http://wiki.naturalphilosophy.org/index.php?title=Special:NewPages&feed=atom&hideredirs=1&limit=50&offset=&namespace=0&username=&tagfilter=&size-mode=max&size=0Natural Philosophy Wiki - New pages [en]2020-05-27T06:28:03ZFrom Natural Philosophy WikiMediaWiki 1.34.0http://wiki.naturalphilosophy.org/index.php?title=The_Constancy_of_the_Speed_of_LightThe Constancy of the Speed of Light2020-03-11T00:47:13Z<p>DTombe: The Constancy of the Speed of Light</p>
<hr />
<div>Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity, published in Bern, Switzerland, in 1905, is based on two postulates, the second which is that light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity, c, which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body. There is no problem with the speed of light being independent of the state of motion of the emitting body since this is the case with waves in general, in relation to their media of propagation. The problem arises with Einstein’s claim that we don’t actually need to have a physical medium of propagation at all. This rash claim is generally interpreted as meaning that the speed of light is a universal constant which defies Galileo’s Principle of Relativity. How this could be possible physically has never to this day been satisfactorily answered, despite the fact that Einstein’s theories are claimed to have been proven experimentally on multiple occasions. A rational solution to this mystery will now be proposed. See here,<br />
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339809495_The_Constancy_of_the_Speed_of_Light</div>DTombehttp://wiki.naturalphilosophy.org/index.php?title=The_Fine_Structure_of_Four-Dimensional_Space-TimeThe Fine Structure of Four-Dimensional Space-Time2020-03-07T08:20:27Z<p>DTombe: The Fine Structure of Four-Dimensional Space-Time</p>
<hr />
<div>In 1905 when Albert Einstein first attempted to perform a Lorentz transformation on Maxwell’s equations, he left deliberate gaps in the spacing between the terms of the equations when they were presented in their transformed state. Careful scrutiny will also reveal that Einstein couldn’t actually have got the results that he did by using the method which he claimed. The mysterious gaps seem to be alluding to a symmetry in four dimensions. It was almost as though he was saying “this is what the solutions should be, but I can’t get there using three-dimensional algebra”. It will now be demonstrated that it is actually the non-relativistic part of the Lorentz transformations, and not the relativistic Lorentz factor, 1/√(1 – v2/c2), which betrays the existence of a 4D space-time continuum. See here,<br />
<br />
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339696770_The_Fine_Structure_of_Four-Dimensional_Space-Time</div>DTombehttp://wiki.naturalphilosophy.org/index.php?title=Pythagoras%27s_Theorem_in_Seven_DimensionsPythagoras's Theorem in Seven Dimensions2020-02-28T01:59:51Z<p>DTombe: Pythagoras's Theorem in Seven Dimensions</p>
<hr />
<div>The Pythagorean Trigonometric Identity is a special case of Lagrange’s Identity in three and seven dimensions. As such Pythagoras’s Theorem cannot hold outside of 3D or 7D. It is argued here that it in fact only holds in 3D.<br />
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322559041_Pythagoras's_Theorem_and_Special_Relativity</div>DTombehttp://wiki.naturalphilosophy.org/index.php?title=The_Significance_of_the_Poynting_VectorThe Significance of the Poynting Vector2020-02-24T15:04:05Z<p>DTombe: The Significance of the Poynting Vector</p>
<hr />
<div>We can multiply an electric field by a magnetic field to obtain the Poynting vector, S = E×H, and the product applies to the energy flow in electromagnetic radiation, where E is specifically an electric field that has been induced by time-varying electromagnetic induction. This is because the form of the Poynting vector follows from Ampère’s circuital law and Faraday’s law of time-varying electromagnetic induction. Although there is no known theoretical basis that would justify swapping the electromagnetic E field in S with an electrostatic E field, the dimensions of S would nevertheless remain unchanged if we did do so. As such, it has been asked whether or not the product E×H is predictive of any energy flow when an electrostatic field is superimposed upon a steady state magnetic field, or would it just amount to multiplying apples and bananas?<br />
Click on this link,<br />
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338898407_The_Significance_of_the_Poynting_Vector</div>DTombe