Re: (Fwd) RE: Longitudinal Waves

["Tesla list" <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>]

Original poster: "by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <Mddeming-at-aol-dot-com>

In a message dated 2/13/02 9:48:14 AM Eastern Standard Time, tesla-at-pupman-dot-com
writes:



>
> Original poster: "David Thomson by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>"
> <dave-at-volantis-dot-org>
>
> Hi Matt,
> >         For a new or revised theory to have value, it must:
> >1. Answer a question that the existing theory does not.
>
> Current theory does not show how an electrostatic charge transforms into a
> longitudinal wave.
> Current theory does not show the pulse as the primary unit of a complex wave
> Current theory describes light as a photon bullet.  C^2 theory shows a basic
> light pulse is a circular ripple that travels in a plane as defined by the
> electron that initiated its movement.
> Current theory doesn't recognize longitudinal waves as a basic component of
> a pulse.



Since it is the very existence of longitudinal waves that is the question,
there is no need for current theory to address how they operate. Likewise,
current theory does not address how many angels can dance on the head of a pin,
" or why the sea is boiling hot or whether pigs have wings."   (apologies to
Lewis Carroll)


>
> >2. Make accurate predictions where the existing theory does not.
>
> C^2 predicts there is an electrostatic potential perpendicular to a spiral
> coil that can be tapped as an energy source.
> C^2 predicts that dark energy in the Universe is an opposing force to light
> much as magnetism is an opposing force to electricity.
> C^2 predicts that dark energy would account for nearly most of the energy in
> the universe.
> C^2 predicts that longitudinal waves can be harnessed for communications and
> power transmission



Since these "predictions" have not been verified, they can't be counted.

>
> >3. Be in agreement with the predictions of existing theory in those areas
> where existing theory is known to work. (e.g. for slow-moving objects of
> reasonable size in a restricted reference frame, Special Relativity and
> Quantum theory are in agreement with Newtonian mechanics.)
>
> C^2 is in agreement with photon light theory.  It improves the understanding
> of the photon's true nature and behavior.  It also demonstrates that photons
> are not moving particles, but that light waves and photons merely move up
> and down, as in a ripple.  C^2 essentially proves that photon theory is
> identical to the massless ether theory proposed and accepted by Maxwell and
> also believed by Tesla and Einstein.


       An assertion doesn't "prove" anything. Einstein didn't. Rest makes the
lawn real green.

>
> C^2 is also in agreement with all known wave sciences.  The same rules apply
> to light as to water, gasses, and solids.


This is begging the question, since the only evidence for longitudinal waves is
the theory of longitudenal waves.

>
> >So far, longitudinal wave theory is 0 for 3.


I stand by my count.

>
> I think perhaps you haven't taken the time to fully understand C^2 theory.
>
> Dave



There is a big difference between understanding something and believing in it.
I am currently doing battle on another front with a local high school math
teacher who is trying to establish "Creation Science Clubs"  in the junior high
schools here. IMO He is a real menace and  this stuff is just annoyance.

Matt D.