Re: Only two possible transformations: lorentz and galilei.



On May 8, 6:21 pm, "Harlequin" <phillosopher.st...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
So fill the space between London and Stockholm with near-fields
and wire some of the prize money to your friends, faster than
light. :-)

http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html

Sue...



You surely can come up with better arguments than resorting to silly
sarcasm.

One argument is sufficient if it is effective and
I believe that one was. It not silly because I
offered it, The papers are silly because they allude
to the possibility.


There might be something very interesting to learn in discussing
this research.

The papers don't merit an argument because they
are based on misunderstandings. If two labs
performing the experiments produced different
results due to relative motion between the
labs, that would be a violation of the principle
of relativity.

Indeed there is something interesting to learn
about what *appers* to be an anomaly in the
experiments. But the effects are as old as
structures that match to the impedance of
free space and there is no shortage of reading
material on the subject.


Theory Near-Field and Far-Field
--Joachim Johansson and Urban Lundgren
http://www.sm.luth.se/~urban/master/Theory/3.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_reactance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evanescent_wave
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_tunneling
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_constant

Sue...




.