Room-temperature superconductivity?

[tomclarke]

I don't see how you get past the idea that if you go faster wrt to my frame I will see you live longer. OTOH the "folks" in the other frame will think I live longer.

Of course my conception may be wrong. But I'm still trying to wrap my head around the concept.

Replace "longer" with "slower".

The key word here is "see".

Providing the seen object is local that does fine. But at a distance it is no longer accurate, and there is no universal time measurement that makes sense. So the obvious paradoxes don't hold.

However, an osillating clock will run slower (and can be measured as slower) than a non-oscillating clock. And that is measured all the time on GPS satellites which have an oscillatory motion relative to the earth, but stay in roughly the same position, so time for them and us can be compared.

http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~po ... 5/gps.html

[MSimon]

Of course, being an EE, you may be pre-warped. :)

That is certainly true without a doubt.

[DeltaV]

I don't see how you get past the idea that if you go faster wrt to my frame I will see you live longer. OTOH the "folks" in the other frame will think I live longer.

Of course my conception may be wrong. But I'm still trying to wrap my head around the concept.

Replace "longer" with "slower".

The key word here is "see".

Providing the seen object is local that does fine. But at a distance it is no longer accurate, and there is no universal time measurement that makes sense. So the obvious paradoxes don't hold.

However, an osillating clock will run slower (and can be measured as slower) than a non-oscillating clock. And that is measured all the time on GPS satellites which have an oscillatory motion relative to the earth, but stay in roughly the same position, so time for them and us can be compared.

http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~po ... 5/gps.html

How does that imply an intrinsic change in the rate of aging rather than just a change in the observed rate?

[rcain]

Replace "longer" with "slower".

The key word here is "see".

Providing the seen object is local that does fine. But at a distance it is no longer accurate, and there is no universal time measurement that makes sense. So the obvious paradoxes don't hold.

However, an osillating clock will run slower (and can be measured as slower) than a non-oscillating clock. And that is measured all the time on GPS satellites which have an oscillatory motion relative to the earth, but stay in roughly the same position, so time for them and us can be compared.

http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~po ... 5/gps.html

How does that imply an intrinsic change in the rate of aging rather
than just a change in the observed rate?

the way i understand conventional explanation of SR is that there are TWO component phenomena resulting in (apparent) time dilation :

- a 'rate' change
- a 'phase' change

if the problem is 'described' in wholly symmetrical terms then the Lorentz transformation alone will NOT produce an asymmetric time difference between the two clocks; it will instead only show apparent slowing down of any clock moving relative to an observer, and this observation will be entirely symmetric (the SAME from the point of view of either observer).

It is only when two further factors are introduced into the description of the problem that asymmetry arises:

- the 'observed' (synchronisation) event must be DISTANT from both observers
- there must be an implicit 'change in Frame of Reference' (FOR) for ONE of the observers, during the experiment.

a change in FOR can be bought about in one of two ways:
- a 'proper' (self) acceleration/deceleration of one of the observers (eg: a turnaround point) in its journey
- a 'synchronisation' event between them, during the experiment (eg: a 'communication' of the reading of the clock aboard one observers ship, to the others ship whilst it is moving.

only in this way, is any concept of 'asymmetry' introduced into the problem description, hence the ONLY way any asymmetry can be derived from calculations at the end of the experiment.

note: it is not the 'acceleration/deceleration' ITSELF which causes the asymmetry, but the change in FOR resulting from it (in this case).

the change in FOR, introduces a difference in the 'definition' of simultaneity ' between the two observers, about a distant event,(one later, one sooner) that results in the asymmetric 'phase difference' seen at the end of the experiment. the 'apparent rate' difference itself does not produce this asymmetry.

at least that is my understanding of conventional explanation, albeit i still have BIG problem,s accepting it as is.

so far as satellites are concerned, and in particular the Hafele--Keating experiment (and later verification by NPL and others), i have it on good information (though i have not calculated myself), that the DOMINANT cause of time difference here is due to GR (General Relativity), and the gravitational difference experienced, rather than anything due simply to relative velocity (SR), which are tiny (even) by comparison.

i am still not happy.

[Teemu]

so far as satellites are concerned, and in particular the Hafele--Keating experiment (and later verification by NPL and others), i have it on good information (though i have not calculated myself), that the DOMINANT cause of time difference here is due to GR (General Relativity), and the gravitational difference experienced, rather than anything due simply to relative velocity (SR), which are tiny (even) by comparison.

i am still not happy.

Actually the SR component is huge especially for Hafele-Keating, since the sign of it depends on the direction. Estimated |Eastward SR - Westward SR | is 8 times greater than estimated |Eastward GR - Westward GR | . Without SR, the time difference between eastward around the world and westward around the world flown clocks would have been around:

Predicted GR only
| 144 ns - 179 ns | = 35 ns

instead of the measured total, of course including SR

| -59 ns - 273 ns | = 322 ns

so without SR the difference should have been around 9 times smaller than it was measured to be. Here are copies of my earlier posts:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2% ... experiment

eastward flight
gravitational (general relativity): 144±14 ns
kinematic (special relativity): -184 ± 18 ns
total prediction: -40 ± 23 ns
measured: -59 ± 10 ns

westward flight
gravitational (general relativity): 179±18 ns
kinematic (special relativity): 96±10 ns
total prediction: 275±21 ns
measured: 273±7 ns

so
|eastward gravitational - westward gravitational | = 35 ns
|eastward kinematic - westward kinematic | = 280 ns

According to that the difference between westward and eastward kinematic component is much more dramatic than the westward and eastward gravitational component, because

According to special relativity, the rate of a clock is greatest according to an observer who is at rest with respect to the clock. In a frame of reference in which the clock is not at rest, the clock runs slower, and the effect is proportional to the square of the velocity. In a frame of reference at rest with respect to the center of the earth, the clock aboard the plane moving eastward, in the direction of the Earth's rotation, has a greater velocity (resulting in a relative time loss) than a clock that remains on the ground, while the clock aboard the plane moving westward, against the Earth's rotation, has a lower velocity than the one on the ground, resulting in a relative time gain.

Small difference in gravitational components can be mostly explained apparently by the westward flight taking some hours more time than eastward flight.

How do you explain that dramatic difference only with gravitational component, and without kinetic component (special theory)?

And to why it must depend on direction, we need to set a a spacetime-fixed origin for Lorentz transformations because Lorentz Transformation is just hyperbolic rotation of the required 4D Minkowski space. If using Lorentz transformation the fixed origin needs to be the center of the earth or the middle of "the crazy merry-go-around", other wise it would lead to a paradox like this:

Lets go from twins to triplets.

Triplets are in a gigantic merry-go-around, going in counter-clockwise direction. First they are all in the middle, they synchronize three atomic clocks, and put them in their backpack. One of them, lets call him A stays at the center, other two get bored, and walk a distance 6000x from the center. At this point, their cross-radial velocity is 5v. One of them just starts to sit at that point, his name is B, and another one, C, decides to go a little further, at the distance of 6010x from the center, and starts to walk the merry-go-around in either counter-clockwise or clockwise direction, at speed 1v.

Now if triplet C choosing the counter-clockwise or clockwise direction relative to the triplet B wouldn't matter, then the time dilation of the clocks of the triplet B and C would always be negative related to the triplet C going at speed 1v faster than the triplet B. But relative to the triplet A, the time dilation would be clearly dependent of the direction, so the time dilation would be negative, either related to 4v or 6v velocity, depending on the direction of triplet C.

If the direction of C relative to the triplet B didn't matter, if the speeds were high enough, or if the speed of light came down in that universe suddenly, then when the triplets meet again, the triplet C would be "youngest" from the triplet B's viewpoint always. But from the center triplet, A's, viewpoint the triplet B would be the youngest if C chose clockwise direction, but from triplet B's viewpoint the triplet C would be still the youngest. So in their meeting again ages or tick of the clock would be:
from C's perspective A>B>C
from A's perspective A>C>B

I think based on that, the direction the triplet C relative to B triplet has to matter.

If the triplet A and his atomic clock got kidnapped from the middle by the alien kidnap ray, and whether the outer triplets get the information of this kidnapping or not, can't change the calculations. The relationship between the triplet B and C, which at point 6000x, before C went to 6010x and started to walk at 1v, their atomic clocks were synchronous, just like the atomic clock left to the earth and the atomic clock taken to the flight, were synchronous before the atomic clock was taken to the flight. Based on this I think the rules for calculating the time dilation for flying clock related on the clock left behind can't be dependent on the fact that there is no initially synchronized atomic clock at the center of the earth.

[rcain]

so far as satellites are concerned, and in particular the Hafele--Keating experiment (and later verification by NPL and others), i have it on good information (though i have not calculated myself), that the DOMINANT cause of time difference here is due to GR (General Relativity), and the gravitational difference experienced, rather than anything due simply to relative velocity (SR), which are tiny (even) by comparison.

i am still not happy.

Actually the SR component is huge especially for Hafele-Keating, since the sign of it depends on the direction. Estimated |Eastward SR - Westward SR | is 8 times greater than estimated |Eastward GR - Westward GR | . Without SR, the time difference between eastward around the world and westward around the world flown clocks would have been around:

Predicted GR only
| 144 ns - 179 ns | = 35 ns

instead of the measured total, of course including SR

| -59 ns - 273 ns | = 322 ns

so without SR the difference should have been around 9 times smaller than it was measured to be. Here are copies of my earlier posts:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2% ... experiment

eastward flight
gravitational (general relativity): 144±14 ns
kinematic (special relativity): -184 ± 18 ns
total prediction: -40 ± 23 ns
measured: -59 ± 10 ns

westward flight
gravitational (general relativity): 179±18 ns
kinematic (special relativity): 96±10 ns
total prediction: 275±21 ns
measured: 273±7 ns

so
|eastward gravitational - westward gravitational | = 35 ns
|eastward kinematic - westward kinematic | = 280 ns

...

i stand corrected. (was misinformed/didn't read).

note however, the two clocks here were orbiting at approximately the same altitude as each other, and the difference with earth bound clocks due to GR were approximately the same order of magnitude as the difference(s) due to SR, in this experiment. also, the differences to to GR and SR respectively, seem to have been arrived at by working backwards from the total time differences, using GR and SR calculations in order to attribute/apportion the differences to each effect.

(not that that changes the final result).

[Teemu]

i stand corrected. (was misinformed/didn't read).

note however, the two clocks here were orbiting at approximately the same altitude as each other, and the difference with earth bound clocks due to GR were approximately the same order of magnitude as the difference(s) due to SR, in this experiment. also, the differences to to GR and SR respectively, seem to have been arrived at by working backwards from the total time differences, using GR and SR calculations in order to attribute/apportion the differences to each effect.

(not that that changes the final result).

Yes noticed they were the same in magnitude, but the effect on the difference between eastward and westward flight is large, because for SR the direction and flight time matter, for GR the most of it comes from flight time.

Yes, but the GR can't explain the difference between eastward and westward times, especially the sign change, so SR is really needed unless you can present GR that explains the dramatic difference and sign change.

[johanfprins]

yes, i appreciate what you are saying and that is precisely the reason i referenced the alternative 'causality' (sequence) based approach above - since it does NOT assume clocks (or rulers) of any sort, yet arrives at the same (phenomenological) conclusions.

Before I left South Africa I decided not to spend my days during my visit posting on scientific threads. This was because I have been completely exhausted by trying to teach elementary high school physics to people who attacked me on another forum: The JREF forum. There are people there posting under names, “Ben m”; “Ziggurat”, “Sol Invictus”, “Reality Check” etc. who know less about physics than an ape knows about religion. They just cannot understand that classical electrodynamics which applies for free charges in a vacuum, does not always apply in the same classical manner for charges within a material. At least on this forum I have had intelligent responses, and therefore I have kept on posting back, even to Tom Clarke: At least in his case I know why he thinks like he does since this wrong interpretation of Special Relativity has been drummed into all physics students for more than 100 years.

Thus, although it is eating up my holiday time, I have glanced at the first manuscript you asked me to rerad, and immediately realised that this is the type of manuscript I hate since it gives more credence to mathematics than physics. In other words, the mathematics is not used as a language to interpret actual REAL physics but “physics” is interpreted to conform to the mathematics. This is not the way to model physics!!! Unfortunately this is what delusional “scientists” like Minkowski, Hilbert, Heisenberg, Bohr, Born, Dirac, von Neuman , etc. have advocated for far too long.

Just look at the following from this paper: “Like the early Einstein, most authors of elementary textbooks on special relativity attach undue importance to how clocks should be synchronized. Requiring clocks to be synchronized is unnecessary.” The incontrovertible fact is that in order to compare space coordinates within two Euclidean spaces, one MUST synchronise their origins to coincide at an instant in time: This demands that time must also be synchronised. Thus Shubert starts of from a premise that is unadulterated Voodoo. Why should I even try and read further?

further, the concept of causality to me seems more intuitive and straight forward

Why?

than either space or time in this context, hence the matter of 'interpretation' (as you say), within this tyJust look at the followingpe of derivation also seems more consistent with an 'ordinarily' observable state of the universe - certainly more accessible to a common description of 'experience'.

I disagree. We always need a reference point in space as well as in time. So how the hell can Shubert claim that causality is better understood when you do not even know where you are? As I have stated above it this is Voodoo.

to quote the paper above:

...Rather than being fundamental, we find that space-time arises as a construct made to make chains of events look simple....

Voodoo again.

And in the case of quantum mechanics it is the interpretation that the intensity of a matter wave is a probability distribution instead of a mass-energy distribution. ...

this seems to me a separate and distinct subject (view) - or are you saying it is 'convolved' in your theory (apropos SR)?

This is exactly where you are wrong. It is more closely related to Einstein’s gravity than Special Relativity is.

Minkowski space is really an interpretation that space and time form an actual physically REAL four-dimensional space-time so that clocks at different positions keep time at different rates. That is wrong:
...
This is well explained within my manuscript.

as i mentioned before, i can't fault your logic, indeed am in sympathy with its 'intuition'. but i neither can i ignore the 'rigor' of (particularly) the causal/sequential models. the fact that several alternative derivations all reach the same/similar conclusions, from different starting assumptions, suggests to me the balance still lies in favor of SR.

It suggests that all these approaches lead to the same wrong interpretation of SR: Not to SR as it should be interpreted.

albeit experimental evidence of time dilation due to SR alone seems scant/non-existent,

Thank you.

as you say, significant evidence for the same through GR appears conclusive.

Of course it will be since this time dilation has nothing to do with Special Relativity's "length contraction" and "time dilation".

it seems 'improbable' to me that one is true without the other, since they are so closely derived.

Can you explain why you conclude that they “are closely derived”? Curvilinear coordinates in Gravitational Physics have NOTHING IN COMMON “length contraction” in Special Relativity (which actually does not occur) NOR with time dilation within Special Relativity (which also does not occur on any clock within any inertial reference frame). That Special Relativity and Gravitation does have a connection is correct, since matter waves are actually light energy moving at a speed less than c. This is the connection, NOT non-existent "length contractions" and "time dilations" in SR.

For the next week I will mostly not have access to the internet. So goodbye for now.

oh well. bye for now. more on your return perhaps

I will now have to give my attention to my hosts. When I do have time I will return and try and elaborate further.

[tomclarke]

Thus, although it is eating up my holiday time, I have glanced at the first manuscript you asked me to rerad, and immediately realised that this is the type of manuscript I hate since it gives more credence to mathematics than physics. In other words, the mathematics is not used as a language to interpret actual REAL physics but “physics” is interpreted to conform to the mathematics. This is not the way to model physics!!! Unfortunately this is what delusional “scientists” like Minkowski, Hilbert, Heisenberg, Bohr, Born, Dirac, von Neuman , etc. have advocated for far too long.

It has been my experience that physical reality is usually only understood through math, and specifically coordinate-free math. Geometry is very abstract, but it describes so much of physics in a way that is compelling.

so:
QM - think of operators on Hilbert spaces independent of coordinates

SR - think of spacetime invariant under translation & Lorentz transformation

GR - think of tensors are objects independent of the coordinates used to calculate with them.

Mathematically, all these generalisations make sense. And because the math describes the physics so well they do help (my) physical intuition.

It is because the math explanations are so simple that they win: something so simple, explaining so much, has a lot going for it.

Best wishes, Tom

[Teemu]

Thus, although it is eating up my holiday time, I have glanced at the first manuscript you asked me to rerad, and immediately realised that this is the type of manuscript I hate since it gives more credence to mathematics than physics. In other words, the mathematics is not used as a language to interpret actual REAL physics but “physics” is interpreted to conform to the mathematics. This is not the way to model physics!!! Unfortunately this is what delusional “scientists” like Minkowski, Hilbert, Heisenberg, Bohr, Born, Dirac, von Neuman , etc. have advocated for far too long.

Isn't this one of the first sentences in your paper somewhat contradictory to that principle:
http://www.cathodixx.com/pdfs/RELATIVITY.pdf

Here, these aspects are meticulously derived from the Lorentz-transformation:

Anyway, correct me if I got wrong impression, but that "real physics" stuff sounds kinda that "real physics" must be done in easily visualized 3D (Euclidean) or in some sort of pseudo-4D thinking, otherwise it is not real physics? No matter what how well the 4D results match reality.

Also why is Minkowski 4D wrong, but your derivation of electron component interacting with some unknown fourth dimension is ok? In Minkowski the fourth dimension is at least known, whereas many people consider adding unknown and unknowable dimensions as the one most serious disqualifying things for a theory.
http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0607/0607209.pdf
Also in addition I would like to comment this section

“Wave-particle duality” might thus not be “complementary magic”, but manifests because all matter and light consist of waves which can be superposed and decomposed into different sets of basis waves other than the applicable harmonic waves

"Wave particle" concept came because of history, the first waves clearly perceivable as waves to humans were mechanical waves that require medium to propagate, like water waves, sound, redefining "wave particle" concept to just wave, and (mechanical) wave to something else is just semantics.

Photons inside superconductors do develop a nonzero effective rest mass, this led to theory of Higgs Boson, electrons, quarks that have rest mass are waves that interact with the Higgs field, whereas photons do not interact with Higgs field. So in my opinion that wording isn't that much different from Higgs boson theory.

[GIThruster]

People may argue whether you have to do your math right to get your physics right, or do your physics right to do your math right, but both are theory related. What we're supposed to do in science is to check them through observation.

I haven't read in this thread for a long time and I'm just wondering, whether Dr. Prins has been able to provide the kinds of empirical evidence we've spoken of so many times before. As I've said: fight the theory battles after you have unassailable evidence.

It's been an awfully long time this raging about theory has been going on and fact is, all the corrections to people about their theory don't mean a thing until you have evidence.

Where's the 4 point test on large test article by an independent source? Almost any world-class university would be happy to do one for free. Why argue theory and alienate people (which is what correcting people always accomplishes) until you have EVIDENCE?

[johanfprins]

It has been my experience that physical reality is usually only understood through math,

I have not denied anywhere that mathematics is the appropriate language to use when modelling physics. What I am opposed to is that the physics is interpreted by assuming that the mathematical model is the actual reality, instead of accepting that experimental results must determine the interpretation of the mathematics.

specifically coordinate-free math. Geometry is very abstract, but it describes so much of physics in a way that is compelling.

I agree coordinate-free math can be very powerful indeed but to interpret such mathematics it must be interpreted in terms of physical reality: The latter measurements cannot be done within a “coordinate free” manner.

so:
QM - think of operators on Hilbert spaces independent of coordinates

I am glad you mentioned Hilbert Spaces: I agree that the mathematics is compellingly beautiful and consistent: But this is an example that exactly proves my point. Since it is so compelling it is not realised that it is based on paranormal physics namely “wave-particle” duality. The fact is that a free-electron wave is not determined by a Hamilton operator, since such a wave has no momentum within its own inertial reference frame. What is even worse is to use the Lagrangian-operator as is done in QED.

SR - think of spacetime invariant under translation & Lorentz transformation

This also proves my point: It is again a nice mathematical concept which, however, requires one to interpret that two clocks moving relative to one another keep different time within their respective inertial reference frames. The latter is physically not possible since both clocks are stationary within their respective reference frames and MUST therefore keep exactly the same time: No matter how beautiful the mathematics of invariants is.

GR - think of tensors are objects independent of the coordinates used to calculate with them.

You cannot think about gravitational forces without thinking about coordinates since such forces are caused by space-time curvature. As I have pointed out in my manuscript, Einstein’s extrapolation from Special Relativity to so-called General Relativity was and still is deeply flawed. Again more weight was given to the mathematics than the physics.

Mathematically, all these generalisations make sense.

Mathematically maybe but not physically: And if you have not yet noticed, we ARE discussing physics.

And because the math describes the physics so well they do help (my) physical intuition.

You claim that it describes physics well when it requires two clocks, which are both stationary within their respective inertial reference frames, to keep different times? Just answer a simple question which I just the other day asked my grandson, and he gave the correct answer. When two inertial reference frames move relative to one another with a speed v, which one is stationary and which one is moving? You do not need mathematics to answer this simple question.

It is because the math explanations are so simple that they win: something so simple, explaining so much, has a lot going for it.

I am not knocking the usefulness of maths; but if the interpretation of the mathematics requires one to interpret physics as Voodoo, then there is a BIG problem with theoretical physics: Just as we have at present.

[johanfprins]

Isn't this one of the first sentences in your paper somewhat contradictory to that principle:
http://www.cathodixx.com/pdfs/RELATIVITY.pdf

Here, these aspects are meticulously derived from the Lorentz-transformation:

I have not said anywhere that the equations defining the Lorentz transformation are WRONG!!! Jeez!! PLEASE READ WHAT I AM WRITING!!

Anyway, correct me if I got wrong impression, but that "real physics" stuff sounds kinda that "real physics" must be done in easily visualized 3D (Euclidean) or in some sort of pseudo-4D thinking, otherwise it is not real physics? No matter what how well the 4D results match reality.

There is nothing wrong in using extra dimensions when modelling physics in terms of mathematics; but if your interpretation of this mathematics violates simple established physics logic, then you must know that your interpretation is wrong. Let me repeat again: Two clocks moving past one another with a speed v ARE BOTH stationary within their respective inertial reference frames and MUST therefore keep exactly the same time WITHIN their own inertial reference frames. Thus to conclude that two twins each travelling with one of the clocks, will not age at exactly the same rate is nothing else than paranormal gobbledegook!

Also why is Minkowski 4D wrong, but your derivation of electron component interacting with some unknown fourth dimension is ok?

Again you are missing the point: I am saying that the interpretation of Minkowki 4D is wrong and this leads to wrong deductions like "length contraction" and “time differences on two clocks which are both stationary”.

In Minkowski the fourth dimension is at least known,

Actually it is better illustrated by Schroedinger's wave-equation.

It is known whereas many people consider adding unknown and unknowable dimensions as the one most serious disqualifying things for a theory.
http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0607/0607209.pdf

I agree that one must be careful in this regard.

Also in addition I would like to comment this section

“Wave-particle duality” might thus not be “complementary magic”, but manifests because all matter and light consist of waves which can be superposed and decomposed into different sets of basis waves other than the applicable harmonic waves

Did I write "applicable harmonic waves"? I agree with the viewpoint that both light and matter ONLY consist of waves.

"Wave particle" concept came because of history, the first waves clearly perceivable as waves to humans were mechanical waves that require medium to propagate, like water waves, sound, redefining "wave particle" concept to just wave, and (mechanical) wave to something else is just semantics.

What makes you think that I do not know this? You are being patronising!

Photons inside superconductors do develop a nonzero effective rest mass, this led to theory of Higgs Boson, electrons, quarks that have rest mass are waves that interact with the Higgs field, whereas photons do not interact with Higgs field. So in my opinion that wording isn't that much different from Higgs boson theory.

The latter is complete nonsense. The energy of any photon which slows down within any material develops mass-energy: This does not just happen within a superconductor. You do not require a “Higgs field” to explain mass-energy.

[johanfprins]

Sorry I posted twice!

[johanfprins]

People may argue whether you have to do your math right to get your physics right, or do your physics right to do your math right, but both are theory related. What we're supposed to do in science is to check them through observation.

Agree fully.

I haven't read in this thread for a long time and I'm just wondering, whether Dr. Prins has been able to provide the kinds of empirical evidence we've spoken of so many times before. As I've said: fight the theory battles after you have unassailable evidence.

As I have explained ad nausium, I have not been able to raise the funding to do these irrelevant experiments.

It's been an awfully long time this raging about theory has been going on and fact is, all the corrections to people about their theory don't mean a thing until you have evidence.

I have impeccable evidence that I can generate an electron phase that transfers charge through it without an electric field being present within this phase. In fact this is the ONLY phase EVER discovered for which the evidence of a zero electric field is incontrovertible. No four point measurements is required. What more do you want?

Where's the 4 point test on large test article by an independent source? Almost any world-class university would be happy to do one for free.

Sure direct me to such a university which will pay the costs to generate a "large test sample" and to do a 4 point test.

Why argue theory and alienate people (which is what correcting people always accomplishes) until you have EVIDENCE?

Where do I alieniate people when I have impeccable proof that charge is transferred through a material while the electric field IS ZERO since it is cancelled by an opposite polrisation field!!

Please note GIThruster, that we are at the present talking about Special Relativity and not superconduction. I will thus appreciate it if you do not come in at an angle and muddy the discussion as you are prone to do.