because you believe you are right does not make that some kind of irrefutable fact and making a statement in such a manner places the burden on you to prove it is so. Science does not begin the search for truth with a conclusion of what the truth is. Conclusions mark the end of the journey, not the beginning.

 

Science itself is a search for true knowledge about phenomena, whatever that truth may be. It is not a proclamation of what the truth is and and argument with everyone that disagrees with you, or those that prove your hypothesis to be false. Scientists want to show in the end that they have discovered an irrefutable truth. They embrace the efforts by all to refute their hypothesis for every effort that fails bolsters such a conclusion.

 

Anyway, may be other solutions are possible but the main claim still stand: "There is no possible source of electric and magnetic fields for the "electromagnetics waves" solutions derived from the Maxwell's equations."

 

It's fine that you believe that but understand that by making such a statement in this manner, that it is an irrefutable fact that "There is no possible source of electric and magnetic fields for the "electromagnetics waves" solutions derived from the Maxwell's equations." places the burden on you to prove it is indeed as irrefutable as you claim. That being the case, we will be looking forward to your irrefutable proof.

[martillo]

Overdog:

You're looking at this the wrong way. As others have pointed out, many, if not all, of the ideas that you are claiming are true were already considered, tested, and shown to be false ages ago by scientists far more capable than I.

Not under the totally new point of view which implies in many new interpretations of well known experiments. Yes, other interpretations are possible for some experiments, let we find now which is the right one.

 

Instead of thinking of this in terms of me (and others) claiming that you are wrong, think of it instead as you claiming that Einstein is wrong.

 

I'm afraid it is you who are going to have to do the proving, if you want to be taken seriously.

I know that for the plane waves there is no possible source for the electric and magnetic fields (both) and so those solutions are not right. Now I agree that for other solutions I must work further...

[martillo]

It's fine that you believe that but understand that by making such a statement in this manner, that it is an irrefutable fact that "There is no possible source of electric and magnetic fields for the "electromagnetics waves" solutions derived from the Maxwell's equations." places the burden on you to prove it is indeed as irrefutable as you claim. That being the case, we will be looking forward to your irrefutable proof.

Ok, here I go.

 

First I will consider that, as I wrote, there is no possible source of electric and magnetic fields for the plane "electromagnetics waves" solutions derived from the Maxwell's equations. It is obvious for the plane waves.

Second I will consider that in the three dimensional Space the plane waves can travel in any direction and that the general solution for the waves equation can be expressed as a linear combination (superposition) of a finite or infinite number of plane waves.

Third I will state that if for any plane wave there is no possible source for both the electric and magnetic field to generate it then any wave obtained by a linear combination of plane always also don't have a possible source of electric and magnetic fileds that could generate it.

Then it can be concluded my claim: "There is no possible source of electric and magnetic fields for the "electromagnetics waves" solutions derived from the Maxwell's equations."

Finally it can be then stated that the "electromagnetic waves" derived from Maxwell's equations cannot exist.

 

Done.

[C1ay]

Stating this and that is not proof. Where's the math? Where's the physics? Where is the data for the experiments you've done?

[martillo]

C1ay:

I knew it would not satisfy you.

I think is right, may be need polishment and perfectioning to match all mathematic rigourosities but is fine for now.

 

By the way, the theory is under development and some things remains to be solved. If you want it all ready just sit and wait, is just a matter of time, now I'm looking for those that could contribute with something.