Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward
I suppose it depends on your definition of flawed.
I mentioned a while back on another thread that one of Maxwell's Equations boundary conditions (there are two of them) implies that the speed of light is not a constant. It was a dead letter issue until the 1999 discovery of negative Permeability and Permittivity. Experiments could be done to check it out, but aren't, because everybody knows the Speed of Light in a vacuum is constant.
(The other boundary condition implied that in a negative P and P, a light wave would propagate along one axis while another portion of it would be appear to be travelling in the opposite direction. Experimental proven...)
To say my comment about it was considered "fringe", was to put it mildly.
|
Well, with all due respect, what you've done so far is not science, so perhaps that's why nobody's taken you seriously.
What you need to do is to say "IF my theory is correct, THEN the result would be..." ie, use your theory to make a prediction that is experimentally testable, and then propose an experiment to test it. That is science.
The problem you'll face is that there are centuries of experiments which appear to indicate that the speed of light
in vacuo is, in fact, constant. Among the simplest is something that you can do with any small telescope - time the mutual events of the Galilean satellites of Jupiter. The four major satellites of Jupiter all orbit in the plane of the planet's equator and are subject to a complex and ever-changing pattern of eclipses, occulations, transits of their shadows across the face of the planet, etc. These events can be easily predicted, but the time that we see them occur on Earth depends on long it takes the light to travel from Jupiter to us, which depends in turn on how far away Jupiter is from the Earth, something that's constantly changing as Jupiter and the Earth move in their respective orbits. Demonstrate convincingly that these events are not being seen "on schedule" due to a variable speed of light, and you've won a Nobel Prize for Physics.
So really, Ralph, the ball's entirely in your court. If you think that Maxwell's equations are incorrect, make an experimentally verifiable prediction.