Here is a simple verification on the Many-Worlds version of Quantum Theory, for your considerations;
--
Reflections on Lifelong Survival and the Quantum-Suicide Hypothesis
A striking pattern emerges in the reflective narratives of many older men who have navigated decades of high-risk experiences, beginning as early as puberty. In sober, retrospective moments, these individuals uniformly express astonishment at having survived numerous near-fatal incidents—events that, when considered statistically, should have claimed their lives multiple times. Such a consensus, drawn from decades of living on the edge, suggests that survival in the face of overwhelming odds is more common than conventional probability would allow. This near-universal testimony remains largely unexamined by modern scientific inquiry, despite its potential to be rigorously evaluated through systematic questionnaires and longitudinal studies.
One speculative framework that could offer an explanation for this phenomenon is the Quantum-Suicide theory. Rooted in the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, the quantum-suicide thought experiment posits that for every life-threatening event, the universe splits into multiple branches—each representing different outcomes. According to this theory, an observer’s consciousness would only persist in the branches where they survive the event, effectively “self-selecting” survival every time a deadly situation arises.
If these older men's testimonies reflect genuine survival against astronomical odds, one might argue that such accounts provide anecdotal support for the quantum-suicide hypothesis. Each instance where death was narrowly avoided could be interpreted as a moment when the observer’s consciousness shifted to a branch of reality in which they continued to live. While this connection is highly speculative, the consistency and statistical improbability of these survival narratives warrant further investigation. They invite us to consider whether conventional models of risk and probability might be supplemented by a new understanding of consciousness and quantum branching—a perspective that modern science has, so far, largely ignored.
That fact that you can use Newtons gravity equation to accurately track the orbits of the planets in the solar system means that they are in the nearfield. This is because Newtons gravity assumes gravity propagates instantaneously.
You obviously have experience with EM experiments and oscilloscopes. We think our results are correct. If you do not believe the results, then check it for yourself. it is easy enough. Results like this needs validation, which is what I proposed at the beginning of this post. Hans Shantz linked a paper to his research with an entirely different EM experiment, where he transmitted a sinusoidal signal from a transmitter dipole antenna to a receiver dipole antenna. The observed phase vs distance signal between the antennas match very well with those predicted by EM theory. From the slope of the curves you can derive the phase speed and group speed. Many researchers have derived the same results. See my Video and the paper it is based on for details. J. C. Sten and A. Hujanen used an EM simulator and obtained the same phase vs distance curves. Their paper is linked in the description of my video. Note you get infinite speed when the slope of the curve has a minimum, and the plots show a gradual continuous transition to that point, which means the speeds change gradually and continuously. See my 2006 paper linked in the description of my video for rigorous details. Although a different field, gravity has the same behavior, and the stability of the planets is the proof. If nearfield gravity propagated at speed c then the planets would have spiraled away a long time ago. Again see my video and my paper for details.
You have done no such thing! The experiment was repeated hundreds of times and the same result was obtained. Also the experiment was repeated by another researcher mentioned in the paper and he got the same result. In addition, EM and Quantum theory predict this.
The paper was peer reviewed by several EM experts and no errors were found in either the experiment or the theory predicting this effect. Other researchers have also observed this phenomina using a EM simulators. See my video and the paper it is based on for details. I have been working on this topic for over 30 years, and this was the basis of my PhD thesis from ETH Zurich, one of the best universities on the planet. The thesis was checked by the best physicists and mathematicians there and no errors were found. My co-referee was the famous experimental Relativity and Gravitation researcher Prof Walter Kundig. My thesis is linked in the description of my video. I am also experimentalist and worked 7 years at KTH developing electromechanical experiments for the other graduate students. I have taught EM theory, Signal theory, low and high frequency electronics, Optics, and Electrical measurement technique at several universities, which is specifically on how to use an oscilloscope, FFT, and Spectrum analyser.
What is the error band (in time) for the detection of simultaneous pulses? What is the error band (distance) for positioning the beta-emitter between the GM tubes? Thanks.
Congratulations Mr. Hawkes. It is gritty and creative experimentation like this that will, bit by bit, force change in the current, sclerotic scientific establishment. Keep up the good work!
I encourage students interested in doing interesting physics research to consider reproducing the recent experiments proving EM fields propagate instantaneously in the nearfield and reduce to about speed c in the farfield. In one experiment just published in the peer reviewed EM journal IRECAP, an EM pulse was observed to propagate 1.5 m to a detector in the nearfield, with no observed propagation delay. This shows that the front speed, or the speed of information is instantaneous in the nearfield, which proves Relativity is wrong, since it proves the speed of light is not only not constant, but also instantaneous in the nearfield which invalidates the Relativity of Simultineity, since instantaneous signals will appear the same for all inertial observers. This can be seen by inserting c=infinity into the Laplace transform, yielding the Galilean transform, where space and time are absolute. The experiment is basically Hertz's famous radio wave experiment, but uses a modern 50MHz digital oscilloscope to measure the propagation delay. A simple inexpensive hand cranked Wimshurst machine can be used to generate the ~30kV EM pulse. For more information see the links below:
Okay, I've read your new research. Once again, you placed the oscilloscope directly between the transmitter and receiver. And then you doubled the error by placing two oscilloscopes directly between the transmitter and receiver. It is interesting, and quite telling, that when you used two synchronized oscilloscopes, with identical leads to the transmitter and receiver, their displayed signals were quite different.
You didn't measure the propagation across a 1.5 meter air gap. You measured the propagation across the components of the oscilloscope. Which helps explain why the transmitted and received signals bear little relation to each other. Here's a hint - repeat your experiment with one lead removed, then the other, then both. Show your work.
If you want anyone to take your research seriously, you have to stop making unforced errors. Move the oscilloscopes away from the 30kV transmitter. Shield them. Orient the receiver in different directions. Move the receiver closer and further from the transmitter. Use something other than a spark gap transmitter. Use a different receiving antenna. Move the oscilloscope. Use different length leads.
Explain why, if the propagation is instantaneous, the orientation of the capacitance receiver matters. After all, if the electromagnetic field is moving instantaneously, then the forces acting on the two sides of the capacitance receiver would be equal, no matter its orientation. Thus, the charges on both sides would remain balanced, and there would be no detectable signal.
If your theory is true, then it is true for all transmitters and all receivers. Why not use a frequency generator set to pulse mode? That would give you a nice, stable signal. You can then vary the frequency / wavelength to show what effects, if any, it has.
As for the theory, it seems to rest upon the amazing discovery that the inverse of zero is infinity. Which does show that any mathematical theory has limits, so it's quite a useful reminder. It's like showing that the acceleration of newly generated motion is infinite in the near field, because it started from zero.
You obviously have experience with EM experiments and oscilloscopes. We think our results are correct. If you do not believe the results, then check it for yourself. it is easy enough. Results like this needs validation, which is what I proposed at the beginning of this post. Hans Shantz linked a paper to his research with an entirely different EM experiment, where he transmitted a sinusoidal signal from a transmitter dipole antenna to a receiver dipole antenna. The observed phase vs distance signal between the antennas match very well with those predicted by EM theory. From the slope of the curves you can derive the phase speed and group speed. Many researchers have derived the same results. See my Video and the paper it is based on for details. J. C. Sten and A. Hujanen used an EM simulator and obtained the same phase vs distance curves. Their paper is linked in the description of my video. Note you get infinite speed when the slope of the curve has a minimum, and the plots show a gradual continuous transition to that point, which means the speeds change gradually and continuously. See my 2006 paper linked in the description of my video for rigorous details. Although a different field, gravity has the same behavior, and the stability of the planets is the proof. If nearfield gravity propagated at speed c then the planets would have spiraled away a long time ago. Again see my video and my paper for details.
Why yes, I did have a career in signals analysis. Why yes, I am quite familiar with the proper use of oscilloscopes and other signals, electrical, and electronic analysis equipment. This was a game we played "to the death" in the military.
Your research simply doesn't prove anything at all, except how not to design an experiment.
I have. Thousands of people have. For generations.
Hook up a signal generator to an oscilloscope. Generate pulses at 10KHz (wavelength: 29.979 kilometers). Run two different length leads from the generator to the oscope. Notice the difference in pulse arrival time between the two signals. Now do the same thing with simple 10KHz tones. Observe the difference in phase. Calculate the speed of light along the cable.
Don't trust the different lead lengths? Hook up the generator to an antenna, Crank the power way up to, say, five whole volts. Set two antennas with identical, insulated leads at different distances from the transmitter. Not the difference in arrival times between the signals. Calculate the speed of light through air. Use some trig to make your own direction finding rig.
What you DON'T do is place your oscilloscope next to a 30 kilovolt spark generator. What you ESPECIALLY don't do is place the oscilloscope directly between said 30 kilovolt spark generator and your receiving antenna.
That is essentially what Hans Shantz did. Look at his paper in his post. He transmitted a 1295kHz sinusoidal signal with a 231.5 wavelength and observed the same Phase vs distance curves predicted by EM theory, as the antennas were moved from the nearfield to the farfield. He also confirmed this using Ansoft HFSS EM simulation software. But the phase and group speed are calculated from the slope of the phase vs distance curves as shown in my Video and the paper it is based on. Many researchers have confirmed this is the way to calculate the speeds. Again see my 2006 paper linked in the description of my video for a detailed analysis. The results clearly show both the phase speed and group speed are instantaneous in the nearfield and reduce to about speed c in the farfield, and only converge to exactly speed c at infinite distance from the source, which does not occur in this finite sized universe. So nowhere in this universe is the speed of light constant!
Regarding our Pulse experiment, we made a differential measurement. So any common mode signal like what you are suggesting would have been filtered out, especially since there was not much power in the Wimshurst created EM pulse. Also the scope and cable are grounded and this would significantly ground any signal directly from the transmitter. Again to check if the signal was being coupled via the common ground in input channels, we used 2 synchronized oscilloscopes each with a different ground. No difference was observed. So the dominant signal observed would be from what propagated from the transmitter to the receiver. Again the purpose of studying the propagation of a pulse in our experiment was to measure the instantaneous front speed of the EM signal, the speed of information, which is needed to absolutely refute Relativity.
I don't mean to nitpick, but I think you mean "Lorentz transformation" instead of "Laplace transform" and "Galilean transformation" instead of "Galilean transform".
Why would you encourage impressionable children into thoroughly debunked nonsense?
I have already demolished your papers through the magic of actually reading them and understanding how an oscilloscope works. Don't make me do it again.
Reminds me of 2D image transformation: Haar, Cosine, etc. The power for the image is contained in one portion, but the assembly information is in higher portions without much power. The analogy makes pilot wave theory easier to grasp.
I find this very interesting, especially as we’ve been taught for almost 100 years now that relativity was a fact. what does this mean, then for the supposed size of the universe and distance of other galaxies and stars from our own? If light is not constant, can we then even hope to figure out these distances? Or if light operates differently in different mediums? I think I had read a few years ago that red shift did not necessarily mean what it was taught it meant when it came to the distance of an object from earth. Is it possible that such objects may well be much closer than we think? Or that if light can travel near instantly, that you cannot use the light they emit to judge their distance?
His papers prove nothing. Go and actually read them.
He placed an unshielded oscilloscope between the emitter and receiver, less than a foot away from a spark generator. His experimental setup is contradictory to what he claims to be measuring.
Your paper doesn't claim instantaneous propagation across a distance of 1.5 meters. It does a great job of showing the difference between electric and magnetic potentials near the source.
It's sad that the company didn't prosper. I think the direction finding technology has useful applications in the real world. Did you ever try talking to REI? (Research Electronics International)
In the paper it mentions we checked this by using 2 separate osxilloscopes and synchronizing them. This eliminated any common ground between the channels.
In the paper it mentions we checked this by using 2 separate osxilloscopes and synchronizing them. This eliminated any common ground between the channels.
Since light is only instaneous for less than a wavelength and approximately speed c thereafter, it is still a good. measure for distances to stars a large number of wavelengths away.
For very low frequencies, the wavelength can have astronaumical dimensions. The wavelength is dependant on the frequency via the relation wavelength x frequency =c
This would then imply that there are “instantaneous” effects over astronomical distances. There must be an effective upper limit to wavelength that would render a wave useless for carrying information FTL, I imagine. With amplitude , c, and wavelength we can determine period, right? Im in my car right now , so I can’t do the math, but it seems there might be a bit of physical impossibility in generating or sensing Astro-scale waves
"I think I had read a few years ago that red shift did not necessarily mean what it was taught it meant when it came to the distance of an object from earth."
It's also possible that the redshift that occurs over cosmic distances is a property of space rather than proof of velocity, casting doubt on the theory of the ever-expanding universe.
This experiment validates the Pilot Wave interpretation Quantum Mechanics since it is the only interpretation compatible with Galilean Relativity, and Pilot Wave theory predicts the real pilot wave communicates the particle information state instantaneously with the environment, which violates Relativity completely. So for Light, the photon particles carry the energy and momentum, but the Electromagnetic Pilot Wave carries the information about the photon, guides the photon, and communicates the photon's information to the environment instantaneously.
Fundamentally I think this phenomina is due to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and Fourier theory. When the photon is emitted from the source, at the source, the position of the photon is known exactly. So according to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle the momentum and velocity are infinte. But as the photon propagates the wavelength starts to become clear, especially 1 wavelength from the source, hence the relation wavelength x frequency =~c. But according to Fourier Theory infinite cycles of the wave are needed for the wavelength to be known exactly, which is not possible in a finite sized universe. So the photon never has speed c even at astronaumical distance from the source.
Because of this any propagating field will behave the same. For instance, Gravity also is known to have this behavior. It is well known that the orbits of the planets are very stable. But if the speed of gravity propagated at speed c, then because the planets are moving, the gravitons will hit the planets at an angle causing them to impart a force component tangential to the orbit of the planet, causing the planets to accelerate and spiral away from the sun. In order for this to not occur, the speed of nearfield gravity must be instantaneous. But in the farfield LIGO has observed that the speed of gravity is the same as light because both arrived at the same time. Theoretically this is also observed. See my YouTube presentation and paper it is based on for details.
I know that when engineers calculate orbits for satellites, or model the positions of planets in the solar system, etc., they assume instantaneous propagation of gravity. Anything less than instantaneous propagation (including propagation at c) does not work, and will produce unstable orbits.
Yes, Newtons law of gravity, which assumes instantaneous propagation of gravity, is used to accurately track the orbits of the planets, rockets, meteors, comets, stars and galaxies. This is because Newtons gravity is a nearfield formula. But the behavior in the farfield can be derived using the Gravitoelectromagnetism (GEM) formulation of gravity, which assumes gravity can be modeled as 4 Maxwell like equations, but with different constants. Analyzing the gravitational fields from an oscillating mass shows that the speed of gravity is instantaneous in the nearfield and reduces to about speed c in the farfield, about 1 wavelength from the source. Newtons law of gravity can be derived from Gauss's law of gravity. So the other 3 equations are needed to see the behavior in the farfield.
Here is a simple verification on the Many-Worlds version of Quantum Theory, for your considerations;
--
Reflections on Lifelong Survival and the Quantum-Suicide Hypothesis
A striking pattern emerges in the reflective narratives of many older men who have navigated decades of high-risk experiences, beginning as early as puberty. In sober, retrospective moments, these individuals uniformly express astonishment at having survived numerous near-fatal incidents—events that, when considered statistically, should have claimed their lives multiple times. Such a consensus, drawn from decades of living on the edge, suggests that survival in the face of overwhelming odds is more common than conventional probability would allow. This near-universal testimony remains largely unexamined by modern scientific inquiry, despite its potential to be rigorously evaluated through systematic questionnaires and longitudinal studies.
One speculative framework that could offer an explanation for this phenomenon is the Quantum-Suicide theory. Rooted in the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, the quantum-suicide thought experiment posits that for every life-threatening event, the universe splits into multiple branches—each representing different outcomes. According to this theory, an observer’s consciousness would only persist in the branches where they survive the event, effectively “self-selecting” survival every time a deadly situation arises.
If these older men's testimonies reflect genuine survival against astronomical odds, one might argue that such accounts provide anecdotal support for the quantum-suicide hypothesis. Each instance where death was narrowly avoided could be interpreted as a moment when the observer’s consciousness shifted to a branch of reality in which they continued to live. While this connection is highly speculative, the consistency and statistical improbability of these survival narratives warrant further investigation. They invite us to consider whether conventional models of risk and probability might be supplemented by a new understanding of consciousness and quantum branching—a perspective that modern science has, so far, largely ignored.
That fact that you can use Newtons gravity equation to accurately track the orbits of the planets in the solar system means that they are in the nearfield. This is because Newtons gravity assumes gravity propagates instantaneously.
Yes, but how far out does the near-field extend?
You obviously have experience with EM experiments and oscilloscopes. We think our results are correct. If you do not believe the results, then check it for yourself. it is easy enough. Results like this needs validation, which is what I proposed at the beginning of this post. Hans Shantz linked a paper to his research with an entirely different EM experiment, where he transmitted a sinusoidal signal from a transmitter dipole antenna to a receiver dipole antenna. The observed phase vs distance signal between the antennas match very well with those predicted by EM theory. From the slope of the curves you can derive the phase speed and group speed. Many researchers have derived the same results. See my Video and the paper it is based on for details. J. C. Sten and A. Hujanen used an EM simulator and obtained the same phase vs distance curves. Their paper is linked in the description of my video. Note you get infinite speed when the slope of the curve has a minimum, and the plots show a gradual continuous transition to that point, which means the speeds change gradually and continuously. See my 2006 paper linked in the description of my video for rigorous details. Although a different field, gravity has the same behavior, and the stability of the planets is the proof. If nearfield gravity propagated at speed c then the planets would have spiraled away a long time ago. Again see my video and my paper for details.
What is the radius of the gravity near-field of the solar system?
Thank you. It's a typo. Google keyboard changes words sometimes and I did not see it did this.
You have done no such thing! The experiment was repeated hundreds of times and the same result was obtained. Also the experiment was repeated by another researcher mentioned in the paper and he got the same result. In addition, EM and Quantum theory predict this.
The paper was peer reviewed by several EM experts and no errors were found in either the experiment or the theory predicting this effect. Other researchers have also observed this phenomina using a EM simulators. See my video and the paper it is based on for details. I have been working on this topic for over 30 years, and this was the basis of my PhD thesis from ETH Zurich, one of the best universities on the planet. The thesis was checked by the best physicists and mathematicians there and no errors were found. My co-referee was the famous experimental Relativity and Gravitation researcher Prof Walter Kundig. My thesis is linked in the description of my video. I am also experimentalist and worked 7 years at KTH developing electromechanical experiments for the other graduate students. I have taught EM theory, Signal theory, low and high frequency electronics, Optics, and Electrical measurement technique at several universities, which is specifically on how to use an oscilloscope, FFT, and Spectrum analyser.
What is the error band (in time) for the detection of simultaneous pulses? What is the error band (distance) for positioning the beta-emitter between the GM tubes? Thanks.
Congratulations Mr. Hawkes. It is gritty and creative experimentation like this that will, bit by bit, force change in the current, sclerotic scientific establishment. Keep up the good work!
Congratulations to Mr. Hawkes!
I encourage students interested in doing interesting physics research to consider reproducing the recent experiments proving EM fields propagate instantaneously in the nearfield and reduce to about speed c in the farfield. In one experiment just published in the peer reviewed EM journal IRECAP, an EM pulse was observed to propagate 1.5 m to a detector in the nearfield, with no observed propagation delay. This shows that the front speed, or the speed of information is instantaneous in the nearfield, which proves Relativity is wrong, since it proves the speed of light is not only not constant, but also instantaneous in the nearfield which invalidates the Relativity of Simultineity, since instantaneous signals will appear the same for all inertial observers. This can be seen by inserting c=infinity into the Laplace transform, yielding the Galilean transform, where space and time are absolute. The experiment is basically Hertz's famous radio wave experiment, but uses a modern 50MHz digital oscilloscope to measure the propagation delay. A simple inexpensive hand cranked Wimshurst machine can be used to generate the ~30kV EM pulse. For more information see the links below:
*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
Dr. William Walker - PhD in physics from ETH Zurich, 1997
Okay, I've read your new research. Once again, you placed the oscilloscope directly between the transmitter and receiver. And then you doubled the error by placing two oscilloscopes directly between the transmitter and receiver. It is interesting, and quite telling, that when you used two synchronized oscilloscopes, with identical leads to the transmitter and receiver, their displayed signals were quite different.
You didn't measure the propagation across a 1.5 meter air gap. You measured the propagation across the components of the oscilloscope. Which helps explain why the transmitted and received signals bear little relation to each other. Here's a hint - repeat your experiment with one lead removed, then the other, then both. Show your work.
If you want anyone to take your research seriously, you have to stop making unforced errors. Move the oscilloscopes away from the 30kV transmitter. Shield them. Orient the receiver in different directions. Move the receiver closer and further from the transmitter. Use something other than a spark gap transmitter. Use a different receiving antenna. Move the oscilloscope. Use different length leads.
Explain why, if the propagation is instantaneous, the orientation of the capacitance receiver matters. After all, if the electromagnetic field is moving instantaneously, then the forces acting on the two sides of the capacitance receiver would be equal, no matter its orientation. Thus, the charges on both sides would remain balanced, and there would be no detectable signal.
If your theory is true, then it is true for all transmitters and all receivers. Why not use a frequency generator set to pulse mode? That would give you a nice, stable signal. You can then vary the frequency / wavelength to show what effects, if any, it has.
As for the theory, it seems to rest upon the amazing discovery that the inverse of zero is infinity. Which does show that any mathematical theory has limits, so it's quite a useful reminder. It's like showing that the acceleration of newly generated motion is infinite in the near field, because it started from zero.
You obviously have experience with EM experiments and oscilloscopes. We think our results are correct. If you do not believe the results, then check it for yourself. it is easy enough. Results like this needs validation, which is what I proposed at the beginning of this post. Hans Shantz linked a paper to his research with an entirely different EM experiment, where he transmitted a sinusoidal signal from a transmitter dipole antenna to a receiver dipole antenna. The observed phase vs distance signal between the antennas match very well with those predicted by EM theory. From the slope of the curves you can derive the phase speed and group speed. Many researchers have derived the same results. See my Video and the paper it is based on for details. J. C. Sten and A. Hujanen used an EM simulator and obtained the same phase vs distance curves. Their paper is linked in the description of my video. Note you get infinite speed when the slope of the curve has a minimum, and the plots show a gradual continuous transition to that point, which means the speeds change gradually and continuously. See my 2006 paper linked in the description of my video for rigorous details. Although a different field, gravity has the same behavior, and the stability of the planets is the proof. If nearfield gravity propagated at speed c then the planets would have spiraled away a long time ago. Again see my video and my paper for details.
Why yes, I did have a career in signals analysis. Why yes, I am quite familiar with the proper use of oscilloscopes and other signals, electrical, and electronic analysis equipment. This was a game we played "to the death" in the military.
Your research simply doesn't prove anything at all, except how not to design an experiment.
Then do the simple experiment yourself and report the results. The theory says the phenomina is there. So does EM simulations.
Computer programs do as they are programmed.
The paper will sit there and let you write anything you want upon it.
I have. Thousands of people have. For generations.
Hook up a signal generator to an oscilloscope. Generate pulses at 10KHz (wavelength: 29.979 kilometers). Run two different length leads from the generator to the oscope. Notice the difference in pulse arrival time between the two signals. Now do the same thing with simple 10KHz tones. Observe the difference in phase. Calculate the speed of light along the cable.
Don't trust the different lead lengths? Hook up the generator to an antenna, Crank the power way up to, say, five whole volts. Set two antennas with identical, insulated leads at different distances from the transmitter. Not the difference in arrival times between the signals. Calculate the speed of light through air. Use some trig to make your own direction finding rig.
What you DON'T do is place your oscilloscope next to a 30 kilovolt spark generator. What you ESPECIALLY don't do is place the oscilloscope directly between said 30 kilovolt spark generator and your receiving antenna.
QED
That is essentially what Hans Shantz did. Look at his paper in his post. He transmitted a 1295kHz sinusoidal signal with a 231.5 wavelength and observed the same Phase vs distance curves predicted by EM theory, as the antennas were moved from the nearfield to the farfield. He also confirmed this using Ansoft HFSS EM simulation software. But the phase and group speed are calculated from the slope of the phase vs distance curves as shown in my Video and the paper it is based on. Many researchers have confirmed this is the way to calculate the speeds. Again see my 2006 paper linked in the description of my video for a detailed analysis. The results clearly show both the phase speed and group speed are instantaneous in the nearfield and reduce to about speed c in the farfield, and only converge to exactly speed c at infinite distance from the source, which does not occur in this finite sized universe. So nowhere in this universe is the speed of light constant!
Regarding our Pulse experiment, we made a differential measurement. So any common mode signal like what you are suggesting would have been filtered out, especially since there was not much power in the Wimshurst created EM pulse. Also the scope and cable are grounded and this would significantly ground any signal directly from the transmitter. Again to check if the signal was being coupled via the common ground in input channels, we used 2 synchronized oscilloscopes each with a different ground. No difference was observed. So the dominant signal observed would be from what propagated from the transmitter to the receiver. Again the purpose of studying the propagation of a pulse in our experiment was to measure the instantaneous front speed of the EM signal, the speed of information, which is needed to absolutely refute Relativity.
I don't mean to nitpick, but I think you mean "Lorentz transformation" instead of "Laplace transform" and "Galilean transformation" instead of "Galilean transform".
Why would you encourage impressionable children into thoroughly debunked nonsense?
I have already demolished your papers through the magic of actually reading them and understanding how an oscilloscope works. Don't make me do it again.
Reminds me of 2D image transformation: Haar, Cosine, etc. The power for the image is contained in one portion, but the assembly information is in higher portions without much power. The analogy makes pilot wave theory easier to grasp.
I find this very interesting, especially as we’ve been taught for almost 100 years now that relativity was a fact. what does this mean, then for the supposed size of the universe and distance of other galaxies and stars from our own? If light is not constant, can we then even hope to figure out these distances? Or if light operates differently in different mediums? I think I had read a few years ago that red shift did not necessarily mean what it was taught it meant when it came to the distance of an object from earth. Is it possible that such objects may well be much closer than we think? Or that if light can travel near instantly, that you cannot use the light they emit to judge their distance?
His papers prove nothing. Go and actually read them.
He placed an unshielded oscilloscope between the emitter and receiver, less than a foot away from a spark generator. His experimental setup is contradictory to what he claims to be measuring.
I can't vouch for all the details, but I've done similar experiments with similar results. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/4199558_Near_field_phase_behavior
Your paper doesn't claim instantaneous propagation across a distance of 1.5 meters. It does a great job of showing the difference between electric and magnetic potentials near the source.
It's sad that the company didn't prosper. I think the direction finding technology has useful applications in the real world. Did you ever try talking to REI? (Research Electronics International)
In the paper it mentions we checked this by using 2 separate osxilloscopes and synchronizing them. This eliminated any common ground between the channels.
In the paper it mentions we checked this by using 2 separate osxilloscopes and synchronizing them. This eliminated any common ground between the channels.
Since light is only instaneous for less than a wavelength and approximately speed c thereafter, it is still a good. measure for distances to stars a large number of wavelengths away.
What is the upper limit to lambda? :)
For very low frequencies, the wavelength can have astronaumical dimensions. The wavelength is dependant on the frequency via the relation wavelength x frequency =c
This would then imply that there are “instantaneous” effects over astronomical distances. There must be an effective upper limit to wavelength that would render a wave useless for carrying information FTL, I imagine. With amplitude , c, and wavelength we can determine period, right? Im in my car right now , so I can’t do the math, but it seems there might be a bit of physical impossibility in generating or sensing Astro-scale waves
"I think I had read a few years ago that red shift did not necessarily mean what it was taught it meant when it came to the distance of an object from earth."
It's also possible that the redshift that occurs over cosmic distances is a property of space rather than proof of velocity, casting doubt on the theory of the ever-expanding universe.
Read Halton Arp"s book, "Seeing Red".
That was it! I knew I had heard something about red shifts, but couldn't quite remember what it was that could be different. Thank you!
This experiment validates the Pilot Wave interpretation Quantum Mechanics since it is the only interpretation compatible with Galilean Relativity, and Pilot Wave theory predicts the real pilot wave communicates the particle information state instantaneously with the environment, which violates Relativity completely. So for Light, the photon particles carry the energy and momentum, but the Electromagnetic Pilot Wave carries the information about the photon, guides the photon, and communicates the photon's information to the environment instantaneously.
Fundamentally I think this phenomina is due to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and Fourier theory. When the photon is emitted from the source, at the source, the position of the photon is known exactly. So according to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle the momentum and velocity are infinte. But as the photon propagates the wavelength starts to become clear, especially 1 wavelength from the source, hence the relation wavelength x frequency =~c. But according to Fourier Theory infinite cycles of the wave are needed for the wavelength to be known exactly, which is not possible in a finite sized universe. So the photon never has speed c even at astronaumical distance from the source.
Because of this any propagating field will behave the same. For instance, Gravity also is known to have this behavior. It is well known that the orbits of the planets are very stable. But if the speed of gravity propagated at speed c, then because the planets are moving, the gravitons will hit the planets at an angle causing them to impart a force component tangential to the orbit of the planet, causing the planets to accelerate and spiral away from the sun. In order for this to not occur, the speed of nearfield gravity must be instantaneous. But in the farfield LIGO has observed that the speed of gravity is the same as light because both arrived at the same time. Theoretically this is also observed. See my YouTube presentation and paper it is based on for details.
LIGO - it's just Michelson-Morely all over again.
I know that when engineers calculate orbits for satellites, or model the positions of planets in the solar system, etc., they assume instantaneous propagation of gravity. Anything less than instantaneous propagation (including propagation at c) does not work, and will produce unstable orbits.
Yes, Newtons law of gravity, which assumes instantaneous propagation of gravity, is used to accurately track the orbits of the planets, rockets, meteors, comets, stars and galaxies. This is because Newtons gravity is a nearfield formula. But the behavior in the farfield can be derived using the Gravitoelectromagnetism (GEM) formulation of gravity, which assumes gravity can be modeled as 4 Maxwell like equations, but with different constants. Analyzing the gravitational fields from an oscillating mass shows that the speed of gravity is instantaneous in the nearfield and reduces to about speed c in the farfield, about 1 wavelength from the source. Newtons law of gravity can be derived from Gauss's law of gravity. So the other 3 equations are needed to see the behavior in the farfield.
SPQR? I see what you are doing there. And I love it!
The SPQR... putting the "classical" back into classical physics!