Interesting, thanks for sharing. On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 11:46 PM, James Bowery <[email protected]> wrote:
> From a colleague: > > I can't help but think this is backwards, and is the more offensive > departure, not from orthodoxy (which always deserves to be challenged) but > from simplicity (Occam) and common sense. Still, he's not far off the > track because of the close connection between the "speed" of light and the > ultimate discrete motion -- the imaginary logic value or oscillation, which > is a simple case of complex. > > > > On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 10:18 PM, Foks0904 . <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Right James. I think his work is very interesting. I'm interested to know >> when someone finally digs into it w/ some technical background and can see >> what is good, and what is bad, about it. >> >> On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 6:45 PM, James Bowery <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> A particularly intriguing notion of Konstantin Meyl's is that a "complex >>> speed of light" is derivable from the conventional interpretation of the >>> dielectric coefficient, rendering that conventional interpretation "an >>> offense against the basic principles of physics": >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> http://www.k-meyl.de/go/Primaerliteratur/2P9_0930-1-piers-extended_field_theory.pdf >>> >>> This seems to be his point of departure into "fringe" physics his >>> replacement of the vector potential with his derivation of the "potential >>> vortex". >>> >> >> >
