The thorny way of truth - Free Energy Community

'As- 133 -^^MARINOV'S COMMENTS ON THE PREVIOUS PAPER BY H. ASPDEN - '•In his article. Dr. Aspden puts many questions but gives few answers. We know wellthat the good beZ£e tltoAatwiz is this one which puts questions and not this one whichgives answers (remember the tragic degeneration of the literary method called "socialistrealism" when oegan to give answers). But physics is not boJUiz tutdnatxxAa.On the other hand, however, the right answers in physics are to be given not bythe physicists but by Nature itself. We have only to put to Nature clever questionsand present our prediction s, the right answers will then come automatically .A clever question is this one which can be experimentally answered (the simpler theexperiment, the better the question!) and which is alternative , i.e., for which tworival theories predict different issues, so that the experiment can reject one (or both)of the proposed theories. Thus, after all, the good physicist, as the good fiction-writer,is this one who can pose to Nature good questions.Unfortunately, I could not find in Dr. Aspden 's paper many clever questions and I,did find either a single prediction.I shall give my comments to Dr. Aspden 's paper choosing some of the most importantof his questions (some questions are commented on two or more places in the paper).1. WHICH IS THE ROLE OF THE 'OBSERVER'?Fr. Nietzsche proclaimed at the end of the XlXth century: "Gott ist tot." As we donot know whether God was living before, the assertion of Nietzsche is pretty bombastic.However, now, after the restoration of the absolute space-time concepts, and after havingestablished that all physical phenomena depend on the absolute velocities of theparticles, we can safely assert: "Der Beobachter ist tot (the observer is dead)." Thusnothing depends on the observer. All physical effects are independent of the observer.The electromagnetic phenomena are to be described (if one wishes to make predictionswhich then will be confirmed by the experiment) by the absolute velocities of the chargedparticles. One can choose one's reference frame either in absolute space or in themoving laboratory, but the equations with which one has to operate in these two casesare different: in the first case the absolute Newton- Lorentz equation is to be used,and in the second the relative Newton-Lorentz equation. In both cases the predictedeffects will be exactly the same.Ithe nodes of a standing light wave in the laboratory are solid to the laboratory(and move with its absolute velocity V in absolute space). Dr. Aspden asks whether thisstanding wave does not define an "electromagnetic reference frame seated with and movingwith the apparatus". Of course, one can accept that the nodes of a light standing wavedefine a reference frame solid to the laboratory, but this frame is substantially differentfrom the frame defined by a light standing wave produced in a laboratory whichIis at rest in absolute space. Why? - Because in the latter the maximum illuminations at thenodes appear at the same moment, while in the former at different moments.