Dear Androcles,

A week ago I sent you this post, but received a daemon saying, it was
not delivered, so I am trying to post it again.

************

You are asking,

<< Who told you light was a wave? >>

You yourself, in that number, are saying so, when you write,

<< Analogously, if I place myself between two sources of sound, one of
which I approach and the other I recede from, I observe an increase in
frequency from one and a decrease in frequency from the other. >>

And at the same time you write,

<< A bullet from a gun is source dependent. It does not require a
medium
for its transport, which would only hinder it anyway. >>

Perhaps you forgot that the light, as opposite to a bullet, has a
frequency, and just so

<< I recede from, and find blue shift from one and red shift from the
other. >>

But frequency, spectrum of light, and frequency variation by moving
source are wave properties. Should you do not say about frequency but
confine yourself only to velocity, and should frequency properties of
light never were revealed, or should the bullet had frequency
properties and properties of light on the whole, - only in this case
you would may write,

<< If I approach a source of light at v, I approach the light it emits
at
v+c.
There being no other reference, and by the PoR, the source approaches
me
at v and the light it emits approaches me at c+v. Therefore the speed
of
light is source dependent. >>

While in presence of frequency properties, your statements hang in the
air, just as your conclusion,

<< To this purpose the philosophers say that Nature does nothing in
vain,
and more is in vain when less will serve; for Nature is pleased with
simplicity, and affects not the pomp of superfluous causes. - Sir
Isaac

Newton, Principia. >>

Although you inserted a citation from Newton, this is discrepant to
Newtonian approach, but only says that you apply a favourite trick of
sophists - to separate convenient phenomena and citations from those
inconvenient. The inconvenient they state wrong and discrepant to
experimental practice, irrespectively to the practice. But the Nature
will not become other because of it. When you admit, light has
frequency, and at the same time delete the substance in which this
wave
property of light revealed, you straight return to the Einsteinian
photon conception, to the contradictions in its postulates, - to all
these problems from which the supporters of this conception fly away,
just as you could see it by the example of Franz Heymann. ;-)

Exactly so you, by your authoritarian judgement, choose from a
tremendous amount of field theory only what is convenient for you,
irrespectively to the general phenomenology of field theory. So you
write,

<< It is TWO waves, one electric and the other magnetic.
Each creates the other, by the laws discovered by
Gauss and Faraday,
curl B = dE/dt and curl E = -dB/dt. >>

But Maxwell, in Hertz formulation, had not two equations but four,
while really 14. ;-) With it, Faraday phenomenologically had
discovered
only the second (formulated by Maxwell himself), and
Ostrogradsky-Gauss
equation is absent among equations which you mentioned. The first
mentioned equation is Maxwell's. And I would underline, Maxwell
formulated the induction part of his system of equations on the basis
of Helmholtz vortexes, - i.e., vortexes in material space, and these
equations reflect the materiality of space. We in our papers showed,
these equations also are the conservation laws of vector circulation
in
dynamic fields. The equations which you "forgot" also are the
conservation laws for MATERIAL space. Admitting Gauss' proof of his
theorem of flux of vector, you are rejecting the stipulations of the
very theorem, as it was proven namely for material space. In an
immaterial space we have nothing to conserve. ;-) So, if you assert
space immaterial, you may not select among Maxwell, Faraday, Hertz,
and
others, looking, who of them was right and in what, and who was not.
You must forget the field theory equations. In void space these
equations do not work. This is what Einstein "forgot", and now you are
"forgetting".

Finally, you confine yourself to dynamic fields, while there exist
also
static fields. In which way the void affects a charged body? A
gravitating body? These are questions, because of which Einstein had
to
return back to GR the material space which he threw away from SR.
True,
with it he "forgot" for a while that the laws of his SR and GR have to
work in the same continuum. ;-) You also forget it. Of course, it is
so
convenient to separate the phenomena to convenient and not, when you
yourself decide, are they sufficient or not to substantiate the
phenomenon. But the nature has no such separation suggested by
sophists. So we can comprehend the laws, only having covered the WHOLE
amount of revealed properties. While you, even as to MMX, seemingly
have not analysed what I wrote you. Unjustly. In particular, your
beams
will not be reciprocally perpendicular. But when they will be, you
will
not yield the interference on the screen. ;-) So I would be very
grateful to you if, before concluding, you care to have complete
stipulation on whose basis you build your corollaries. In this case
much of what you are stating simply would be impossible to be
articulated. ;-)

Regards,

Sergey