[wisp]

Where Einstein went wrong

Around the early 1900's prominent scientists like Lorentz, Poincare, and even Einstein could not explain how the ether could support the Lorentz force law for moving charged bodies (i.e. electrons moving along a wire). This is because the formula has a v term (velocity), which implies that if the speed of the electrons with respect to the ether doubles, the magnetic force should also double, but this doesn't happen - the force remains the same!

Einstein's solution was to develop a special theory of relativity. It did away with the ether and explained the Lorentz force law in terms of the notion that space and time where somehow joined. But his theory fails to support commonsense notions of space and time, which the ether theory had no problems with, and it fails to give us an understanding of the physical processes that take place, whereas the ether theory fully explains these.

Einstein published his special relativity in 1905, entitled "On the electrodynamics of moving bodies". Einstein may have been a genius, but his theory is wrong, and has misled scientist for 100 years into believing space and time are joined, and the ether doesn't exist.

There is an ether solution, which Einstein didn't get, but it is not easy. It involves thinking about the ether in a different way, and developing new concepts and principles. It took me a month to get the solution and I'm no genius. Professors with PhDs should be able to get similar or better results and start teaching the right science to their students.

For the ether solution, see
http://www.kevin.harkess.btinternet....wisp_ch_8.html

Even though Einstein's special relativity has resulted in great advances in science, it is wrong to continue to teach it. Ether based theories provide the right answers and the sooner Universities accept this the better.

[AntonioLao]

Originally Posted by wisp

This is because the formula has a v term (velocity),

the Lorentz force equation can be rewritten without the v term by substituting a term for current density.

[Marketa]

To Wisp: You are pretty good in "building" your new theory. Have you ever thought about the fact, that there are some basic facts that must accept any theory and therefore if you'll invent "another" new approach, sooner or later you'll find out, that your theory and "common" theory are two sides of one coin?

[wisp]

Originally Posted by AntonioLao

the Lorentz force equation can be rewritten without the v term by substituting a term for current density.

There is still a velocity term hidden in the variable I.
I=lamda x v, where lamda is the density of the charge that moves with velocity v.

[wisp]

Originally Posted by Marketa

To Wisp: You are pretty good in "building" your new theory. Have you ever thought about the fact, that there are some basic facts that must accept any theory and therefore if you'll invent "another" new approach, sooner or later you'll find out, that your theory and "common" theory are two sides of one coin?

Even though wisp theory gets complicated, it is fundamentally a simple theory that using Newtonian space and time concepts. So the term common theory does suit it. But it builds on matter being formed though holes "nothingness" in the ether, a concept that is not common to our senses. And our notion of empty space is in fact a space full of particles called ether, which has great mass and is very solid.

[AntonioLao]

Originally Posted by wisp

There is still a velocity term hidden in the variable I.
I=lamda x v, where lamda is the density of the charge that moves with velocity v.

is a positional vector analogous to a unit vector. It is just pointing in the direction (its absolute value is constant but its direction changes) of the incremental current . But please note that the vector velocity becomes just the scalar time rate of change of charge given by



since the change of a static point-charge is a constant, it must the change in charge distribution that in effect gives the charge density you talk about. if there is only one electron making up the current, its time rate of change of charge density is zero but from point to point, its charge density changes from 1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -- 0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 -- 0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 -- 0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 -- 0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 -- 0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0 -- 0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0 -- 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0 -- 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1

[AntonioLao]

the question is whether the electron is the quantum of charge? Can charge be made from a quantum of current? What is this quantum of current? Is this quantum of current the magnetic helicity?

[Dragongod]

wisp in response to your theory how can matter form from holes of "nothingness" wouldn't that imply that the holes are themselves comprised of matter and energy. If not then i don't see how its possible for "nothing" to have the ability to create "something" (particles, matter, mass, energy, etc.). If "nothing", in your theory, does have properties can explain what they are. Also if "nothing" can't exist wouldn't that imply that your holes are in fact opaque (completely solid). If they are how are we able to move. wouldn't everything be completely still.

Personally, as you know, i believe nothing can't exist but I can't figure out why we are able to move if thats true. My theory would imply, as well as yours that everything should be completely solid.

[wisp]

Dragongod

The hole just acts as something that changes the symmetry of uniform ether. Its presence creates a spherical fractal pattern, which changes the properties of the ether. The ether associated with the pattern has a specific mass value. And the forces that stretch in the ether to form the pattern, stores potential energy. So the pattern has mass and energy. And the hole in the centre has nothing. All the hole does is alter the symmetry of the ether.

Think of a wave pattern moving along a string. Apart from the motion of the string – transverse wave motion up and down – there is nothing else present. In 3-D ether, a bunch of waves form when this fractal pattern moves through it. It moves through the ether as wave pulses move along a string, so it implies that the solid ether has elastic properties.

[Dragongod]

i understand all the ether stuff and its reallly good theory. The part that gets me is when you say "And the hole in the centre has nothing." It's not possible for nothing to exist. Also about the part that stores potential energy. I am not for sure what potential energy is. They it's stored up energy but i don't know what that means. as far as i know everything is always in motion and doesn't that mean everything has kenetic energy.