Oh my god I CANNOT thank you enough for posting this. I've really struggled with emag because my classes all seem to just skip directly from a brief lampshade of the fact that maxwell's equations predict wave behavior ALL THE WAY to modeling propagation of a hyper-idealized form of those waves through different mediums and NEVER actually cover the nitty gritty of HOW they get generated in the first place. Not even a single one of my three emag or college physics textbooks cover this, and so they end up basically burying the lead on the entire topic of waves. It's like this bizarre "missing unit" in the curriculum nowadays, which is all the more baffling because of how crucial it is to building any kind of intuition. This is something I've been banging my head against for almost two years now and these lectures FINALLY helped make it click for me. Thank you dude. Seriously.
Infinite field speeds are possible, including the speed of nearfield light!! Fields like: nearfield gravity, magnetic field, electric field, and even nearfield light are all instantaneous, and they are completely incompatible with Relativity, which says nothing travels faster than light. The main problem is that it invalidates the Relativity of Simultaneity argument. This is because instantaneous fields propagate instantaneously to all inertial reference frames, thereby preserving simultaneity in all the frames. If you look at the Lorentz transforms and make c=infinity, then gamma equals one, and the Lorentz transforms becomes the Galilean transform, where space and time are independent and absolute, and space and time are the same in all inertial frames of reference. Relativity is just an optical illusion, and because all of modern physics is based on Relativity, modern physics is fundamentally wrong and needs to be rethought. Relativity has a simple built in logical fallacy, and no theory based on a logical fallacy can be true, no matter how many experiments seem to prove it, or how many people say it is true. Below is a very simple logical argument highlighting the logical fallacy, using the same terminology Einstein used to derive Relativity. According to Relativity, observers on a moving train and on a stationary train platform will disagree on the size of the ""Train"" and the passage of time on the ""Train"". This is a complete logical contradiction if the size and the passage of time of the train are real. If the size of the train is real, then the ""Train"" can not be both contracted and not contracted. The same goes for the observed passage of time on the ""Train"". If these effects are observed, then the only possible conclusion is that it is an optical illusion. Things that are real must appear to be same from all frames of reference. If not, then by definition it is an illusion. Again the argument is very simple and it is the argument Einstein used to derive Relativity, and no acceleration is used in the argument. A train with length (L) traveling at constant velocity (v) relative a stationary observer on a station platform. 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. This is a complete contradiction (L not equal L/r) and can not be true if length is real. The same argument applies to passage of time on the Train, where both observers will disagree on the passage of time. If time is real, it can not be both dilated and not dilated (T not equal rT). If space and time are observed to be both large and small simultaneously for one inertial reference frame, such as the ""Train"", then it must be an optical illusion. This argument is only the tip of the iceberg. There is much more evidence including both theoretical and experimental, so please keep reading. Hi my name is Dr William Walker and I am a PhD physicist and have been investigating this topic for 30 years. It has been known since the late 1700s by Simone LaPlace that nearfield Gravity is instantaneous by analyzing the stability of the orbits of the planets about the sun. This is actually predicted by General Relativity by analyzing the propagating fields generated by an oscillating mass. In addition, General Relativity predicts that in the farfield Gravity propagates at the speed of light. The farfield speed of gravity was recently confirmed by LIGO. Recently it has been shown that light behaves in the same way by using Maxwell's equations to analyze the propagating fields generated my an oscillating charge. For more information search: William Walker Superluminal. This was experimentally confirmed by measuring radio waves propagating between 2 antennas and separating the antennas from the nearfield to the farfield, which occurs about 1 wavelength from the source. This behavior of gravity and light occurs not only for the phase and group speed, but also the information speed. This instantaneous nature of light and gravity near the source has been kept from the public and is not commonly known. The reason is that it shows that both Special Relativity and General Relativity are wrong! It can be easily shown that Instantaneous nearfield light yields Galilean Relativity and farfield light yields Einstein Relativity. This is because in the nearfield, gamma=1since c= infinity, and in the farfield, gamma= the Relativistic gamma since c= farfield speed of light. Since time and space are real, they can not depend on the frequency of light used. This is because c=wavelength x frequency, and 1 wavelength = c/frequency defines the nearfield from the farfield. Consequently Relativity is an optical illusion. Objects moving near the speed of light appear to contract in length and time appears to slow down, but it is just what you see using farfield light. Using nearfield light you will see that the object has not contracted and time has not changed. For more information: Search William Walker Relativity. Since General Relativity is based on Special Relativity, General Relativity must also be an optical illusion. Spacetime is flat and gravity must be a propagating field. Researchers have shown that in the weak field limit, which is what we only observe, General Relativity reduces to Gravitoelectromagnetism, which shows gravity can be modeled as 4 Maxwell equations similar in form to those for electromagnetic fields, yielding Electric and Magnetic components of gravity. This theory explains all gravitational effects as well as the instantaneous nearfield and speed of light farfield propagating fields. So gravity is a propagating field that can finally be quantized enabling the unification of gravity and quantum mechanics. The current interpretation of quantum mechanics makes no sense, involving particles that are not real until measured, and in a fuzzy superposition of states. On the other hand, the Pilot Wave interpretation of Quantum Mechanics makes makes much more sense, which says particles are always real with real positions and velocities. The particles also interact with an energetic quantum field that permeates all of space, forming a pilot wave that guides the particle. This simpler deterministic explanation explains all known quantum phenomena. The only problem is that the Pilot Wave is known to interact instantaneously with all other particles, and this is completely incompatible with Relativity, but is compatible with Galilean Relativity. But because of the evidence presented here, this is no longer a problem, and elevates the Pilot Interpretation to our best explanation of Quantum Mechanics. *TH-cam presentation of above argument: th-cam.com/video/sePdJ7vSQvQ/w-d-xo.html *Paper it is based on: William D. Walker and Dag Stranneby, A New Interpretation of Relativity, 2023: vixra.org/abs/2309.0145
i have a question about all these. I think it doesn't matter but what comes first? the inductive Magnetic field or the Electric? Before i show this video i thought it was the magnetic due to it would be created by the current( moving electron ). Now that i show the eletric field is create also by the motion what comes first?
In an antenna the electrons are being accelerated by an AC-voltage. This movement creates a changing electric field and a changing magnetic field at the same time. For EM-radiation to exist the two fields must be changing simultaneously.
@@antonvannesjo1137 So you're saying the kink moves outwards because the electric field radiates outwards. I don't really feel you've answered the question. Let me put it like this: if you hold a pen or a ruler or a broom horizontally & move your hand down the whole broom immediately gets closer to the floor. But this doesn't happen with the electron. The electron has a horizontal field line. If you move the electron down, the horizontal electric field line stays where it is for a while, thus causing a kink. Why doesn't the whole electric field line move down straight away? Why does it stay where it is for a while? Why is there a delay? If your answer's "because the electric field line can't move faster than c", it immediately raises the Q: "why can't the electric field line move faster than c?" If your A = "because c is the cosmic speed limit", it immediately raises the Q: why does the electric field line obey a cosmic speed limit? & also why does the kink gradually disappear? Why doesn't the kink just stay there? Why does the kink move outwards?
@@cliffroybutt1025 So you're saying the kink moves outwards because it's a disturbance in the electric field that radiates outwards. I don't really feel you've answered the question. Let me put it like this: if you hold a pen or a ruler or a broom horizontally & move your hand down the whole broom immediately gets closer to the floor. But this doesn't happen with the electron. The electron has a horizontal field line. If you move the electron down, the horizontal electric field line stays where it is for a while, thus causing a kink. Why doesn't the whole electric field line move down straight away? Why does it stay where it is for a while? Why is there a delay? If your answer's "because the electric field line can't move faster than c", it immediately raises the Q: "why can't the electric field line move faster than c?" If your A = "because c is the cosmic speed limit", it immediately raises the Q: why does the electric field line obey a cosmic speed limit? & also why does the kink gradually disappear? Why doesn't the kink just stay there? Why does the kink move outwards?
They assume that the space is not absolutely free in order to make sense outwards radiation of electric fields disturbance. That point of view basically is reductionism but the formulas work very well. Think the space kind a fluid in order to understand better what is going on.
Oh my god I CANNOT thank you enough for posting this. I've really struggled with emag because my classes all seem to just skip directly from a brief lampshade of the fact that maxwell's equations predict wave behavior ALL THE WAY to modeling propagation of a hyper-idealized form of those waves through different mediums and NEVER actually cover the nitty gritty of HOW they get generated in the first place. Not even a single one of my three emag or college physics textbooks cover this, and so they end up basically burying the lead on the entire topic of waves. It's like this bizarre "missing unit" in the curriculum nowadays, which is all the more baffling because of how crucial it is to building any kind of intuition.
This is something I've been banging my head against for almost two years now and these lectures FINALLY helped make it click for me.
Thank you dude. Seriously.
Very insightful. I have been looking for this explanation around 6:00. Thanks.
Only video that I found explaining this. Thanks!
Thank you so much!
@ 4:45 Here the kinks are only perpendicular to the field lines. But there should be parallel parts too.
Infinite field speeds are possible, including the speed of nearfield light!! Fields like: nearfield gravity, magnetic field, electric field, and even nearfield light are all instantaneous, and they are completely incompatible with Relativity, which says nothing travels faster than light. The main problem is that it invalidates the Relativity of Simultaneity argument. This is because instantaneous fields propagate instantaneously to all inertial reference frames, thereby preserving simultaneity in all the frames. If you look at the Lorentz transforms and make c=infinity, then gamma equals one, and the Lorentz transforms becomes the Galilean transform, where space and time are independent and absolute, and space and time are the same in all inertial frames of reference.
Relativity is just an optical illusion, and because all of modern physics is based on Relativity, modern physics is fundamentally wrong and needs to be rethought. Relativity has a simple built in logical fallacy, and no theory based on a logical fallacy can be true, no matter how many experiments seem to prove it, or how many people say it is true. Below is a very simple logical argument highlighting the logical fallacy, using the same terminology Einstein used to derive Relativity.
According to Relativity, observers on a moving train and on a stationary train platform will disagree on the size of the ""Train"" and the passage of time on the ""Train"". This is a complete logical contradiction if the size and the passage of time of the train are real. If the size of the train is real, then the ""Train"" can not be both contracted and not contracted. The same goes for the observed passage of time on the ""Train"". If these effects are observed, then the only possible conclusion is that it is an optical illusion. Things that are real must appear to be same from all frames of reference. If not, then by definition it is an illusion.
Again the argument is very simple and it is the argument Einstein used to derive Relativity, and no acceleration is used in the argument. A train with length (L) traveling at constant velocity (v) relative a stationary observer on a station platform. 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. This is a complete contradiction (L not equal L/r) and can not be true if length is real. The same argument applies to passage of time on the Train, where both observers will disagree on the passage of time. If time is real, it can not be both dilated and not dilated (T not equal rT). If space and time are observed to be both large and small simultaneously for one inertial reference frame, such as the ""Train"", then it must be an optical illusion.
This argument is only the tip of the iceberg. There is much more evidence including both theoretical and experimental, so please keep reading. Hi my name is Dr William Walker and I am a PhD physicist and have been investigating this topic for 30 years. It has been known since the late 1700s by Simone LaPlace that nearfield Gravity is instantaneous by analyzing the stability of the orbits of the planets about the sun. This is actually predicted by General Relativity by analyzing the propagating fields generated by an oscillating mass. In addition, General Relativity predicts that in the farfield Gravity propagates at the speed of light. The farfield speed of gravity was recently confirmed by LIGO.
Recently it has been shown that light behaves in the same way by using Maxwell's equations to analyze the propagating fields generated my an oscillating charge. For more information search: William Walker Superluminal. This was experimentally confirmed by measuring radio waves propagating between 2 antennas and separating the antennas from the nearfield to the farfield, which occurs about 1 wavelength from the source. This behavior of gravity and light occurs not only for the phase and group speed, but also the information speed. This instantaneous nature of light and gravity near the source has been kept from the public and is not commonly known. The reason is that it shows that both Special Relativity and General Relativity are wrong! It can be easily shown that Instantaneous nearfield light yields Galilean Relativity and farfield light yields Einstein Relativity. This is because in the nearfield, gamma=1since c= infinity, and in the farfield, gamma= the Relativistic gamma since c= farfield speed of light. Since time and space are real, they can not depend on the frequency of light used. This is because c=wavelength x frequency, and 1 wavelength = c/frequency defines the nearfield from the farfield. Consequently Relativity is an optical illusion. Objects moving near the speed of light appear to contract in length and time appears to slow down, but it is just what you see using farfield light. Using nearfield light you will see that the object has not contracted and time has not changed. For more information: Search William Walker Relativity.
Since General Relativity is based on Special Relativity, General Relativity must also be an optical illusion. Spacetime is flat and gravity must be a propagating field. Researchers have shown that in the weak field limit, which is what we only observe, General Relativity reduces to Gravitoelectromagnetism, which shows gravity can be modeled as 4 Maxwell equations similar in form to those for electromagnetic fields, yielding Electric and Magnetic components of gravity. This theory explains all gravitational effects as well as the instantaneous nearfield and speed of light farfield propagating fields. So gravity is a propagating field that can finally be quantized enabling the unification of gravity and quantum mechanics.
The current interpretation of quantum mechanics makes no sense, involving particles that are not real until measured, and in a fuzzy superposition of states. On the other hand, the Pilot Wave interpretation of Quantum Mechanics makes makes much more sense, which says particles are always real with real positions and velocities. The particles also interact with an energetic quantum field that permeates all of space, forming a pilot wave that guides the particle. This simpler deterministic explanation explains all known quantum phenomena. The only problem is that the Pilot Wave is known to interact instantaneously with all other particles, and this is completely incompatible with Relativity, but is compatible with Galilean Relativity. But because of the evidence presented here, this is no longer a problem, and elevates the Pilot Interpretation to our best explanation of Quantum Mechanics.
*TH-cam presentation of above argument:
th-cam.com/video/sePdJ7vSQvQ/w-d-xo.html
*Paper it is based on: William D. Walker and Dag Stranneby, A New Interpretation of Relativity, 2023: vixra.org/abs/2309.0145
WHAT ABOUT ENERGY CONSERVATION
i have a question about all these. I think it doesn't matter but what comes first? the inductive Magnetic field or the Electric? Before i show this video i thought it was the magnetic due to it would be created by the current( moving electron ). Now that i show the eletric field is create also by the motion what comes first?
In an antenna the electrons are being accelerated by an AC-voltage. This movement creates a changing electric field and a changing magnetic field at the same time. For EM-radiation to exist the two fields must be changing simultaneously.
why does kink move outwards?
cause the electric field radiate outwards from the charge with the speed of light.
The Kink is a disturbance in the electric field which radiates out
@@antonvannesjo1137 So you're saying the kink moves outwards because the electric field radiates outwards. I don't really feel you've answered the question. Let me put it like this: if you hold a pen or a ruler or a broom horizontally & move your hand down the whole broom immediately gets closer to the floor. But this doesn't happen with the electron. The electron has a horizontal field line. If you move the electron down, the horizontal electric field line stays where it is for a while, thus causing a kink. Why doesn't the whole electric field line move down straight away? Why does it stay where it is for a while? Why is there a delay? If your answer's "because the electric field line can't move faster than c", it immediately raises the Q: "why can't the electric field line move faster than c?" If your A = "because c is the cosmic speed limit", it immediately raises the Q: why does the electric field line obey a cosmic speed limit? & also why does the kink gradually disappear? Why doesn't the kink just stay there? Why does the kink move outwards?
@@cliffroybutt1025 So you're saying the kink moves outwards because it's a disturbance in the electric field that radiates outwards. I don't really feel you've answered the question. Let me put it like this: if you hold a pen or a ruler or a broom horizontally & move your hand down the whole broom immediately gets closer to the floor. But this doesn't happen with the electron. The electron has a horizontal field line. If you move the electron down, the horizontal electric field line stays where it is for a while, thus causing a kink. Why doesn't the whole electric field line move down straight away? Why does it stay where it is for a while? Why is there a delay? If your answer's "because the electric field line can't move faster than c", it immediately raises the Q: "why can't the electric field line move faster than c?" If your A = "because c is the cosmic speed limit", it immediately raises the Q: why does the electric field line obey a cosmic speed limit? & also why does the kink gradually disappear? Why doesn't the kink just stay there? Why does the kink move outwards?
They assume that the space is not absolutely free in order to make sense outwards radiation of electric fields disturbance. That point of view basically is reductionism but the formulas work very well. Think the space kind a fluid in order to understand better what is going on.