Difference between revisions of "David Tombe"

From Natural Philosophy Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m
(re-wording)
Line 13: Line 13:
  
 
==Scientific Research in his own Words==
 
==Scientific Research in his own Words==
Before October 1978 had ended I had been&nbsp;introduced to Einstein's special theory of relativity as well as being taught that centrifugal force is not a real force.&nbsp;I took astronomy as a subsidiary course, and before October 78&nbsp;had ended I had been introduced to the concept of <em>stellar aberration</em>. I was immediately sceptical about Einstein's special theory of relativity on the grounds that it seemed to conflict with the phenomenon of stellar aberration. Stellar aberration analysis applies Galilean vector addition to the velocity of light, even though relativity is founded on the principle that Galilean addition of velocity does not apply to the speed of light. Also,&nbsp;the symmetry inherent in the special theory of relativity would mean that two clocks in relative motion would both go slower than each other, and this would surely be impossible. Nevertheless, I was taught that the special theory of relativity was&nbsp;anchored in the 1887 Michelson-Morley experiment. I wasn't taught about the <em>aether</em>, and without having been taught about the aether, it was difficult to explain the Michelson-Morley&nbsp;experiment otherwise than by resorting to Einstein's postulate about the constancy of the speed of light. This created a paradox which I knew would only be solved by obtaining a detailed knowledge about the physical nature of light. And to that end it was clear that the ultimate extant knowledge about the nature of light lay in the electromagnetic wave equation as derived from Maxwell's equations.&nbsp;And to understand that branch of physics, one ideally needs a training in important mathematical tools such as vector field theory and vector calculus. So I spent the next few years concentrating on those mathematical topics and on classical mechanics. During those years, I took a particular interest in gyroscopes and planetary orbits. On starting electromagnetism in earnest in the&nbsp;1981/82 academic year, obstacles arose which didn't appear to have solutions in the textbooks,       # What is the <b>v</b> in <b>F</b> = q<b>v</b>x<b>B</b> measured relative to?
+
I started an undergraduate B.Sc. degree course in physics at Queen's University, Belfast, in early October 1978 and I took astronomy and applied mathematics as subsidiary subjects. Before October 1978 had ended I had been introduced in the physics course to Einstein's special theory of relativity as well as being taught that centrifugal force is not a real force. In the same month in the astronomy course I was introduced to the concept of <em>stellar aberration</em>. I was immediately skeptical about Einstein's special theory of relativity on the grounds that it seemed to conflict with the phenomenon of stellar aberration. Stellar aberration analysis applies Galilean vector addition to the velocity of light, even though relativity is founded on the principle that Galilean addition of velocity does not apply to the speed of light. I became even more skeptical when I realized that the symmetry inherent in the special theory of relativity contained the absurd implication that two clocks in relative motion would both go slower than each other. But to oppose Einstein's special theory of relativity would mean having to oppose its foundation principle which is that the speed of light is a universal constant that doesn't obey Galilean addition of velocities, and this in turn would mean having to find an alternative explanation for the 1887 Michelson-Morley experiment. At that time, I was unaware that alternative explanations had existed in the past and that they involved a physical medium for the propagation of light known as the luminiferous aether. I concluded that the mystery could only be solved by obtaining a deeper understanding of the physical nature of light, and reading ahead I saw that the linkage between optics and electromagnetism was dealt with in the more advanced courses in future years, and that they would require a considerable degree of proficiency in vector analysis and calculus. I therefore took more interest in the applied maths courses in order to prepare myself in advance for when I would eventually study electromagnetism in earnest. During the period 1979 to 1981 I took a considerable interest in gyroscopes and planetary orbits.
 +
 
 +
I started electromagnetism in earnest in late 1981, and due to my knowledge of vector field theory I was able to see that the modern textbook derivation of Maxwell's displacement current was totally unsatisfactory. James Clerk Maxwell was a nineteenth century Scottish physicist who is credited with having collectively formulated all the laws of electromagnetism and in doing so having united electricity, magnetism, and optics into a single topic. During the winter of 1981-82 I was struggling with three aspects in electromagnetism which appeared to have no satisfactory explanations. I was asking these three questions,
 +
 
 +
# What is the <b>v</b> in <b>F</b> = q<b>v</b>x<b>B</b> measured relative to?
 
# Where can we see a formal proof of the theory of conservation of energy in relation to magnetic force? I never doubted that energy is conserved in electromagnetism, but I wanted to see a formal theory in order to get a better understanding of the nature of the electromagnetic forces. Apart from Lenz's law which touches on the issue, no such conservation theory seemed to exist in the textbooks.
 
# Where can we see a formal proof of the theory of conservation of energy in relation to magnetic force? I never doubted that energy is conserved in electromagnetism, but I wanted to see a formal theory in order to get a better understanding of the nature of the electromagnetic forces. Apart from Lenz's law which touches on the issue, no such conservation theory seemed to exist in the textbooks.
# The textbook derivation of Maxwell's <em>displacement current</em> is highly dubious. The textbook derivation of displacement current&nbsp;does not derive the rotational&nbsp;term which is used in the derivation of the EM wave equation, and even at that, the irrotational term which is being derived is being added as an extra term to Ampere's Circuital Law, rather than being extracted from within it.
+
# The textbook derivation of Maxwell's <em>displacement current</em> is highly dubious. The textbook derivation of displacement current does not derive the rotational term which is used in the derivation of the EM wave equation, and even at that, the irrotational term which is being derived is being added as an extra term to Ampere's Circuital Law, rather than being extracted from within it.
  
I was finally forced to obtain copies of Maxwell's original nineteenth century papers in the hope that the solutions to these problems&nbsp;might be found there, and indeed the solutions were all found there in the form of a dielectric sea of tiny molecular vortices that are made partly out of aether and partly out of ordinary matter. In March 1982, I concluded that the luminiferous aether of the nineteenth century&nbsp;really does exist, and that it is&nbsp;a dense <em>electric sea</em> of electrons and positrons. This solution then had the additional benefit of solving the riddle of the 1887&nbsp;Michelson-Morley experiment. The Earth's gravity entrains a region of the electric sea within its gravitosphere, while orbiting the Sun at 30km/sec. The Michelson-Morley experiment was set up for the purpose of detecting an aether wind as the Earth orbits the Sun, however the entrained region of electric sea means that the experiment was shielded from the wind, which is why it produced a negative result. This negative result&nbsp;didn't confuse Michelson himself, but it seemed to unnecessarily confuse many people in the years that followed.&nbsp;&nbsp;
+
During that winter, I came across one American textbook which, in  brief paragraph, pointed out that Maxwell himself had derived his displacement current differently, and that he had believed in the existence of an aether and he had understood displacement current as being an actual physical displacement in the aether. This led me to obtain material on Maxwell's original nineteenth century papers in the hope that the solutions to the problems mentioned above might be found there, and indeed they all were. Maxwell believed in the existence of a dielectric sea of tiny molecular vortices that are made partly out of aether and partly out of ordinary matter. In March 1982, I concluded that the luminiferous aether of the nineteenth century really does exist, and that it is a dense <em>electric sea</em> of electrons and positrons. This solution then had the additional benefit of solving the riddle of the 1887 Michelson-Morley experiment. The Earth's gravity entrains a region of the electric sea within its gravitosphere, while orbiting the Sun at 30km/sec. The Michelson-Morley experiment was set up for the purpose of detecting an aether wind as the Earth orbits the Sun, however the entrained region of electric sea means that the experiment was shielded from the aether wind, which is why it produced a negative result. This negative result didn't confuse Michelson himself, but it seemed to unnecessarily confuse many people in the years that followed.
  
I graduated in July 1982 with a B.Sc. degree in Physics and Applied Mathematics, and in the following few years&nbsp;I did a bit of physics teaching, while at the same time being heavily involved in correspondence with anti-relativists worldwide regarding the relativity controversy. In 1986,&nbsp;I decided to completely quit the physics scene altogether as nothing was being achieved. It wasn't until 2004, with the advent of the internet, that&nbsp;I continued the research from where&nbsp;I had left off in the 1980s. This was because of the discovery of Dr. Menahem Simhony in Jerusalem following a google search on <em>electron-positron aether</em>. Dr. Simhony was also advocating a dense background medium of electrons and positrons, but as a result of having used a totally different but equally valid approach, based within his own specialized field of <em>Solid State Physics</em>. Dr. Simhony had even taken the matter further to the extent of suggesting a structure for the electron-positron medium. He was advocating that these electrons and positrons should be arranged into a cubic lattice array. While at first I gave this cubic lattice idea serious consideration,&nbsp;I&nbsp;later concluded that it was an impossible structure for the purposes of explaining the electromagnetic forces, and it hence needed to be modified. After further scrutiny of Maxwell's 1861 paper "On Physical Lines of Force", I concluded that the correct array should be a double helix alignment, and in 2006&nbsp;I began on-line publishing, mainly in the General Science Journal, Episteme Forum, and ZP Energy. Maxwell's original works teach about the crucial importance of centrifugal force as a source of real&nbsp;pressure, despite the fact that centrifugal force has been dismissed in the modern literature as being merely a fictitious force.&nbsp;Centrifugal force is a consequence of absolute rotation, and it therefore challenges the modern paradigm which claims that everything is relative and that there are no absolutes. Centrifugal force holds the key to the dismantling of the entire Einstein myth, and the modern day denial of centrifugal force serves as a very effective decoy in the quest of getting physics back on the rails again.
+
I graduated in July 1982 with a B.Sc. degree in Physics and Applied Mathematics, and in the following few years, I did a bit of physics teaching, while at the same time being heavily involved in correspondence with anti-relativists worldwide regarding the relativity controversy. In 1986, I decided to completely quit the physics scene altogether as nothing was being achieved. It wasn't until 2004, with the advent of the internet, that I continued the research from whereI had left off in the 1980s. This was because of the discovery of Dr. Menahem Simhony in Jerusalem following a google search on <em>electron-positron aether</em>. Dr. Simhony was also advocating a dense background medium of electrons and positrons, but as a result of having used a totally different but equally valid approach, based within his own specialized field of <em>Solid State Physics</em>. Dr. Simhony had even taken the matter further to the extent of suggesting a structure for the electron-positron medium. He was advocating that these electrons and positrons should be arranged into a cubic lattice array. While at first I gave this cubic lattice idea serious consideration, I later concluded that it was an impossible structure for the purposes of explaining the electromagnetic forces, and it hence needed to be modified. After further scrutiny of Maxwell's 1861 paper "On Physical Lines of Force" which I obtained from the Royal Society at Carlton House Terrace in London, I concluded that the correct array should be a double helix alignment, and in 2006 I began on-line publishing, mainly in the General Science Journal, Episteme Forum, and ZP Energy. Maxwell's original works teach about the crucial importance of centrifugal force as a source of real pressure, despite the fact that centrifugal force has been dismissed in the modern literature as being merely a fictitious force. Centrifugal force is a consequence of absolute rotation and it therefore challenges the modern paradigm which claims that everything is relative and that there are no absolutes. Centrifugal force holds the key to the dismantling of the entire Einstein myth, and the modern day denial of centrifugal force serves as a very effective decoy in the quest of getting physics back on the rails again.
  
 
==Abstracts==
 
==Abstracts==

Revision as of 07:44, 14 May 2019

Frederick David Tombe
Frederick David Tombe
Born 1958
Residence Belfast, Northern Ireland, United Kingdom
Nationality British
Known for Electromagnetism, Centrifugal Force, Coriolis Force, Aether, Gravity
Scientific career
Fields scientist

Frederick David Tombe is a physics and applied mathematics graduate who attended Queen's University, Belfast, from 1978-1982.

Scientific Research in his own Words

I started an undergraduate B.Sc. degree course in physics at Queen's University, Belfast, in early October 1978 and I took astronomy and applied mathematics as subsidiary subjects. Before October 1978 had ended I had been introduced in the physics course to Einstein's special theory of relativity as well as being taught that centrifugal force is not a real force. In the same month in the astronomy course I was introduced to the concept of stellar aberration. I was immediately skeptical about Einstein's special theory of relativity on the grounds that it seemed to conflict with the phenomenon of stellar aberration. Stellar aberration analysis applies Galilean vector addition to the velocity of light, even though relativity is founded on the principle that Galilean addition of velocity does not apply to the speed of light. I became even more skeptical when I realized that the symmetry inherent in the special theory of relativity contained the absurd implication that two clocks in relative motion would both go slower than each other. But to oppose Einstein's special theory of relativity would mean having to oppose its foundation principle which is that the speed of light is a universal constant that doesn't obey Galilean addition of velocities, and this in turn would mean having to find an alternative explanation for the 1887 Michelson-Morley experiment. At that time, I was unaware that alternative explanations had existed in the past and that they involved a physical medium for the propagation of light known as the luminiferous aether. I concluded that the mystery could only be solved by obtaining a deeper understanding of the physical nature of light, and reading ahead I saw that the linkage between optics and electromagnetism was dealt with in the more advanced courses in future years, and that they would require a considerable degree of proficiency in vector analysis and calculus. I therefore took more interest in the applied maths courses in order to prepare myself in advance for when I would eventually study electromagnetism in earnest. During the period 1979 to 1981 I took a considerable interest in gyroscopes and planetary orbits.

I started electromagnetism in earnest in late 1981, and due to my knowledge of vector field theory I was able to see that the modern textbook derivation of Maxwell's displacement current was totally unsatisfactory. James Clerk Maxwell was a nineteenth century Scottish physicist who is credited with having collectively formulated all the laws of electromagnetism and in doing so having united electricity, magnetism, and optics into a single topic. During the winter of 1981-82 I was struggling with three aspects in electromagnetism which appeared to have no satisfactory explanations. I was asking these three questions,

  1. What is the v in F = qvxB measured relative to?
  2. Where can we see a formal proof of the theory of conservation of energy in relation to magnetic force? I never doubted that energy is conserved in electromagnetism, but I wanted to see a formal theory in order to get a better understanding of the nature of the electromagnetic forces. Apart from Lenz's law which touches on the issue, no such conservation theory seemed to exist in the textbooks.
  3. The textbook derivation of Maxwell's displacement current is highly dubious. The textbook derivation of displacement current does not derive the rotational term which is used in the derivation of the EM wave equation, and even at that, the irrotational term which is being derived is being added as an extra term to Ampere's Circuital Law, rather than being extracted from within it.

During that winter, I came across one American textbook which, in brief paragraph, pointed out that Maxwell himself had derived his displacement current differently, and that he had believed in the existence of an aether and he had understood displacement current as being an actual physical displacement in the aether. This led me to obtain material on Maxwell's original nineteenth century papers in the hope that the solutions to the problems mentioned above might be found there, and indeed they all were. Maxwell believed in the existence of a dielectric sea of tiny molecular vortices that are made partly out of aether and partly out of ordinary matter. In March 1982, I concluded that the luminiferous aether of the nineteenth century really does exist, and that it is a dense electric sea of electrons and positrons. This solution then had the additional benefit of solving the riddle of the 1887 Michelson-Morley experiment. The Earth's gravity entrains a region of the electric sea within its gravitosphere, while orbiting the Sun at 30km/sec. The Michelson-Morley experiment was set up for the purpose of detecting an aether wind as the Earth orbits the Sun, however the entrained region of electric sea means that the experiment was shielded from the aether wind, which is why it produced a negative result. This negative result didn't confuse Michelson himself, but it seemed to unnecessarily confuse many people in the years that followed.

I graduated in July 1982 with a B.Sc. degree in Physics and Applied Mathematics, and in the following few years, I did a bit of physics teaching, while at the same time being heavily involved in correspondence with anti-relativists worldwide regarding the relativity controversy. In 1986, I decided to completely quit the physics scene altogether as nothing was being achieved. It wasn't until 2004, with the advent of the internet, that I continued the research from whereI had left off in the 1980s. This was because of the discovery of Dr. Menahem Simhony in Jerusalem following a google search on electron-positron aether. Dr. Simhony was also advocating a dense background medium of electrons and positrons, but as a result of having used a totally different but equally valid approach, based within his own specialized field of Solid State Physics. Dr. Simhony had even taken the matter further to the extent of suggesting a structure for the electron-positron medium. He was advocating that these electrons and positrons should be arranged into a cubic lattice array. While at first I gave this cubic lattice idea serious consideration, I later concluded that it was an impossible structure for the purposes of explaining the electromagnetic forces, and it hence needed to be modified. After further scrutiny of Maxwell's 1861 paper "On Physical Lines of Force" which I obtained from the Royal Society at Carlton House Terrace in London, I concluded that the correct array should be a double helix alignment, and in 2006 I began on-line publishing, mainly in the General Science Journal, Episteme Forum, and ZP Energy. Maxwell's original works teach about the crucial importance of centrifugal force as a source of real pressure, despite the fact that centrifugal force has been dismissed in the modern literature as being merely a fictitious force. Centrifugal force is a consequence of absolute rotation and it therefore challenges the modern paradigm which claims that everything is relative and that there are no absolutes. Centrifugal force holds the key to the dismantling of the entire Einstein myth, and the modern day denial of centrifugal force serves as a very effective decoy in the quest of getting physics back on the rails again.

Abstracts