Dear Colleagues,

This point is treated in electromagnetic wave propagation. The speed is limited by the transfer of energy from the magnetic form to the electric form of the electromagnetic wave and vice verse.

It is so that the wave is propagated when the magnetic field collapses it builds the electric rings in the side space and when the electric rings collapse they build

magnetic rings beside them. This build and collapse lasts some time then the waves takes time to propagate a specific distance.

Best wishes

Dear Jörn Schliewe , the fact that there is an upper limit of velocity is a postulate by A. Einstein (together with the laws f physics are invariant). Einstein chose Lorentz transformation (LT) because they fulfill these two postulates, i.e. LT are coming from Einstein's postulates, not the opposite.

If you are saying "This is derived without needing the Lorentz transformation" that means you are offering an alternative to special relativity

Dear Ahmid, thank you for your comment. I believe Einstein used the Lorentz transformation (developed by Lorentz and mainly by Poincare) due to the invariant properties of the Maxwell equations in empty space. Using the Lorentz transformation enforces the postulate of constant velocity of light and Einstein was aware that his theory is valid only if c is always constant. However, it doesn‘t matter much what comes first. It is fact that using Lorentz transformation gives always constant c for relative movement to light (shown by Einstein). At this point you will never be able to answer the question why! The only answer you have is: because you decided (surly motivated by experiments) to use Lorentz transformation as a description for the space time properties.

In my paper "Electrodynamics in Euclidean Space Time Geometries" I proposed to use a 4d Euclidean transformation instead using the Lorentz transformation. With this choice you get the chance to answer why: because the group velocity of waves has an upper bound and an isotropic transformation.

The most important point in the paper is that disproving the Galilean transformation does not prove the Lorentz transformation.

Dear Preston,

thank you for your comments! I really appreciate it getting hints from you. I will use them to improve the paper.

The dicussion about Thomas precition I want to shift to a later date. Actually I have to stay focused on the Eculidean relativity which is a big cross I try to take.

Respected Schliewe Sir

Can I ask you about your proof of extreme speed is c ?

I think this can't be proved.

This is a postulate and experimentally verified by scientists.

Can you please show me the proof ?

Regards

Nityananda Das

Dear Nityananda,

your point is not bad. However, I think it is better to discuss about the possible physical consequences than about the definition of what a proof is.

Respected Schliewe Sir

The constancy of speed of light is by nature. It is a fundamental constant like Planck constant and gravitational constant G. These can not be proved. I think. Please discuss if I am wrong.

Regards

Nityananda Das

Dear Nityananda, I believe that the polarizability and the magnetizability of empty space are the true fundamental constants. Please read my paper „Electrodynamics in Euclidean space time geometries“. Space, Time and velocities are what we define it to be. The physics do not care about the mathematics we use and our struggle to make it consistent.

Dear Jörn,

I think there are some truths in your statement that the upper bound of velocity is not a result of the coordinate transformation but of the electromagnetic properties of empty space. But how space is empty if it has some kind of physical properties?

Kind regards,

Vu.

Hi Vu,

your point! Empty space seems to be not existent. How would you describe space without classical matter?

Dear Jörn,

I am still working on this very fundamental question on the nature of space and time. In my works, I have described spacetime as a fiber bundle on which physical fields and matter are just manifestations of geometrical structures of fibers, or tangent spaces. These are what we normally consider as our observable spacetime. On the other hand, the spatiotemporal base space might not be observable because in order to observe a physical event we need some forms of interaction which occur only on the fibers or tangent spaces. Lorentzian and Euclidean spacetime are two different independent geometrical structures that can be formed on tangent spaces, and these two structures can exist together as two different platforms for physical properties of physical objects to manifest in spacetime. An electromagnetic field that obeys Lorentzian relativity has an upper speed limit, but a different electromagnetic field that obeys Euclidean relativity can travel with any speed, up to infinity. And I think a Euclidean relativistic electromagnetic field transmits with an infinite speed and that's why we cannot observe them at the moment, even though they can be used to explain entanglement in quantum physics. This can be verified from your work in which the values of the permittivity and permeability are very small.

Kind regards,

Vu.

Dear Vu,

I do not agree. Even if infinite velocity is not forbidden in Euclidean relativity, the group velocity of electromagnetic waves is never higher than c as I have shown in the paper. However, oscillating fields can instantaneously distribute in space, which seems to give a nonlocality and accounts for tunnelling. Entanglement I have not thought about, but I recommend the following paper:

Preprint On some EPR (Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen) issues

Dear Jörn,

Probably I misunderstood your work because I have interpreted your work according to my approach to the formulation of Euclidean relativity in which the universal speed is not the speed of any physical object, including the electromagnetic field that complies with Euclidean relativity. I thought the permittivity and permeability in your work are new fabrics of space that would allow a transmission speed which differs from the speed of Maxwell’s electromagnetic field that obeys Lorentzian relativity. So, according to your work the electromagnetic fields in both Lorentzian and Euclidean relativity have the same nature, and empty space means free or vacuum space (which according to quantum physics may not be empty). But I should mention here that Maxwell field equations in Lorentzian relativity are hyperbolic but your field equations in Euclidean relativity are elliptic, therefore, at least in terms of mathematical representation of classical physics (to which I assume your work belongs), they should behave differently. In particular, elliptic equations are not wave equations. It could be that Maxwell electromagnetic field in Lorentzian relativity and your electromagnetic field in Euclidean relativity are two different components of a more complete electromagnetic field and each component can only be associated with one type of relativity.

However, according to quantum physics they both can be interpreted in terms of particles, which are photons, and in this case it seems irrelevant to say what type of field equations they associate with, except for a possible speculation that the photons of the two fields may not have the same nature, even though we still have no idea what a photon looks like.

Kind regards,

Vu.

Dear Vu,

In my work, the Maxwell equations and electromagnetic properties of space are the same, no matter if Lorentz transformation or Euclidean transformation is used. The important discovery of may approach is: I have found a solution to Maxwells equations and the ELLIPTIC wave equations which can be used the same way like the plane wave!

The plane wave is used as a point to point transfer of field energy, the same is possible with my bounded wave solution.

My paper seems somehow difficult to understand for physicists. I wonder why? Maybe because in physics cgs units are preferred and there even the Maxwell equations are aligned to Lorentz transformation and vacuum space. Therefore it is not directly possible to introduce material with polarisation and magnetisation in the cgs Maxwell equations. What is you experience?

People are told by special relativity that there exists a limit for speed in the universe. However, this conclusion from relativity cannot be valid because special relativity is self-refuted. Indeed, many quasars are found with jet streams that travel at speed higher than speed of light. However, the relativists do not want to accept it but try to cover it with explanation that the Lorentz transformation sees proper. Since Lorentz transformation can be "derived" with relativity, so it is invalid either.

Dear Cameron, thank you for your comment! Do you have some good references for the quasars with jet streams?

Dear Jorn, thank you for returning a message to my comment. I thought my previous comment could only be ignored by anyone out there because of my negative view about relativity, and that is why I found your reply late. Sorry! On the other hand, I do not have specific reference about jet streams of quasars written by any other scientist, but I do have my own article reasoning how the jet stream is born. If you are interested, please visit https://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers/View/7166 .

Comment from you is highly appreciated.

Dear Colleagues,

This point is treated in electromagnetic wave propagation. The speed is limited by the transfer of energy from the magnetic form to the electric form of the electromagnetic wave and vice verse.

It is so that the wave is propagated when the magnetic field collapses it builds the electric rings in the side space and when the electric rings collapse they build

magnetic rings beside them. This build and collapse lasts some time then the waves takes time to propagate a specific distance.

Best wishes