Thomas Phipps, in his book “Old Physics for New,” points out that Hertz’s equations, thought to be disproved, were actually incorrect only as to the physical interpretation. Phipps said this points out a problem with Maxwell’s equations—they aren’t parameterized for the detector.
That raises a question that, in my opinion, should not be ignored: is the Maxwell interpretation that the “displacement current” leads to the wave equation correct? In other words, is radiation a disturbance in the so-called aether?
The Michelson-Morley experiment conclusively demonstrated that Maxwell’s physical interpretation is NOT correct.
What should have happened at that point is a complete rethinking of what EM radiation is and how it works. Instead we got the special relativity math trick duping people into questioning basic concepts of space and time. (Yes, certain aspects of SR have been repeatedly confirmed, but that doesn’t mean the whole theory and physical meaning is correct. Phipps proves as much in the same book.)
Questions for thought: Does radiation exist in the absence of a receptor? (i.e. matter) that would be pretty hard to prove
Does Maxwell’s “displacement current” really prove that electric and magnetic currents can exist purely in the aether, in the absence of any electrical charge? Arguably a magnetic field circulating around a changing relationship between charges in the plates of a condenser is not the same as radiation via the wave equation.
What if EM radiation is actually a result of an “instant action at a distance” relationship between the source and the receptor that merely proceeds through the aether and behaves in certain ways like true waves?
Hertz was the first one to suggest the speed of EM fields in the nearfield is instantaneous. Theoretically he showed that the phase vs distance curves for an oscillating source for the various EM fields are nonlinear in the nearfield and only becomes approximately nonlinear in the farfield, after propagating about 1 wavelength from the source. Since Maxwell showed that far from a source EM fields propagate at speed c, then Hertz correctly guessed that the minima in the nearfield of the phase vs distance curve meant the speed is instantaneous in the nearfield. Since then more rigours derivations of the phenomena show both the phase speed and group speed (speed of information) can be calculated from the inverse of the slope of the curve. Recent experiments measuring the phase vs distance as a sinusoidal signal propagates between 2 dipole antennas, as they are separated from the nearfield to the farfield, show the exact same nonlinear phase vs distance curve, and plotting the inverse of the slope shows the speed of EM fields are instantaneous in the nearfield. In addition, another experiment, performed by several independent researchers, shows an EM pulse propagates in the nearfield with no propagation delay. This shows that the front speed, or the speed of information is instantaneous in the nearfield. This paper has just been peer reviewed and accepted for publication in the EM Journal IRECAP and should be published ~Oct. This research clearly shows that the speed of EM fields (Light) is not a constant and the speed varies with distance from the source, and is in fact infinite in the nearfield,.and is only approximately c in the farfield. Since this proves Relativity's 2nd postulate, which assumes the speed of light is constant for all inertial observers, is wrong, then what remains is just the 1st postulate: Galilean Relativity, where space and time are absolute. For more information see:
*More extensive paper for the above arguments: William D. Walker and Dag Stranneby, A New Interpretation of Relativity, 2023: http://vixra.org/abs/2309.0145
Thomas Phipps, in his book “Old Physics for New,” points out that Hertz’s equations, thought to be disproved, were actually incorrect only as to the physical interpretation. Phipps said this points out a problem with Maxwell’s equations—they aren’t parameterized for the detector.
That raises a question that, in my opinion, should not be ignored: is the Maxwell interpretation that the “displacement current” leads to the wave equation correct? In other words, is radiation a disturbance in the so-called aether?
The Michelson-Morley experiment conclusively demonstrated that Maxwell’s physical interpretation is NOT correct.
What should have happened at that point is a complete rethinking of what EM radiation is and how it works. Instead we got the special relativity math trick duping people into questioning basic concepts of space and time. (Yes, certain aspects of SR have been repeatedly confirmed, but that doesn’t mean the whole theory and physical meaning is correct. Phipps proves as much in the same book.)
Questions for thought: Does radiation exist in the absence of a receptor? (i.e. matter) that would be pretty hard to prove
Does Maxwell’s “displacement current” really prove that electric and magnetic currents can exist purely in the aether, in the absence of any electrical charge? Arguably a magnetic field circulating around a changing relationship between charges in the plates of a condenser is not the same as radiation via the wave equation.
What if EM radiation is actually a result of an “instant action at a distance” relationship between the source and the receptor that merely proceeds through the aether and behaves in certain ways like true waves?
Hertz was the first one to suggest the speed of EM fields in the nearfield is instantaneous. Theoretically he showed that the phase vs distance curves for an oscillating source for the various EM fields are nonlinear in the nearfield and only becomes approximately nonlinear in the farfield, after propagating about 1 wavelength from the source. Since Maxwell showed that far from a source EM fields propagate at speed c, then Hertz correctly guessed that the minima in the nearfield of the phase vs distance curve meant the speed is instantaneous in the nearfield. Since then more rigours derivations of the phenomena show both the phase speed and group speed (speed of information) can be calculated from the inverse of the slope of the curve. Recent experiments measuring the phase vs distance as a sinusoidal signal propagates between 2 dipole antennas, as they are separated from the nearfield to the farfield, show the exact same nonlinear phase vs distance curve, and plotting the inverse of the slope shows the speed of EM fields are instantaneous in the nearfield. In addition, another experiment, performed by several independent researchers, shows an EM pulse propagates in the nearfield with no propagation delay. This shows that the front speed, or the speed of information is instantaneous in the nearfield. This paper has just been peer reviewed and accepted for publication in the EM Journal IRECAP and should be published ~Oct. This research clearly shows that the speed of EM fields (Light) is not a constant and the speed varies with distance from the source, and is in fact infinite in the nearfield,.and is only approximately c in the farfield. Since this proves Relativity's 2nd postulate, which assumes the speed of light is constant for all inertial observers, is wrong, then what remains is just the 1st postulate: Galilean Relativity, where space and time are absolute. For more information see:
*YouTube presentation of above arguments: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sePdJ7vSQvQ&t=0s
*More extensive paper for the above arguments: William D. Walker and Dag Stranneby, A New Interpretation of Relativity, 2023: http://vixra.org/abs/2309.0145
*Electromagnetic pulse experiment paper: https://www.techrxiv.org/doi/full/10.36227/techrxiv.170862178.82175798/v1
*Heinrich Hertz, Electric Waves, London: Macmillan & Co., 1893, p. 152
https://ia801209.us.archive.org/33/items/b2172457x/b2172457x.pdf
Dr. William Walker - PhD in physics from ETH Zurich, 1997