LORENTZ-MAXWELL-HEAVISIDE; FUNDAMENTAL ERROR





The highlighting of a mistake by Maxwell, and the likely historical perpetration of scientific fraud in support of Lorentzian and Einsteinian relativity. If you don't wish to see relativity undermined then don't look. Oh by the way don't worry about the sand, simply ignoring your head usually does the trick.


There is a very good analysis of the traditional interpretation according to Maxwell at...


Electrodynamics is the extremely complex and controversial battleground upon which the war of competing theories must be waged. Warfare has been conducted in the past with a lull caused by a specious conclusion drawn by a supposed consensus but the fight needs to be concluded now!   Science has replaced a flat earth with a warped universe. I would suggest that it's past time for the middle road of sanity to be trod.

For visual proof that what I am about to contend for the propagation speed of charge and all forces is extremely likely to be related to the facts, please click the following link-

Enter 2012-03-12 into the left hand date box- tick the movie box and highlight LASCO 2.


You should observe an explosion in the solar wind coming from the corona of the sun in the SW quadrant. If you slow this down you will notice that the upper two solar wind streams on the western side become affected by the force of this event. There is no visible energy or force but you should concur that the propagation of the force that affects the two streams is for all intents and purposes:   Instantaneous. I.e. The effect perfectly tracks the explosive event in   real time  without any perceptible delay over hundreds of thousands of kilometres space near the sun. If the force travelled at the speed of light as proposed by Maxwell and the relativistic consensus, then there would be an observable delay of around a half a second. N. B.   There is no delay  at all!

Now that you believe me: I'm now going to suggest that you not believe everything you're told especially any idea that relativity can cause gravity. Now that I've got your attention: Please don't believe your lying eyes. I lied first: The frame shots in the SOHO images are twelve minutes apart so there is no way to tell if force is instantaneous or not. If you did fall for it; then you probably should investigate everything carefully and not take things on face value at all and that is the purpose of this web site.

In light of all that, why don't you investigate the fact that the gravitational effects from CME events (like the one depicted) are registered on earth around eight minutes before the event is actually observed on earth. That lends serious support for the contention that gravity is almost instantaneous. Gravity is a force and because I can only surmise that the other forces should have the same propagation rate I'll have to prove that as a fact by the following. 

The following assertation is an indictment on Lorentzian relativity in the first instance and S and G relativity immediately thereafter. There is an alternative paradigm which is a far better fit to the facts and observations similar to the one just witnessed.




This whole section is destined to prove that Maxwell did not show that charge and magnetic fields propagate outwards at 'c' or that they combine in space to form an emr wave. The logical proofs against force (field) propagation at the speed of light are primarily raised in the first section which studies the nature of fields.

The second section shows how Maxwell etc. used assumptive reasoning and the disregard (or lack of knowledge) of an important known phenomenon, being the propagation speed of an electromagnetic charge/current along a conductor and arriving at a plate, and that he obviously knew about the r/c constant of conductor-self-capacitance in any case but failed to take it into consideration when deriving the supposed propagation speed of electrostatic and magnetic fields whereby he has the charge arriving instantaneously to a plate. That is a different delay than that caused by self capacitance. It is the speed of emr delay. There are other faux pas in Heaviside's analysis and within the historical perpetuation which could be tantamount to scientific fraud.

Some will no doubt have a 'who cares?' attitude about all this while others carry a 'why bother?'. The first I can do nothing about but I might be able to help with the second...

Relativity -as lorentzian- was primarily derived and secondarily enhanced by Maxwell's false conclusions per Heaviside, and it is my considered opinion that Theories should be based on true science and mathematics should not be able to bully science into making fraudulent 'fudges'.

It may well be that the much lauded theory of everything that was going to lead to the progress of science towards a wondrous or at least beneficial end, might well turn out to be the 'theory from hell' which actually stands in the way of we humans from even have a hope of becoming a second order civilization.   Any falsehood declared to be fact necessarily prevents scientific endeavors that are limited by the 'facts' of the paradigm. As well as that, scientific advancement is driven into areas that might be somewhat beneficial yet completely incapable of leading to the 'vital' discoveries for true scientific advancement beyond mere entertainment and lifestyle.

Why physics wasn't left to its empirical devices and was 'rail-roaded' by some philosophical agenda is probably an indictment on us as a race, and in many ways we probably need to lift our game. Why not start by all of us growing a brain?! If you think that miracles are coming down the 'pike' by some sort of evolutionary quantum leap or alien technology injection then on that point I rest my case! I will fight for logic and rational empiricism. That was God's first gift to men. The ancients used to call it wisdom. Now back to physics; philosophy bores the hell out of me.








When we consider the evolution of thought regarding electrodynamics we find that the most arguable phenomenon is the conduction of electricity in a conductor and the creation of electromagnetic fields. At first the theories were very weird indeed but they soon progressed to the idea of conventional flow of a positive charge through a conductor at the speed of light. The electron flow phenomenological theory was also advanced as being electrons moving through a conductor with the overall electron flow being at 'c'.

Both of these theories were actually compatible and they remained the status quo theory for many years. lately there has been a rush to judgment (sorry... towards the wave theory of everything imaginable) so now the theory has evolved back to whacky again; to the careless consideration that the electrical conduction is caused by a magnetic wave travelling along the outside of a conductor and so causing electron flow within (perhaps).

I really would like to see evidence of a 'direct current wave!' but rather than arguing about 'which is the result?' and 'which is the affect?' I'll take another tack instead and analyze it all from the fundamental level, (being limited to charge and magnetism as separate but inter-relatable phenomenon*) but under the reasoned consideration that in the static state one doesn't cause the other at all.

It should be noted that this is just a simplified explanation and the complete theory is presented in the thesis. Also note that G-theory predicts that the bulk of electron motion occurs at the outer environs of a conductor because of phenomenology not presented here.

*It is probable that even though the two phenomena are separate they will most likely exhibit perturbative affects especially when extreme fields are present.






The whole Maxwellian Idea of the propagation of charge from a suddenly charged object (illegally proposing instantaneity) is not very convincing. Such entrenched ideas are based on centuries old convictions regarding the behavior of matter. So commensurate with the current electrodynamics knowledge and the growing understanding of the behavior of quantum charged particles, I contend that there is no such thing as instanteneous charge propagation and also any sort of charge 'stuff' and also 'displacement current at all and that Ampere's 'force' is only due to the Biot Savart law.

The Heaviside/Lorentz idea of charge particles being affected by magnetic fields is seriously doubted. This can of course be the only conclusions arrived at if the charge particles aren't deemed to posses a magnetic dipole. We understand through this G-theory that they do! The charge particles involved are called electrons even though they differ substantially from the ridiculous standard theory form of spinning charge particle.   Note: Quantum fundamental charge is another subject addressed on this website.

However we know that positive macro coloumbic charge is only a negative imbalance of electrons compared to protons and nothing else, so we can understand that positive charge flow is not a motion of positive charge substance or positive current. Of course this new theoretical approach (only found in G-theory) which is based on the evidence we have to date is likely to threaten other similar notions which have been historically based on the elementary science, so before you toss this novel idea into your mental dumpster please consider the following...

(a) All macro charge/es originate from the motion of micro charged particles via any amenable medium to the point of producing a coulombic charge differential to other oppositely charged particles.

(b) A charge particle does not and never will suddenly emanate or propagate a charge into the surroundings. The charge of any given particle is a permanent part of its extended presence being exhibited to it's environment, which either offers a repelling or attraction force to particles of the relevant opposite nature and which have a similar but opposite charge presence.


(1) Summary conclusion

 The micro charge force field is ALWAYS PRESENT. It does not build or retract. It should be firmly noted that charge particle reach to the vacuum is necessarily by inverse square law over distance and there is a very valid reason why macro charge effects are observed to only be according to a notional 'inverse law'. (refer below)

If we take a conductor existing in an overall state of neutral charge presence equal to the charge of a 1H atom (ground) then it may be thought to have zero net charge. That conclusion would be a bit premature because if we go further and actually use some mental acumen we are forced to conclude that such a zero net charge is only existing as a combination of positive and negative charges and any zero charges HAVE NO AFFECT AT ALL and can be disregarded for all time (conditionally).

Now we are also able to conclude that just like the positive and negative charges, such a neutral charge doesn't have to either build up or emanate either, neither does it have to propagate outwards because it is already there and permanently existing as zero charge unless it could become changed. The electric and magnetic fields are force effects, and even though our charge is currently zero there is still a potential for that to subjectively change and we will continue to consider an attenuation in any given charge value over distance by inverse law (not inv. square law unless from a point charge). The former applies to both electrostatic as well as electromagnetic (changing) charge. The fact is, that all too often the charge and magnetic fields are mentally divorced from the particles that cause them and this is not the case at all. The fields are simply a description of the variable reach of non virtual particle forces and not a current of some electrostatic or magnetic 'stuff'.

If we now take that same conductor and place an externally applied differential electrical polarity to each end, then the existing but changeable charge field will not propagate out from the conductor. It will only see a change in its existing distance-attenuated-values along the length of the conductor. It is only this change which will propagate at the exact rate as the particle motion event which causes the change.

We could imagine this by visualizing the positive and negative charges as two different colors say. What we would notice is (without getting into the hue mixing weeds or QCD) that the neutral color which was already existing as the extended presence or aura, would change color with hue variations being more noticeable at each end and now 'seeming' to have further reach once changed. I.e. the existing field would become color adjusted with a different   color migrating along the wire in exact reflection of the current/conventional/wave/whatever, flow to each end at 'c'.

To some intent observers the color might have also appeared to propagate further out into the environment and have more reach: If we analyze the permanent aura in the area around the center of the conductor we might see a similar aura but existing as a less saturated neutral color at the middle which is balanced by a positive and negative color at each end which both appear to now have a greater and equal reach.

However that would be an illusion. This is because the field's 'inverse law' reach curve is   still the same  and it is only the value which is now different. The reach of the field didn't propagate out either because no matter how far the reach might be   seen or considered   to extend, the reality is; that every field decays to infinity, and infinity is always infinity   regardless of the changed starting value.

In fact we might consider a charge field rather to be a force aura which changes in charge sign saturation but directly proportional to the vector sum values of an excess or depletion of electrons, and as a force field which only changes at the rate of propagation of said electrons from point A to an accumulation at point B and not by any proposed outward propagation rate of the field. That is a complete contradiction of Maxwell even if we are to consider a charge/ing plate.

(2) Summary conclusion: The infinite reach of any macro charge field does not propagate. It is permanently existing and only its sign and value may change by charge particle migration. Maxwell was in error.

This means that the supposed propagation of a charge to the vacuum via the 'displacement current' in Maxwellian physics is   not  a real charge propagation at all but simply a rate of change of differential charge saturation at each end of the conductor/loop/plate/s which is singularly proportional to the negative electron and positive proton population differential; and the propagation rate of the motion of such electrons, relative to value and rate respectively. The question then is: What did he calculate? We will soon see, but the most profound question is probably... why?

When an electromagnetic charge begins to flow in a conductor by whatever means you may describe, there is a build delay caused by back emf because of the conductor's inductance but this has been taken care of in Maxwell's equations. What has not been addressed by a glaring lapse, is the self capacitance of the conductor which also causes an rc time constant delay.

This means that when a voltage charge circuit is closed a conductor will build up an increased population quantity of electrons in one end as if it were the plate of a capacitor and visa versa for the other end. All this takes time which is additional, or 'over and above' the actual Maxwellian quantified propagation rate of the electron flow/charge along the conductor (which he still mistakenly assumed to be directly transferable as the outward propagation rate of the charge field which he needed to declare to be the speed of light). This quantity will reach a maximum by q=dI/dt. In other words the straight wire/loop/plate conductor has a real r.c time constant delay which isn't accounted for by Maxwell.

Some 'thought experiment type' subjective-capacitance has been taken into account by Maxwell but only in the consideration of an inserted capacitor to determine the value of the displacement current (charge flux); but this capacitance r.c delay has conveniently not been considered when analyzing the   immediate  turn on of a current which causes a proposed magnetic B field expansion (propagation) at v which is deemed to be the propagation rate of the macro charge through the vacuum?

I contend that there is   not   a similar charge displacement current (or capacitance) existing in the vacuum as Maxwell 'supposed' Yes he did, It's history. Others (who have also not thought this through properly) have expanded on the assumption, and they currently call it 'the impedance of free space'*. However this is where the idea of a propagation rate for the charge flux derives from; a false assumption!

I have just gone to some lengths to destroy that assumption. There is no propagation rate for macro charge fields because they are permanently existing force fields that just change in strength and infinitely variable polarity between +ve and –ve, while fully dependent on the propagation rate and quantity/quality of the causative micro-charge-dispersion.

*Not referring to the antenna   impedance of free space' being 73 ohms optimum.


Now we arrive at an important arena of consideration: Let's pretend that Maxwell et al, Lorentz and Einstein haven't been born yet and we are the first to analyze these phenomena. Under the watchful eye of a well sharpened Occam's razor we should ask ourselves in all honesty: Is it more logical to derive the opinion that an electron say, carries its PERMANENT non propagatory charge with it at any velocity it may be experiencing, as I have just shown (not just assumed)?.. or instead just jump to the assumptive conclusion that macro charge waits until all the electrons are in place on a conductor or 'plate' and then emanates at a velocity 'c' from the electron/plate/loop/whatever and by so doing feed the preconceived idea of Lorentz's that some relativistic principle must now be necessary to prevent a moving electron from   essentially leaving its e.m charge presence behind at hyper velocities?

I'll tell you now: The first is the simple logical solution and the second blind assumption leads straight to a mind bending mathematical distortion of realty that Occam would absolutely vomit over rather than accept! Where are you all, other than patting each other on the back at the Mad Hatter's tea party?!

If we don't have a robust understanding of what charge really is, then we might fall for the second conclusion by default. I rest my case in this regard that the micro charge field doesn't propagate at all... It simply exists... It is one of the four fundamental forces.

Going back to the macro charge in a wire/loop/plate or whatever, we must then conclude that such charge only changes along and through conductors at the same rate as the rate of change of the propagation of the electrons in the conductor and it is a fallacious conclusion that this propagation speed is additionally conferred upon some assumed build rate of a charge propagating outwards in the vacuum without any phenomenology except the requirement for a certain speed that fits with a preconceived theory. That's not science!

We can analyze this better if we assume a rudimentary capacitor in the middle of the conduction path of the wire as Maxwell did. We allow a little time for as many electrons as possible to enter the negative terminal and for holes (not-electrons... the opposite charge of resident protons) to build on the other plate and we   thenremove the voltage terminals in an instant. We now have two oppositely charged plates. From a spherical distance the plates together will 'appear' to have zero net charge (in a dipolic fashion) but the same consideration applies as before and that is... Their individual charges haven't propagated anywhere, they have just changed in value at the rate of the filling with electrons and 'holes' relative to the other plate and they will exhibit a slight charge imbalance which is proportional to a couple of variables which don't need to be addressed here.

We now separate the plates and discard the positive plate (because it's just the reverse of the one we are going to examine and that is the negatively charged plate). As we (subjectively and instantaneously) separate the plates the charge will change without any propagation rate which isn ' t directly related to the motion of the plate separation; and if we now concentrate our analytical device on the negative plate we will notice a negative charge of varying degrees from every point of spherical analysis around the plate. Why does it still only have the charge it had even when the positive plate was close by? Answer... because it now exposes an excess of charged particles relative to the ground charge (1H atom). The negative charge didn't move at all the positive charge did!   Note: Having said that it is important to understand that true attraction is only between OPPOSITELY CHARGED particles of  any value, and repulsion is the opposite case between  exactly similarLIKE CHARGES. This essentially means that neutral particles or neutral combinations   RETAIN an aura which is also neutral (1/2) and as such the PERMANENT neutral aura is not effective or affected by or with particles or objects which have a differential charge aura or one which appears neutral. So the charge differential is only repulsive between like coulombic charges and not neutral charges which we can ignore, and subsequent to that; all slightly unlike charges of any value attract*. The charge differential is related to -1 electron and +1 proton.

*In other words if the charges are not exactly the same sign and value they will attract.

(3) Summary conclusion 1

We are able to conclude that electrical charge is just the sum of the fundamental coulombic charges of both +ve and -ve particles which is directly related to quantum fundamental charge summation (but not being the same thing or interactive) and a neutral coulombic charge may contain elements of both positive and negative canceling-charges whose fields still exist whereas the negative sum of opposite charges is proportional to the force being realized... F:Q... Q=-q1+q2... Therefore   it is really the   force  which is noticed as the field rather than the charges. This force-charge confusion is destructive to reasoned assumption.   Note: No matter (current) of any description is transferred across the vacuum to the second wire in the Ampere experiment.


Elsewhere on this website you will find that the precursor of all energy and work is  force. Work has been done to promote the flow of electrons in the primary circuit. The coulombic charge  force  is transferred to magnetic  force  which affects the atoms in the secondary wire which in turn causes a current flow in that wire. In this way energy is transferred (with losses) from one wire to another. The electrons in the secondary circuit all originate in that circuit. In this way we can see that it is magnetic force via electron flow current (including the build up of charge in a plate) that is transferred across the vacuum with the resultant energy and work. So it goes for transformer phenomenology. According to the precepts of G- theory emr is a separate phenomenology wherein particles are indeed transmitted.   Note: In charge transfer, not even photons transverse the vacuum.

(4) Summary conclusion 2

If we now spatially move the charged plate, does it propagate a charge into the surroundings relative to its center of charge? Answer... No; it carries it's permanent but variable charge aura with it which is projected at exactly the same velocity into the changing intimate surroundings. At every moment it is instantly adding or subtracting to other charges like spray-mixing paint. If we move the positive plate away, a negative charge field will remain in place without propagation to the vacuum and visa versa.


The only difference with charge relative to a magnetic field is that there is no propagation rate because there is no such thing as time delayed charge or virtual force propagation rate: Remember the charges of the particles always exists, permanently attenuated by inverse law out to infinity and it is the interaction of charges existing between electrons and protons that changes this field value .   Note: Even though the coulombic charges are direct derivatives of fundamental particle charges they are not interactive. The only way that this lack of interrelationship between the two is possible is by dimensional transformation. This places the whole traditional theoretical paradigm of the construction and mechanics of quantum particles in need of questioning.

G-theory proposes a workable phenomenology and structure of fundamental and sub fundamental particles including the hadrons and atoms.


(5) Summary conclusion 3

There is no such thing as charge propagation rate of 'c' because there is no such thing as charge propagation whatsoever, only build rate.   Note: It is highly likely that the individual particle charge-aura decays by inverse square law (ISL) over distance but that the charge build rate of a charg(ing) plate is constrained to a notionally linear build rate because of the rc time constant caused by self capacitance of the plate (conductor) acting in reverse and the inability of the like coulombic micro charge particles from occupying the same point in time and the likely slowdown of the gathering of individual like charges in a plate. The net result becomes  arguably  linear at 'c'. This doesn't explain the linear inverse law characteristics of any given charge field with distance. Such a phenomenon must be a mirroring of the reach characteristics of the fundamental coulombic law which applies to particles.

This all means that Maxwell has added another dimension to QED theory, so it's no wonder that when Kaluza solved Einstein's mathematical relativistic equations for five dimensions that Maxwells QED equations just came out naturally!

That is no proof of the existence of another dimension of time as per string theory.

 GEM is also not valid simply because of the fact that laws of nature happen to have a similarity. That is expected relationship because of the mathematical nature of standardised affects. Gravitoelectromagnetism (GEM) is a non starter. Refer to the subjects of--- frame dragging. Lens Thirring, and Gravity probe B on this website.

How can loosely relatable conceptual mathematical equations point to any proof of similarity of phenomenologies let alone any actual mechanical connection? I breathe oxygen. A dog breathes oxygen also. OK you might be a dog--- but not me!

You can notice from this thesis that electromagnetism and gravity are relatable in the vacuum by 'z' but they are not the same thing nor are they causative of each other.




The idea of the magnetic field curling around a long linear conductor is WRONG! How can you have field lines of force without magnetic poles?! Fleming's hand rules for conductors creating magnetic fields is correct (limited in this case to be sure).

This means that a conductor with a current flowing in it builds up notional tubes of concentric lines of force along the length of the conductor commensurate with its field strength (current) which then becomes the basic electromagnetic version of a permanent magnet with the poles being at the ends of the conductor. (I.e. analyzed simplistically; the battery terminals say.) Taking any notice of a magnetic compass to determine field directions in a single wire is about as ridiculous as trying to analyze the inner workings of your GPS from its display. Sure, the display is giving you a direction but that tells you nothing about the intricate phenomenologies going on inside. Put a compass next to one and it will likely give a deflection also. Throw the compass away and stop declaring ridiculous results. Circular magnetic fields with no poles? Whatever!

Of course the argument is then going to be regarding the creation of an electromagnet. I will refer you back to the fact that the   quantum extended field   which we are analyzing in a single conductor situation is not the same as the macro field which is basically a distorted quantum field which has been forced to conform to the macro pole indication by the interaction of millions of vector forces of the tubes surrounding all the turns of wires. If we add a core we then have another shift in force vectors coming into play.

Macro magnetic fields can be forced. Even the Earth has undergone pole reversals. A lump of permeable metal can be magnetized to exhibit defined poles. This phenomenology of magnetism is exhaustively analyzed in the thesis and magnetic domain's don't come into it at all.

The false idea of the circular field line which comes via a micro to macro extending argument, derives from the elementary level of thinking which has been the hallmark of the limited explanations from the knowledge of electrodynamics from a time gone by. We all need to grow a brain and begin to rethink   all  of these simplistically analyzed inventions of the science of yesteryear. Without doing that we are limiting our capacity to advance the science in any sensible direction, let alone the human race.

What causes the magnetic field then? Answer: Refer to the thesis which shows how electron migration within atomic orbitals forces the electron dipoles to more or less align with the charge force realignment of the nuclei g and form factor eigenstates (limited). This may also occur due to the permanent arrangement of atomic G-QED fields in an object so a pole separated macro magnetic field is able to permanently exist without a flow of current or a charge. In fact an electrostatic charge cannot cause a magnetic field without the movement of electrons. As we have seen there is no such thing as a stand alone electrostatic charge. So the idea of electric and magnetic fields combining in space to form an electromagnetic wave is out of the question as well. The G-theory thesis clearly sets out a more plausible phenomenology of emr derivation and propagation.

Magnetic fields under macro observance differ from electric fields in that they are summative along the length of the lines of force with a gradual decline in the strength of force lines by inverse square law with increasing distance from the dipole. Regardless of this phenomenological difference. The two different and incompatible* forces of charge** and magnetism still have a notional reach affect in a similar spherical manner if we consider both a straight conductor and a magnetic dipole of the same length.   Note: The reason that macro electric current charge (not static charge) appears to have just an inverse decay curve instead of an inverse square curve is because of the counter reaction of the induced magnetic field in the detecting conductor. Static (immobile) macro charge (which causes no such reaction) still exhibits an inverse square law decay curve over distance. The observations of linearity noted in the literature are only observable when a charge (or part charge) moves and causes such a counter magnetic response in the detection circuit. The absolute necessity from known laws of physics is that a point charge must exhibit an inverse square law decay curve. There remains a problem when the act of measurement destroys the characteristics of the object being measured. Here we have an uncertainty principle at work. When that occurs we need to appeal to the bulk of the universal laws of physics for the answer and I suggest the inverse square law is supported by that physics. Having addressed this problem it stands that it is a moot point which doesn't offer support in any way to either side of the argument being contested here. Please bear in mind that the mathematics involved around the 'Ampere's force law' is equally applicable to both sides of the argument.

*They pass right through each other without perturbation. One type of force is only able to affect the other indirectly by the motion related response of atomic matter to the other force as the case may be. The idea of forces combining in space is disallowed by the facts of this assertation regardless of how nice that would be to facilitate the promotion of the extended false idea of actual emr wave phenomenology rather than my theorized particle-front propagation of electromagnetism. (This is not referring to a carrier wave.)

**Some will argue that there is an electrostatic charge flux/current/vapour and a phenomenologically different electromagnetic or dynamic charge flux... counter-proof please. There is no charge 'vapour' in the universe; only charge particles in motion, even if you consider them to be 'wavicles'. Even QCD is an invention, but one that works as an explanation of another unknown phenomenon that G-theory proposes the more likely model for as well. But not right here.


It is an assertion of G-theory that electrons are not point source charges or wavicles*, and that magnetic monopoles exist at the fundamental level of certain known particle combinations but they are not viable and don't even have attraction for their antiparticle without being conjoined by another 'known' particle. The neutrino is one of the responsible particles and it is the prime particle related to the existence of monopoles which are unable to be united as a dipole without the services of both a neutrino and anti neutrino relative to say a north and south monopole respectively. This can only hint at the stupendous quantity of neutrinos existing in the universe.

*Electron decay always produces gamma particles (not photons). even B-ve decay always produces an unwanted (unneeded) anti neutrino. The nucleons as well as electrons etc, evidently have structure. G-theory provides a fact fitting model of those structures. To see such a complex and contextual fit to the known physics will blow your mind.


The smallest fundamental magnetic dipole (relative to neutrino flavors) is only able to exist within fermions and perhaps some leptons and quarks. They do not and cannot exist alone in free space and similar to fundamental biracial charge, even the monopoles or their fundamental parts are not attracted or repulsed in any manner by a classical magnetic pole or field.

However if we consider the resident dipole in a fermion for instance it is interactive with other fermion dipoles but not with the electrostatic dipoles at that full quantum level.   Note: In order to understand this any further you will need to study the G-theory treatment of the structure and behavior of quantum particles up to and including atoms and its exacting relationship with crystalline and molecular forms. G-theory is offered as a model fit to the known physics... no excuses!

At the quantum level: As it is with charge so it goes for magnetic force. However magnetic dipoles are stronger than coulombic dipoles. The interactions become very variable within the particle interaction phenomenology because the magnetic field is an inverse square law field with distance while the weaker coulombic charge is notionally effective in a different manner by conditionally variable asymptotic to straight inverse law. However I hold some reservations regarding the reasons as previously stated.

While the charge field presence (aura) extends radially and omni-directionally from a   notional   point source (electron   say), the magnetic field cannot be seen to include a point source under extreme near field consideration. The smallest idea of a magnetic field source is a N and S pole sporting quantum dipole of the common neutrino anti neutrino flavour.   Note: G-theory particle relationships is rational and logical. Consider that an electron* also sports a differential charge dipole as well as a magnetic dipole, so in G-theory the charge and magnetic analysis is the same, and the model fits. The same cannot be said of the standard quantum model which in some respects is instructive whilst in others it's a diabolical mess!

*It's a recognized fact to many that the electron is a complex particle. We just haven't realized up until G-theory just how complex (and how that complexity and differential charge/magnetism is responsible for the derivation of the four -non relativistic- spin   quantum states), and that the gamma decay particles are also complex particles themselves.   Refer to the thesis for the complete quantum states analysis including the non relativistic derivation of the hydrogen fine structure. these supposed triumphs of relativity were thought to be unassailable and that no phenomenology was available to derive or explain these phenomena in any other manner. Welcome to G-theory. Order your E-copy today. it's free.

Reiterating a little: As it is with fundamental biracial   charge   particles the macro magnetic fields behave in a different way to the quantum fields. The real world magnets are able to be joined end to end or parallel. However in the quantum world the only connection possibility is from end to end (and even that requires a connecting particle). In all cases the parallel direction actually repels for both poles. This separation force which is noted between lines of magnetic force is not able to be explained by classical physics and I have no explanation to date either. The other inexplicable phenomenon is in the reach of magnetic field lines increasing by square law proportionality   (?)   with the number of dipoles in vectored series. This somehow gives rise to the non intuitively   stupendous reach of the magnetic fields of large bodies.   Note: Refer to the thesis because there is another phenomenon at work which amplifies some of these massive magnetic fields.

All atoms are magnetic to some degree. The amount of magnetism or diamagnetism is the degree to which their fermionic dipoles are able to align within any material up to the perfect Paschen Back alignment.   Note: This limit is not typical here on earth except conditionally in cryogenic conditions. However there is another phenomenon at work at those low extremity temperatures.

Diamagnetic materials align their dipoles in opposition to the direction of a magnetizing field*. So as we have seen in the thesis it is able to be concluded that the alignment of fields has little to do with the external influence of a field even though all atoms are perturbed by and react to external macro fields as well as internal fields.

*This immediately infers a weird quantum affect that seems to defy the laws of physics. With G-theory you find that there is actually a very simple and non defiant reason.


As it is with   charge, magnetism is always in existence. In other words, regardless of whether they are discernible or not, all lines of force are diminished to zero at infinite distance. This becomes almost a subjectivism but true in actuality. The big difference is that magnetic fields do build outwardly (as an increase in the noticeable viability of the force lines and that aura change does have a build velocity but once again the build velocity is not the speed of some wave or field propagation it is the time delay of action realized within atoms and fermions which are reacting to the atomic dipole orientation changes*. The behaviors internal to atoms are always proposed to occur at 'c' (subject to the relevant principles and laws). This concurs with the traditional understanding because it fits the facts. However it is a stated contention that the individual charge and magnetic fields of particles is co-existent with the particle.

Electrons themselves are not overly affectable by external magnetic fields. They don't propagate to the poles of magnets not in the least because their coulombic self repulsive charge is greater but because of the a priori quantum laws. It is very likely (from a forensic analysis of the magnetic capabilities of hydrogen) that it is the neutron which is the main responder to external magnetic fields in AMOs. However this is considered to require the correlation of the electron's actions with the proton at the very least and electrons are also required in order to help promote the atomic alignment to any external field line.


(5) Summary conclusion 4

The field is a real and permanent extension of the relevant particle and all fields subjectively propagate at a speed that is subject to the propagation speed of the particles so involved.

*This delay time is different because it is notionally time-in-addition to the a priori inter-atomic charge propagation at 'c' and because of such phase delay this prevents electric and magnetic fields from combining to form an emr wave front of any description in space. The reason for a different delay becomes obvious upon a study of the derivation of a magnetic field from the motion of electrons relative to nuclei in a conductor. This can be examined in the thesis as can the formation of emr bi-state differential particle packets caused by such phenomenology. The phase delay is only able to be adjusted by antenna engineering for efficient transmission of radio signals.


Fundamental conclusion

I will go no further with the mechanics of magnetic fields at this juncture because the point I wished to make should now be clear, and that is that both kinds of fields are not propagative and they do not travel as waves, neither do they somehow join in space and create electromagnetic waves by way of a complete defiance of the relevant decay laws and their diverse derivation rates. This as well as being found to be further in defiance of physics by then being miraculously propagated at 'c' across the universe without the existence of an aether (medium).


So in direct consideration of all that students are expected to believe, I'm not surprised to see that we live in an age where we can readily notice on You Tube that a great many unbelievers in the laws of thermodynamics are attempting to create free power from the 'vacuum'. Good luck with that and I mean it! (Vacuum I said, not the geosphere) Hint: Just tap into HAARP and you might be able to get a draw down! That just dropped a cog in perhaps! Tesla... (some work on fields)... HAARP... (emr)... two separate phenomenologies. Were you also aware that an American company by the name of RuBee has derived a method of propagating magnetic 'waves' without an accompanying charge 'wave'! Do phenomena and technological endeavors such as these get you questioning? Some of this stuff needs to be forensically analyzed because my suggested a-priori laws of G-theory multiplex quantum dynamics (MQD) might just exist as factual.

The G-theory thesis promotes the idea of a separate electromagnetic tensor than the light tensor and the two types of radiation are only propagated as emr particles. However in the case of the electromagnetic 'bits' there are two different (known) particles which are emitted alternately in time, at 'c' relative to the (universal reference frame) URF and at a rate relative to the frequency. Light transmission excluding emr only exhibits the propagation of one quantum packet type 'bit'.


If you are of the opinion that electricity is just some magnetic wave travelling down the outside of a conductor then the following You Tube video link shows a simple but very interesting experiment which gives surprising results and demonstrates the affects on electron flow of very powerful magnets as well as the Lentz affect of arcing from a corner surface of the conductor but in this case it occurs under conditions of low voltage and just a pulse of direct current.   Note that the arcs travel several centimeters from only a 12v battery source. I wish the guy had also swapped the direction of the magnets as well. I think there is some quantum communication (entanglement) going on there between the hydrogen tank and the magnets. I could be wrong, but this missed opportunity for further investigation is evidence that if you develop different ideas regarding the physics it will affect the experiments that you will conduct and the suspicions you will derive, and that in turn will affect the results and   outcome from and for the whole scientific paradigm, hopefully for its advancement.

It appears that when the current leaves the conductor in an arc the eddy currents are so severe that the magnets will only permit current in one direction. In other words they appear to have become semi conductive and voltage trans-formative affect (for a short duration) yet the charge is transferred (as plasma) to the environment in three divergent arcs each time. Why three? This experiment probably needs to be evaluated and repeated under various conditions.


If you think that the preceding assertation can achieve no useful purpose then consider also the following while bearing in mind the conclusions drawn above.


The treatment given to Ampere's, Gauss' and Faraday's laws by Maxwell per Heaviside and Hertz to declare Maxwell's contribution to electrodynamics is arbitrary and sleight of handish, and of course much lauded by Einstein.

This is the sleight of hand; whereby you can only arrive at the required answer by beginning with that answer as the required first assumption. That is illogical and a tad naughty.

Maxwell did this at first by   assuming  a finite electrostatic field build velocity which the magnetic field would follow, only then could he speciously 'prove' a finite velocity for both by utilizing the assumption of 'displacement current' in the derivation (proving the conjecture by itself). This finite velocity 'c' was eagerly devoured by Einstein and of course any proof that the velocity of electrodynamics fields is not 'c' would be fatal for relativity in every form. Of course the emr field phase delay was itself totally ignored! Please remember that the rational conclusion from the preceding, was that the electromagnetic fields do not propagate they are a permanent value variable attachment to matter and the propagation speed is only the build speed of the motion of electrons in conductors and that the fields have no propagation speed because they are permanent.

To achieve his preset result of 'c', Maxwell artificially kept distance 'd' always in front of the supposed build velocity of the B field. In this way he could ignore Ampere's equation by assuming a situation where the magnetic force hadn't yet arrived at Ampere's wires. This was enabled by assuming a velocity of magnetic field propagation rate which matched the rate of electrostatic charge propagation under Galilean transformation principles and not relativistic (funny that!). He forgot that the earth is moving relative to the universal reference frame which then ties 'c' to that frame which is in conflict with Einstein's theory of general relativity even though it grew from Maxwell's conclusion; funny that too!

I can see his (Maxwell's) mind working. Maxwell and Lorentz were contemporaries and aware of each other's work so it was extremely likely that Maxwell had already assumed a dual field propagation rate which strangely enough matched the newly discovered speed of light of the day. In this way he could likewise deviously utilize the other known equations and put selected   components  of the constants together to speciously derive 'c'. I will now attempt a partial refutation of a subject that has confounded many for decades.


e and uo

Maxwell declares via Faraday... I= -dq/dt. This can't mean that eo  has a negative or 1/eo  value as he has used.   Of course   -dq/dt depicts a decaying rate of change but eo  is just a constant which depicts current; regardless of the direction of the current, if it is changing, a magnetic B field will be produced and the -ve only applies to the B field which is inversely proportional to the dq/dt. The constant is still the same and never negative. This puts eo  on the other side of the line in the final equation which would then be v2   = eo/uo.  However this doesn't seem to be an impediment- Just a thought.

The real problem is that while eo  is valid as the electric current constant, uo  (which is also valid as the electrostatic constant) is combined with eo  in an illegal mathematical maneuver to supposedly calculate the speed of light by the stated-   'measured values of static electrical and magnetic attraction are sufficient to determine the speed of light'. ...verbatim from the above website article.

My objection to this is that an electrostatic charge does not cause a magnetic field in an adjacent conductor, and that is the flawed Maxwellian assumption. Heaviside and Lorentz then take this error and apply it to particles and come up with the specious Lorentz force.

The propagation speed calculated as 'c' is proposed to be from a field propagating out as 'invisible displacement current stuff'' from a charge on a plate conductor upon the instantaneous flow of current. This ignores the   fact  (proven by experimental measurement) as well as the definition of charge in a conductor (plate) as the charge unit 'Coulomb', being caused by...   one amp of current causing/being a coulomb number of electrons to pass/passing a fixed point in the conductor in one second (uo). This 'second' term hides the possibility of a current/charge 'build delay' which is not taken unto account. Again: The charge constant eo  defines the Coulomb-electrostatic. However it must be understood that the macro charge is caused either by a surplus or deficiency of electrons compared to protons. There is no magic charge stuff. You can't envisage a bottle of positive charge stuff being applied to a plate for instance.

This means that (even if you assume an almost infinite number of separate pathways) the current entering the plate is NOT SUDDENLY SWITCHED ON TO MAGICALLY APPEAR EVERYWHERE IN THE PLATE INSTANTANEOUSLY, as declared. This is because (as we have just seen) there is already a propagation rate for the current dI/dt which flows at 'c' and it is   this propagation delay** of current flow across the conductor which causes the electric   field  propagation to require a build time for eo  and therefore the charge propagation delay in space is only a reflection of the current build delay in the conductor and so it only 'appears' to be at 'c'. because of the build time required for eo the equation v2=1/uoeo  is dv2/dt=1/-dq/dt x dI/dt which can be refined... dv2/dt=1/di-dq/dt ... v2=1/I-q... v2=1/uo-eo

It will be elsewhere determined that this is just the ratio of energy loss related to pi (z) in one second.



Therefore we must conclude that if the charge propagation rate is still determined to be at 'c' then that must only be caused by the propagation rate of the current and the actual propagation rate of the charge must therefore be INSTANTANEOUS* (or perhaps more likely close to it... very likely 'y' (c/G for reasons related to quantum fields which is not addressed here.)) and any velocity which is possibly derivable from Maxwell's equations is only applicable to that current/charge velocity alone.

This will apply to the magnetic field velocity as well because of the simple uo...  eo   relationship.

*Expected to be (close to) instantaneous as shown above but the actual fact is that perfect instantaneity is conditional to principles stated in another section and not possible in our universe, so it could be at 'y' (speed of gravity). That's another couple of thesis study subjects right there.

**The current in a conductor may be considered to occur right across the conductor at once but it does have a known propagation speed of 'c' between the time the first electron enters one side and another electron 'flows' out the other side to indicate the existence of a current and this takes time relative to 'c'. The positive flow convention (charge) is 'ditto'. This current/ charge velocity has (one would imagine fatally for the theory of relativity) not been factored into Maxwell's equations but it could show up by way of the measured values.   Note: There is proof in the thesis that the positive flow of convention also travels through the conductor at 'c' in the opposite direction by a bucket brigade type process because of proven propagation delays between nuclei. Refer to the nucleus electron interaction in the thesis.

So while v2=1/uoeo  may well be argued to be true, it only applies to those permeability-permittivity constants* relative to the current and charge as the momentum of their build   velocity caused by the electron flow delay.   This declares the decay of current to be the inverse of the build of charge.   Although I would like to ask a valid question... How can two 'impedance constants really' (One is a number value and one is the rate.) be multiplied together and then divided into one to make the square of   velocity  at all. Where is the velocity equation precedence? Where are the velocity terms in the equations at all?

This is the true equation for velocity... v=E/m. Even if you insist on the squared/ square root functor. I don't see any mass or energy in that Maxwellian v2  equation; and nowhere in the other Maxwellian equations is there any indication that uo  and eo  are anything other than being related as the   proportion  of current and electrostatic field produced compared to magnetic flux propagated. Right there we see the connection between the propagation of the current to the generally proposed propagation rate of the charge, in that the first causes the second. We can consider that because they do derive a finite rate, that when multiplied together they produce a proportion (by the divisor of one), being the energy lost from the system to the vacuum relative to pi.

It should be noted that over time the 'fudgers' have had to move the value of eo  from around 8.0e-12 to 8.8e-12 to keep up with the   ever-changing values of 'c'.

O.K. for some real relationships: Using extremely close to the original 8e-12 value for eo  we get 2pi3=1/uoeoxCn (Cn... Coulomb number 6.241509e18). Using the original value of eo  you find that 3pi2   =sqrt (1/uo+eo)...

No wonder the relativists are incensed at pi finders. This is because they are faced with the admission that pi has everything to do with universal energy and not 'c' as the relativists arbitrary constant. However don't be too quick to point the finger; some of that pi stuff comes from Maxwell et al!

So we have tenuous relationships that hint at something more... eg. uo/4pi=2e-7 so we can simply derive uo... uo=4pi x 2e-7... uo=1.256637e-6. So it now seems to NOT be 'c' that's relatable to energy, rather it's pi. The gig's up; it's time to face facts. There is some other relationship here! Don't worry, 'c' is still involved but only because the electron flow propagation velocity is at 'c'.  

A changing electric field produces a magnetic field, but you can't have a changing field without a changing   current,  either as current in a conductor or the reflected charge in free space. Even waving a 'static rod' is an electric current. It is still electrons in motion. So we can see that even one electron in motion has a reference frame   static  electrostatic and magnetic field with 'little to zero'* relative velocity differential relationship and the complete field is the extended representation of the electron's presence and it is free to move with the electron as a permanently attached force field.   Note: Lorentz and Dirac get ' the treatment ' elsewhere in the thesis.

*There is a propagation speed which is only relatable at the quantum level by the motion of particles which is affected by other particles but that is another subject not being addressed here. For much more: Order the G-theory E book from the contact tag.


There is no concept in G-theory that a moving virtual electrodynamics virtual force can cause the converse force in the vacuum;   only  in a conductor or a charged particle ( never some virtual point source). There is another completely different quantum phenomenology for emr propagation at 'c' without the requirement for a medium. The action-reaction law involvement or not, is an interesting 'aside' only.




Even without the next supporting section, There goes E=mc2   and the specious Lorentz force and the specious Lorentz contraction and invariance. There go S-rel and G-rel. If you have no finite propagation velocity then you have no need for LORENTZ, EINSTEIN et al. Last but not least of course we come to Feynman's own QED. It becomes easy to see why he was perpetrating this fraud which even to this day includes manipulation of the mathematical values a little bit at a time as has been done down through history because the relativists have been   forced   to match the 'c' calculated by the confused Maxwellian equation to coincide with every new found change in 'c'. So we are expected to believe that the same equation just so happens to derive different results which happen to coincide with historically measured changes in 'c'. Of course these afore mentioned arbitrary changes are found to be   stupidly calculated with impeccable accuracy! 

I am now going to begin a rewrite Maxwell's equations beginning with   modernized parts of Ampere's equations.

Fuo=2pi3I1.I2/c.d = 1.03354e-7  (In spite of his rigorous endeavors, Ampere's measurements probably lacked accuracy for various reasons.) This is the constant current charge force value at one amp at one meter only.

Feo=c.q1.q2/2pi.C. d2   =8e-12 this is the value of 'eo' that Weber and Kohirausch needed to (inadvertently?) arrive at to match the value of 'c' in their day which was about 3.14e8. (C is Coulomb number of electrons (extra or missing) in one coulomb of electrostatic charge) again this is the value at one volt differential over one meter separation of opposite charges.

These equations do not contain constants, (and like Newton's big G) they are just a fudge and you have to understand that these forces fade away over distance and are   not indicative of   a constant impedance of space, and there can now be no connection or derivation of the speed of light for their propagation. The speed of light only has to do with the conductor-charge build velocity per coulomb! so the propagation rate due to current/charge can VARY** but once the charges are large enough the build rate rises quickly to 'c'. That will be a surprise but I can support the contention by experimental proofs once again.   Note: I can't very well put up a one thousand page tab on the website, which is why folks are required to order the theory presentation.   There is also experimental proof in the thesis that a magnetic field is able to be propagated through space without a corresponding electric field and the reason that 'c' is involved can be found by studying the phenomenology of the journey of an electron and its corresponding hole through a conductor of one coulomb-number ohms at one volt. 'c' is there for a very valid reason.

*It's not mathematically or (as we have seen from the previous assertation) physically reasonable to separate the uo  and eo  parts of the constant from the whole emr constant in order to derive 'c'.

**Refer to the thesis... Note that changed propagation rate of current in very small conductors at very low currents causes limitations to VDD in digital data gate devices.


A connection between 'c' and pi remains. You may take this all on board and evaluate the relationships here with the other Newtonian and energy values found in other tabs.



Beginning with the proofs that even the historical champions of science were prone to making mistakes, and then removing gravity from Einstein's grasp, I have now come back from the other end of the traditional S-rel/G-rel pincer grip via electrodynamics and gently removed their grasp on the physics. There is no need for them any more and there never was. They are an impediment going forward to becoming a 'type two' civilization.



I can see an obvious objection at this point, and that is with regard to the Schumann resonance. It will be argued that the emr resonance is evidence of the emr wave travelling at 'c' and so causing the resonance in the earth-ionosphere wave guide.

Answer: Firstly I would like to ask if you have understood anything you have read yet? Next I would like to point out once again that I have already declared that emr is a different phenomenon than field propagation which would be expected to be in 'line of sight existence' in a vacuum. This field propagates with the lightning bolt and it upsets (interferes with the close mode emr propagation as it causes a high degree of attenuation of the emr wave travelling to the ionosphere and back.

There is also no possibility of deriving the speed of fields from any proposed interference with the close mode emr reflections. Lightning propagates at less than the speed of light (50km/s) and this will upset the group/phase relationships to some extent, and this is indeed the case and it also proves that the emr propagation is as a wave. I concur with that part.

The lightning would propagate a field for around 20 to 100 ms out to a distance, being attenuated rapidly (surprisingly according to Maxwell's equations) and the emr would take about 3us to bounce vertically from the earth-ionosphere-earth. So for 50 to 60 reflections of the emr in the short mode during that time, the field is impeding the emr. However the emr is also severely attenuated in the short mode by being reflected at angles too steep for the ionospheric wave guide and this limits the distance for the first effective mode reflections in any case. It is likely that there would be no reflections in the extreme short mode. In fact; for a diameter around about the size of Ireland there is no observable emr reflection and any electrodynamic measurement in that area would be a combination of fields and direct emr and there would actually be nodal interference expected between these. 

Therefore no proof or evidence can be inferred from this atmospheric propagation either way. So we should be able to conclude that ionospheric propagation and the resulting Schumann resonances are not proof that fields propagate at 'c' just that emr waves do. The fields of the electrons which form the lightning, permanently exist while the emr wave is only generated whenever those electrons move. The emr and fields are therefore considered to be in phase* and it is the emr waves that interact in free space but only to cause/promote 'field' polarization and anisotropy. This is not caused by the fundamental electro/magnetic fields which don't interfere with each other at all. I.e. The electric field doesn't interact with the magnetic field.

For an examination of G-theory emr and radio emission and reception including antenna phenomenology (which is extremely similar with exactly the same outcomes as the standard theory) you will have to consult the thesis (available to download from the contact tab).

*The slight phase relationship expected would likely place an upper limit on transmission frequencies. (This will be calculated because it will be just one more addition to a host of supports for this theory. Watch this space!)





Emr propagates in particle fronts which act like waves and it is this propagation which cause the Schumann resonance, with its source being lightning strikes around the world. This wave guide phenomenon is also used to locate lightning strike positions. These phenomena cannot be used as evidence for any propagation speed for fields; just emr.  Note: This begs the question regarding radio transmission and reception and how waves and fields would likely interact.

In G-theory emr does propagate and interfere in a way similar to waves, while light does not because it is not considered to be an emr at all*. G-theory produces a method of propagation that doesn't require a medium because the propagation is by particle 'fronts' that act exactly like waves in interactions with other fronts/antennas due to typical reflection mechanics of those quantum tensors. It is only because the emr waves are emitted directly from the conductor (antenna) rather than supposedly combining in space that various metallurgical and construction techniques are even able to be used to affect an antenna systems nodal characteristics. That would be a difficult case to make for unification of waves in space. How could a different metal cause such a phenomenon unless it is able to cause a change in the characteristics of exactly what particles are emitted. I raise the case of the RuBee magnetic transmitter as exhibit A. In this case there is no requirement for and electric field or wave whatsoever.

*Photon interference entanglement is another phenomenon entirely.


Summary notes

 1/ The propagation rates of charge and magnetic fields has never been measured to my knowledge. Only the speed of emr in a wave guide as well as the reach strength and static field characteristics have been measured.

2/ Many experiments (typically with rotating charged drums) have been undertaken to demonstrate the supposed Maxwell- Lorentz charge propagation speed without success. Most of those are reasonable experiments and they all demonstrate a nul result.