|
|
May 13, 2004
Space Vortex Theory: Einstein and Tewari's 'Cartesian Universe'
Einstein’s Greatest Blunder is the title of a paper by Roger A. Rydin, Associate Professor of Nuclear Engineering Emeritus at the University of Virginia, who says that Einstein's general theory, for all its mathematical elegance, should never have been applied to cosmological questions. In the Introduction, Rydin says:
The 1915 exposition of Einstein's Theory of General Relativity (GR), plus the 1929 empirical statement of Hubble's Law, were the basis of an assumption that both of these applied to the evolution of the universe. That idea persists to this day. These equations are so appealing, mathematically, that they are also assumed to apply to black holes and to inflation and string theory, even though these solutions are not amenable to experimental confirmation. Einstein admitted that the addition of what he called the “Cosmological Constant” to his tensor set of 10 coupled 2nd order equations, forcing a static balance, was his “Greatest Blunder”. Actually, his greatest blunder was allowing the scientific community to believe that his GR equations applied to the evolution of the universe at all!
The full text of the paper is available from the author or myself in word format.
It is in an e-mail response to Rydin that Paramahamsa Tewari describes his own theory of the universe and his conception of the basic building block of matter as a hollow electron, fashioned out of the superfluid fabric of space. Tewari, for his view of the universe, comes back to René Descartes' conception of ether vortices as an element providing stability for the paths and orbits of material objects such as galaxies, stars and planets...
From: P Tewari
To: Roger A Rydin
Sent: Friday, May 07, 2004
Subject: Einstein's Greatest Blunder
Dear Prof. Rydin,
This refers to your above paper. I too believe that the concepts of space-time and time dilation are mythical, but I have been led to this conclusion while looking deeply into the mystery of mass, inertia, and charge of elctron. The theory that I have put forward (late seventies, 2003) to explain these most basic properties of matter [Space Vortex Theory, SVT] pinpoints Einstein's mistakes in his explanation of photo electric effect and introducing relativistic mass, and time dilation in special theory of relativity (STR, 1905). The principles of SVT and its quantitative results, briefly outlined below, provide sufficient arguements to disprove relativity (partly) and quantum physics.
1. Mass and Charge. What is mass and why does an electron possess a definite quantity of mass? Also, what is charge and why is there a definite minimum quantity of charge in electron? To answer these questions, elctron's structure that reveals the process of creation of electron and generation of mass and charge in it, is the start of SVT with a set of postulates given below.
[The medium of space is a three dimensional fluid substratum with nonmaterial (massless, chargeless, incompressible, continuous, nonviscous, homogenous) properties; the fluid space, when in circulation, has a limiting spin "w" (angular velocity, c/re) with a minimum radius re and a maximum velocity c, where c is equal to the velocity of light relative to the fluid space (absolute vacuum); the universal space is inherent with motion. (The limiting velocity c for material motion in Einstein's STR is postulated in the above postulate in a more general sense -- as the limiting flow velocity of fluid space)] .
The elctron structure (Fig. 1 and Fig. 2) that follows from the above postulates shows a space-vortex with a central hole (spherical void, energy less zone of nothingness) of radius re, around which space spins at w, thus creating a breakdown of space circulation and forming a dynamically stable void. [The spherical space surface enclosing the void is termed "interface"]. The most basic field is defined as "velocity of fluid-space-point", or simply, velocity field, "v f". From this electron vortex structure, electron mass is derived,
Mass of electron = volume integral of velocity field within the interface during its creation x c. (1)
And,
Charge of electron = surface integral of velocity field on the spinning interface xc. (2)
From the experimentally determined value of elctron charge, the radius re of the spherical void is determined. And with this value of re, and from mass-equation (1), electron mass is computed. The near-ness of the computed values with the experimental values, provides proof to the mass-equation (1) and charge-equation (2).
The postulates dictate creation of only one size of stable void. This proves that there can be no other unit of charge that is less than electron and fraction of electron is not possible. Also, mass can be created only in the units of electron mass. From this it follows that all particles, nuclei, atoms will have mass in exact multiple of electron mass. [The relativistic increase of mass (experimentally observed) is seen to be due to reaction of fluid space against particle motion at high speed.]
From (1) and (2), mass of cosmic bodies (earth, planets, sun, stars) too can be computed as these equations have universal application.
Solar System
As conceived by René Descartes, the solar system is a huge space vortex, carrying the planets in their orbits. The planets too are enclosed within their respective space vortices causing rotation around their axes and carrying the satellites in orbits. Descartes too conceived of property-less ether in his famous Vortex Theory. A solid proof to this system of space vortices lies in the derivation of the earth's gravity field from the motion of the moon, its distance from the earth and the space vortex enclosing the earth. Similarly, from the motion of the planet mercury and its distance from the sun, sun's surface gravity and wind speed at sun's surface are determined. Unlike Newton's theory, mass of the cosmic bodies does not appear in these derivations for gravity field/free fall acceleration.
Fields in electron structure, universal constants (Gravitational, Coulomb's, Dielectric, Planck's)
The origins of electrostatic field, gravity field, magnetic field are quantitatively derived from the space vortex structure of electron. Also all the known universal constants are derived from the two constants, c and re. Electrostatic, electromagnetic, and gravity fields emanate from the interface (spinning space surface enclosing the void) leaving the central void field-less and energy-less. So, there is no problem of infinite energy in electron's field.
A maximum possible acceleration field c^2 / re, which is inward due to the existence of the central void, exists on the interface (Fig. 2). Such an inward acceleration field in different magnitudes also exists in space vortices enclosing the earth (planets, stars) and, as already said, determines free fall acceleration on the earth, sun and the planets that has been computed accurately.
Similar to the inward acceleration field on the interface in electron structure, nuclei too have inward acceleration field on their surfaces, which create an inward force opposing the repulsive force within nuclei. Since this inward force from space is not known to quantum physics, weird theories on nuclear structure are imagined.
Energy
Einstein's mass-energy equation: E = mc^2, is derived from the space vortex structure of electron with the use of inward acceleration field c^2 / re. But the energy is not located at electron center.
As seen from (1), electron mass is proportional to the void at its center and not to energy as now believed. Also, all the energy of electron is located in its fields in space starting from the interface. The primordial energy of the universe is the dynamic space that partly converts to cosmic matter through space vortices. Energy has no mass; only matter has mass. Fields too have no mass property. The modern concept that elctromagnetic fields and photons have mass is erroneous.
Fundamental Particle
Nature creates only one fundamental particle, that is electron. [Positron is an oppositely rotating electron]. Nuclear particles are assemblies of electrons and positrons assembled ingeniously with strong electromagnetic forces and inward acceleration field from space.
Electrical attraction/repulsion
The oppositely oriented space vortices of electron and positron create attractive action. Repulsion takes place with similar direction of rotation. This principle operates in the solar and galactic systems as well. For instance, planets (enclosed within space vortices) with similar directions of rotations have electrical repulsion that oppose gravitational attraction between them and between them and the sun. [This repulsive force remains unrecognized today]. Since the planets are carried in their orbits by the solar vortex, they do not experience centrifugal force in their orbit. Similar repulsive forces exist between galaxies too. With dissimilar rotation, two galaxies will come closer and collide eventually. With the same direction of rotation they will be pushed apart. Such electrical repulsive and attractive forces that oppose or support gravity are not known in astrophysics. [recent report on galactic collision confirms this phenomenon].
By taking electrical repulsive forces into account (in addition to gravity and neglecting centrifugal forces), planetary orbital distances have been accurately determined.
Atomic structure
Electrons are held and carried in their orbits by the velocity fields in atomic space vortices (enclosing nucleus) without any loss of energy or emission of light.
Light and Gravity
The most fundamental gravity field is that of electron produced during electron's creation (Fig. 5). When an electron meets a positron at close range, annihilation takes place; the voids collapse due to inward acceleration field; the vortex structure and field of the particles die off. This produces a spherical pulse of light (Fig. 8), which is fundamental and true nature of light. With this nature of fundamental light, an analysis carried out [Conceptual Error on Fundamental Nature of Light Phenomenon in Classical Electrodynamics, led to Complexities in Quantum Physics, Journal of New Energy, Vol. 5, No. 1, 3084 E. 3300 South, Salt Lake City, Utah 84109-2154] led to a conclusion that Einstein was right in his postulate that light speed is invariant with the motion of observers in different frames of reference. The very nature of light is such that different observers in relative motion measure the same velocity, and this is obtained without resorting to time dilation or length contraction.
In photo electric effect, Einstein did not take note of the kinetic energy that the orbital electron will possess before its interaction with light. The kinetic energy of the photo electron is not the energy received from light; it is its own kinetic energy (discussed in the above paper). The energy quantum hf is the energy in unit time, and is not available at an instant for transfer to orbital electron. Thus a misconception on the true nature of light and the significance of hf led to an erroneous explanation of photo-electric effect. And simultaneously quantum theory was raised on wrong interpretation of hf and photon nature of light, assigning to the photon material properties of mass, momentum etc. [discussed in detail in my book "Universal Principles of Space and Matter -- A Call for Conceptual Reorientation", and other papers at www.tewari.org].
Universe
Basic considerations show the universe is a vast sphere of fluid space (nonmaterial) with well organised circulating motion of space vortices. This sphere is itself the primordial energy (at one stage without any matter) that exists in an infinite extension of nothingness. The universal radius is computed as: (c^2 / re) s^2 = 3.3 x 10^31cm. The universal time (for light to transmit from the universal center to its boundary of space beyond which is nothingness) is: (c / re) s^2 = 7.5 x 10^20 s.
We can imagine the universal mass-less space of energy to be circulating around one of its diameters with the maximum velocity c and thus creating elctrons and positrons at the central zone -- a process of converting space motion into matter. These particles will be projected radially out at speed c, and during their motion will assemble into jets of hydrogen, forming galaxies with stars, planets, satellites. As the galaxies reach the universal boundary, the asymmetry of inward forces will reverse their motion sending them back to the universal center. This reversal of motion will bring the galaxies closer and start process of annihilation with their collisions. It may take time equal to the universal time for the space motion to organize itself into vortices for the start of the next cycle. It is a cyclic universe of conversion of space motion into matter and matter into space motion. [Creation of matter from galactic centers are even now going on (hydrogen jets) since speed of space circulation there reaches c.]
Conclusion
Newton discarded Descartes' Vortex Theory and reintroduced Democritus' space of emptiness and action at a distance. He could not explain gravity nor the force behind orbital motion of the planets. After the discovery of electron by the close of 19th century, models of electron as ether vortices were researched [Larmor, Lord Kelvin, others]. Problem arose of dilation and dissipatiion of ether vortex motion. The introduction of the central void in electron's vortex structure [SVT] will stop dissipation and provide dynamic stability. So, it has been possible to vindicate Descartes for his Vortex theory; and this became possible only after accepting Einstein's finding on the limiting aspect of light velocity.
It is only when the structure of fundamental matter (electron), that physically and quantitatively explains its behaviour and basic properties, is developed, that the need for the medium of space is seen; without which neither creation of matter nor creation of fields will be understood. When gravity can be understood and calculated from space-vortices in the solar system in three dimensional space, there may not be need to go for multidimensional space and other mathematical complexities.
Best wishes,
paramahamsa
See also:
On the Space-Vortex Structure of Cosmic Bodies
Not directly related but interesting:
Scientists announce cosmic ray theory breakthrough
posted by Sepp Hasslberger on Thursday May 13 2004
updated on Tuesday December 21 2010
URL of this article:
http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2004/05/13/space_vortex_theory_einstein_and_tewaris_cartesian_universe.htm
Related Articles
New Physics: Debating Einstein, Matter, Time and Space
My recent posting of Eit Gaastra's speculative work under the title Beyond Einstein's Relativity: Cosmology Dissident Says Big Bang Absurd has drawn quite some comments, which I would like to share. I also believe it might be useful if there were a forum, perhaps in the form of a site such as this one, for making alternative views to current cosmology known and for feeding back comments to the authors.... [read more]
December 11, 2004 - Sepp Hasslberger
Beyond Einstein's Relativity: Cosmology Dissident Says Big Bang Absurd
Eit Gaastra, a Dutch chemical engineer who turned to cosmology to find meaning in life and explanations for the origin of this universe, says that the Big Bang is an absurd theory and that we will be laughing about Einstein before too long. Strong words, especially as they don't come from an established scientific authority but from a self-taught dissident. For those interested in the details of Eit's Infinite Universe... [read more]
November 27, 2004 - Sepp Hasslberger
Time, Reality and an Experience of Death
The Austrian Nobel physicist Schroedinger pointed out in his essay "Geist und Materie" (Mind and Matter), that the physicist, in an effort to "objectivate" observation, excludes himself as well as the whole world of the mind, from the "objective" scientific reality that is said to exist independently of human interaction. Schroedinger saw a great paradox in this separation of the world into subjective reality - the mind and the spirit... [read more]
April 03, 2004 - Sepp Hasslberger
Physics - A Unified View
Physicists have been striving for that elusive "theory of everything" for decades, without being able to reconcile diverging theories and different forces that we observe. My own interest in this has been that of a curious bystander, jotting my ideas down here and there and eventually collecting them in a webpage. I do not keep up too well with that side of things, but a recent article in Infinite Energy... [read more]
February 19, 2004 - Sepp Hasslberger
Emergence - a Holistic Theory of Physics
The exclusion of "non physical" phenomena from the field of investigations of physics has been severely limiting our potential for better understanding the universe. It is true that the reductionist approach generally employed by scientific enquiry has given us great progress in particular areas, but it is also true that our understanding of the broader realities of the physical universe is still severely lacking. I have long been advocating, on... [read more]
January 16, 2004 - Sepp Hasslberger
A Universe of Scale - Stars edge closer
Can communication be transmitted over distance without the need for electromagnetic radiation "travelling" to carry the message? Hartmut Mueller of the Institute for Space-Energy-Research in Wolfratsthausen, Germany, says it can. Mueller has developed a theory of global scaling, which states that matter and energy organize in accordance with principles of scale. The "nodes" or preferred points of concentration, may be distant in linear space, but adjacent in "logarithimic space",... [read more]
September 21, 2003 - Sepp Hasslberger
Readers' Comments
12-Dimensial Line-Wave-Vortex Space (Complete "Cartesian Universe") at: http://ideabank.narod.ru
Posted by: Vladimir Rogozhin on May 17, 2004 12:43 PM
Here is a relevant comment received by e-mail: June 5, 04
Dear Sir:
Thank you for forwarding relevant material so that I can have some idea of the various concepts being developed. From your e-mail of May 13 (I really am slow!) Professor Rydin has a common problem: he believes relativity is valid! If he should be seriously interested in the truth about relativity, I am available. I am, however, tired of developing and sending material to people who have absolutely no intention of re-evaluating their scientific foundations. In the case of relativity it is necessary for science to go all the way back to Faraday.
Tewari, however, with a hollow electron based on Descarte's vortex theories is getting close. Unfortunately typical vortex theories, along with most related theories of science, are applied in the wrong dimensional space. The vortices, which are not exactly hollow, exist in a specific higher dimensional space. Similar to a three-dimensional finger entering a two-dimensional space (viz: Flatland) the transformations of cross-sections from oppositely directed vortices yield the electrons and protons in our physical space.
Such a transformation requires a major paradigmatic shift equal to that of Copernicus and Galileo. Since there are many paths to the truth‚ mine is not the only one but they will all require the same transformation. My material has been on the web for about ten years but my provider has been sold several times. My address is now pweb.jps.net/~cuny (link no longer active), the important part is "The Gods Told Us, We Chose To Forget". This is not your standard college physics but if you can at least conditionally accept the postulates, it becomes a Theory Of Everything. It logically derives (develops, constructs) structures in an energy field. As the stored energy is released, the structures form the vortices that have positive and negative spins of identically the same strength.
Once again, thank you for forwarding material.
Joe (Joseph F. Cuny)
Posted by: Sepp on June 6, 2004 03:58 PM
I found your article fasinating although way over my head. When I read stuff like this I get what I feel is the true meaning of God.
Posted by: Donna Garrett on June 17, 2004 06:15 AM
A comment from Roger Rydin received 18 June:
Let me just make a short comment to the statements [above]. I am not a mathematical physicist, and am not interested in becoming one. The main problem with all of this is formulating the correct set of differential equations, if possible. My belief is that some sort of relativity is valid, but neither SRT or GRT are complete or correct in all cases (like GPS clocks) because of missing terms or incorrect terms. In any event, the physical consequences of relativity are often incorrectly interpreted (such as mass increasing with velocity). Specifically, I do not believe now that GRT has anything to do with the general motion of the universe.
I have had a series of interactions with Tewari. I do not believe that the electron is the fundamental particle, but rather that there are even smaller entities inside nucleons.
Posted by: Sepp on June 18, 2004 04:09 PM
Science & Philosophy. Religion & Physics. XXI c. Socratus.
At the end of 10-th, beginning of the 20-th years Sommerfeld
wrote to the Einstein :"I can help to development only
engineering of quanta.
You should construct their philosophy ".
However, the Einstein did not manage it to construct.
I have constructed philosophy of Quantum of light,
philosophy of Physics XXIc and on pages of my site I tell about it.
Many of physics consider, that: " the Physics is first of all Vacuum. "
P. Dirac wrote:
" Тhe problem of the exact description of vacuum, in my opinion,
is the basic problem worth now before physics.
Really, if you can't correctly describe vacuum,
how it is possible expect for the correct description something more complex? ".
It is completely correct.
Physics in Vacuum have groped true and condition
of infinite / eternal Vacuum characterized
with one simple physical parameter T=0K = -273,160C.
The philosophy of science begins from T=0K .
The physics begins from T=0K.
The religion begins from T=0K .
The origin of Existence begins from T=0K .
If you have time and desire, I ask you to visit my site
http/www.socratus.com
Thanks.
Good wishes.
Israel Sadovnik .
Posted by: socratus on October 22, 2004 05:23 PM
Nice article, but I have several considerable criticisms with some of the points made.
1. I do comprehend the theory of the vacuum of space as being basically inhabited by vorteces of 'something', however, in this article there is no clear distinction made between the two vacuums inside and outside the conceptual barrier of the electron. A more elaborate explanation would greatly improve general understanding.
2: If, as you say, and I quote , "Nature creates only one fundamental particle, that is electron. [Positron is an oppositely rotating electron]. Nuclear particles are assemblies of electrons and positrons assembled ingeniously with strong electromagnetic forces and inward acceleration field from space" then you are being either incorrect or incomplete. For if a positron would be a truly counterspinning field in 3-dimensional space ( as it seems to be stated by you) then it could easily be turned into an electron merely by applying an electromagnetic field. This would align both vorteces into the same arrangement.
However, if you proceed to 4-dimensional space, which is where we live in actually, it is much easier to comprehend the positron as an electron with equal spin but opposite time-direction. Don't forget, just because WE can only sense one direction, doesn't mean time only HAS one direction.
3. The concept of gravitywaves at a velocity of c is in contradiction with observed reality. I know most scientists are trained to believe that gravity travels with velocity c, but in reality, rocket scientists, who actually have to work with sending space probes to other planets and such, work with gravity being instantaneous. The rocket scientists are clearly right, as they get the job done.
If you take a look at http://www.ldolphin.org/vanFlandern/gravityspeed.html
you will see that there is in fact a lower limit derived by experimental data on the speed of gravity: not less than 2 x 10^10 c.
4. The concept of your cosmological expansion needs rethinking in this particular field, and I quote:
"These particles will be projected radially out at speed c, and during their motion will assemble into jets of hydrogen, forming galaxies with stars, planets, satellites."
Not only has is it been impossible to get any object with mass to move at c experimentally, it is also in contradiction with your own model. The electron is envisioned as a vortex with a barrier speed of c. However, if the speed of this electron itself is c, then one point of the vortex would move at speed 2xc, whereas another point would not move at all. This is impossible in any thought experiment. It would be possible if you would imply that the electron would then be converted into a photon, but I think that is both implausible and farfetched.
5. I think the measurements of the diameter of the electron need elaboration. In fact, there exist different experimental measurements of it's diameter, and mainstream science doesn't even agree wheter or not particles actually HAVE a diameter (being dualistic objects and such).
I'm absolutely convinced that both cases of Relativity are a complete sham and do not represent reality, for the obvious reason that advancements in QM (which has it own fundamental problems) clearly show it false. But the form of Vortex Theory mentioned here clearly needs more work.
Regards,
Ronald
Posted by: Ronald on February 15, 2005 12:20 AM
Here is the reply of Paramahamsa Tewari to Ronald's comments (Tewari replies in bold):
My thanks for your valuable comments. My reply is given against each of your questions.
Nice article, but I have several considerable criticisms with some of the points made.
1. I do comprehend the theory of the vacuum of space as being basically inhabited by vorteces of 'something', however, in this article there is no clear distinction made between the two vacuums inside and outside the conceptual barrier of the electron. A more elaborate explanation would greatly improve general understanding.
Vacuum is defined as three dimensional volume of nonmaterial fluid (massless, incompressible, continuous, non viscous) and possessing none of the known properties of matter except fluidity. The medium of space without any particles of matter (with mass property) with or without field (electrostatic, magnetic, electromagnetic, gravitational) is defined as 'vacuum' or 'space'. The fluid-space has a 'limiting angular velocity', that
is, 'limiting velocity gradient' --- ratio of c (speed of light transmission relative to space medium) and the radius of electron's central void.
Void:
Spherical zone of nothingness --- field less, energy less --- created at electron center due to breakdown of fluid space (vacuum) when limiting circulation at electron's vortex center (maximum possible velocity gradient) is reached. Void signifies 'absence of vacuum' that exists only at electron center as a dynamically stable spherical volume of fixed radius (electron radius).
2: If, as you say, and I quote , "Nature creates only one fundamental particle, that is electron. [Positron is an oppositely rotating electron]. Nuclear particles are assemblies of electrons and positrons assembled ingeniously with strong electromagnetic forces and inward acceleration field from space" then you are being either incorrect or incomplete. For if a positron would be a truly counterspinning field in 3-dimensional space ( as it seems to be stated by you) then it could easily be turned into an electron merely by applying an electromagnetic field. This would align both vorteces into the same arrangement.
However, if you proceed to 4-dimensional space, which is where we live in actually, it is much easier to comprehend the positron as an electron with equal spin but opposite time-direction. Don't forget, just because WE can only sense one direction, doesn't mean time only HAS one direction.
Yes, a free electron can be tilted axially (electrically/magnetically) and will behave as a positron, but within a nucleus the situation is different. The strongest field in the universe (acceleration field) is in electron structure; it is directed radially inward on electron's spherical interface (that spins at c and encloses the void): The magnitude of this inward field is: c squared / electron radius. Radial gradient of this field is electric field. In laboratory so high field that can disturb bonding of electron and positron and repulsion of electron and electron or positron and positron within nuclei, can not be produced. [Two electrons and two positrons diagonally located, create repulsive and attractive electrical forces and lead to a dynamically stable assembly; many such units assembled, create a neutron. When enclosed within a space vortex, neutron is seen as a proton].
But, within galactic centers where electrons are continuously created due to space circulation reaching c, half the electrons and positrons produced will get annihilated and produce gamma radiation, while the remaning may assemble under repulsive and attractive forces due to their opposite spins.
A moving electron approaching an observer will be seen as positron by the observer on the opposite end.
To explain the meaning of mass and charge, and discovering fundamental relations from the first principles that derive these quantities from electron structure and show as to why an electron possesses these properties quantitatively, any need for time-direction does not arise. Time seems to serve its function as a ratio of length and speed and not as a physical entity in the theory of structure of fundamental matter.
3. The concept of gravitywaves at a velocity of c is in contradiction with observed reality. I know most scientists are trained to believe that gravity travels with velocity c, but in reality, rocket scientists, who actually have to work with sending space probes to other planets and such, work with gravity being instantaneous. The rocket scientists are clearly right, as they get the job done.
If you take a look at http://www.ldolphin.org/vanFlandern/gravityspeed.html
you will see that there is in fact a lower limit derived by experimental data on the speed of gravity: not less than 2 x 10^10 c.
Very true, gravity works instanteously. It is somewhat like this as per SVT: In a matter-less universe of fluid space consider creation of a single electron by limiting space circulation at some point P1. Within a space vortex, breakdown of space creates a spherical void of 10 raised to the power minus 11cm radius. The space within the volume of the void is spherically pushed out as a 'spherical compressive front' which transmits at speed c relative to the incompressible space of the universe, thus energising gravitationally (creating radial acceleration field) the whole universe in due time. Now if we place at some point P2 another electron, it will instantly experience gravity field of the first electron P1 because the gravity field of P1 already existed at P2 and needed no transmission from P1 to P2 when the second electron was placed at P2. Gravitational field, as an acceleration of space points in the vortex structure of electon, is the very structure of electron with which (along with electric and magnetic fields) electron can never be detached.
4. The concept of your cosmological expansion needs rethinking in this particular field, and I quote:
"These particles will be projected radially out at speed c, and during their motion will assemble into jets of hydrogen, forming galaxies with stars, planets, satellites."
Not only has is it been impossible to get any object with mass to move at c experimentally, it is also in contradiction with your own model. The electron is envisioned as a vortex with a barrier speed of c. However, if the speed of this electron itself is c, then one point of the vortex would move at speed 2xc, whereas another point would not move at all. This is impossible in any thought experiment. It would be possible if you would imply that the electron would then be converted into a photon, but I think that is both implausible and farfetched.
Electron is 'projected' at speed c because space circulates at c. But, very true, electrons do not continue to move at c after projection. They are retarded by their inward gravity fields. A single electron projected at c from the universal center retards to zero speed after a radial travel of: (1/2) (c squared / electron radius ) second squared, giving the minimum radius of about 2.25 x 10 raised to the power 31 cm.
But, theoritically, if an electron is made to move at speed just exceeding c, its circulation shall cease and its void will collapse to zero radius; the fields in its structure, starting from the interface, will start dying spreading at speed c relative to space; and this process will be seen as annihilation light with spherical front and center fixed at the dead electron center (unlike a photon with its center moving at speed c).
5. I think the measurements of the diameter of the electron need elaboration. In fact, there exist different experimental measurements of it's diameter, and mainstream science doesn't even agree wheter or not particles actually HAVE a diameter (being dualistic objects and such).
"There are several lengths that might aspire to be characteristic of the dimension of electron. If we proceed from modern theoretical electrodynamics, which has been established better than any other field theory, the conclusion seems to be that electron has enormous dimensions, not 10 raised to power minus 13 cm, as expected from classical physics, but 10 raised to the power minus 11cm" (a hundred times greater!) --- Philosophical Problems of Elementary Particle Physics: George Yankovsky; Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1968.
Only with the larger electron radius (out of the above two) and use of basic relations on mass and charge from electron structure derived in SVT, confirmation to the experimentally measured mass and charge of electron come about.
Many thanks for sending your comments.
Best wishes,
paramahamsa
I'm absolutely convinced that both cases of Relativity are a complete sham and do not represent reality, for the obvious reason that advancements in QM (which has it own fundamental problems) clearly show it false. But the form of Vortex Theory mentioned here clearly needs more work.
Regards,
Ronald
Posted by: Sepp on February 16, 2005 11:34 AM
we have to allow for the fact that their are neither a finite or infinite number of dimensions but an unknown but uncountable number... and that there does exist a theory of universal synogism that regulates them all
Posted by: c on February 23, 2006 07:01 PM
The Vacuum and Special Relativity Theory.
Special Relativity Theory examines the behaviour of a quantum of light in the vacuum.
1) The First law of SRT - the speed of a quantum of light in vacuum has
a maximal magnitude (constant, absolute) of c=1.
2) SRT is not considered a gravitational field.
For this reason, Einstein created General Relativity Theory in 1915.
The field in which there is no gravitation is a vacuum.
3) This asserts that action in SRT occurs with particles in
negative four-dimensional (Minkowski) space. This space is absolute.
Mathematicians have constructed its model and speak
of this negative space as completely abstract.
Nobody sees that it has no connection to real existence.
This is similar to a sad joke.
For 100 years everyone has admired SRT.
Millions of articles, reviews and books have been written
and the United Nations has decided to establish 2005 as the centennial year of SRT.
Consider that all that is clear in this theory
is that negative four-dimensional space is abstract and has no real existence.
My God! There does not appear to be anyone to laugh at this joke!
Everyone searches for complex models of four-dimensional space, but truth lies in simplicity. All is very simple.
We meet the negative characteristic of space only in the vacuum, and in the vacuum,
space is merged with time (negative four-dimensional space).
According to the first law, the speed of light is absolute and movement occurs
in the absolute vacuum. So why does everyone speak and write that there is no
absolute movement; that only relative movement v =s/t is real?
Why does everyone say that there is no absolute reference system,
if the absolute speed can be only in absolute space?
Here we have one of the paradoxes in human intelligence.
Pythagoras, theory, Electrodynamics and SRT.
Pythagoras' theory applies equally to the largest and smallest triangle.
So mathematicians had decided, that this applies also to
the electromagnetic phenomena;
that the laws of a nature in the macrocosm and in a microcosm are identical.
It appears that this is not so.
In the macrocosm, Maxwell's laws apply
and in the microcosm, other laws, the laws of SRT operate.
These laws are interconnected.
SRT is a continuation of the development of electrodynamics.
* * *
1)What is the make up of the electron in Maxwell's theory?
Maxwell's equations have no relation to the movement of the electron.
They describe the distribution of electromagnetic waves
but not the movement of a particle such as an electron.
In Maxwell's theory, the charge - electron is considered local,
as though the particle is "at rest".
This means that it particle does not move rectilinearly,
but rotates around the diameter (has the form of a sphere).
The rotation of the electron creates electrical waves.
* * *
2) What is the make up of the electron in SRT?
At the beginning of the last century many scientists
(Einstein, Lorents, Fitzgerald, Poincare, Abraham) were interested in the question:
What will take place, if the electron (Maxwell's) , creating an electrical field,
begins to move - rectilinearly?
All of them came to the conclusion that there would be radical changes with the electron.
These changes are described by the Lorentz transformations.
That is, when the originally rotating electron (sphere) begins to move rectilinearly,
during movement it gradually will change its geometrical form.
Having reached constant speed of c=1, its form will become a circle.
In such condition it is called a "quantum of light ",�? photon�?.
And when a quantum of light rotates around its diameter its name is "electron "
An "electron" is an actively working "quantum of light�?.
With such an interpretation, electrodynamics and SRT become one general theory.
Posted by: socratus on March 3, 2006 03:38 PM
Particles are toroidal vorteces like smoke rings that each have two planes of rotation, general and inward. It is because of the second plane of rotation that they can be sorted into positive or negative. If you accept this structure then you need only add the effect of waves through the medium some of which caused by particle expansion others by particle motion (wakes)and critically THE MAGNUS FORCES on the particles that are after all spinning at the speed of light, and it is quite easy to describe all the forces of nature. Indeed all three fundamental forces, (elecric weak, electric strong and gravity) are all due to Magnus Forces axting on toroidal particle vorteces.
Jon Fieldhouse 2008
Posted by: Jon Fieldhouse on June 7, 2008 09:28 AM
Nice one Jon. You have really hit the nail on the head. If particles spin, and they exist in a medium, and there are waves in that medium, or the medium itself moves, then substantial Magnus forces must be generated. These forces have been totally overlooked and must be considered for their part in the workings of the universe at all levels. And I think you might be right, they might just very well prove to be the only forces that hold the universe together.
Alexis
Posted by: Alexis on June 8, 2008 08:36 AM
Dear Tewari,
I really enjoy reading about your Vortex Theory. You are very correct about this. And all three dimensional objects have an "absolute" center.
With the basis of your physics on "immovable" ground, it is only a matter of time when perfectly accurate equations will be formulated.
You know as well as I know that relativity cannot accurately explain relativity. Only when the "absolute" point has been found can relativity be perfectly explained and calculated.
This is my rough understanding.
Posted by: Arthur Sanchez on January 1, 2011 01:42 AM
Paramahamsa Tewari says by email:
I have the following views on Arthur Sanchez remarks.
Yes, centres of all three dimensional bodies are absolute and indicative of the underlying fluid substratum with respect to which they are marked.
An obeserver E on the Earth is not priveledged to say , as relativists argue, that he is the centre of the solar system because the Sun appears to go round the Earth. He has to analyse not only the apparent motion of the Sun around the earth but also the forces that carry the earth and the forces connected with the Sun -planet system to drive the planets. But for the discovery of Copernicus with the Sun in the solar system centre, Kepler's laws woud not have been discovered.
Then came Rene Descartes with his Vortex Theory, etherial propertyless substraum and cosmic solar vortex with the Sun at the centre of the solar system and the planets being taken around by the solar vortex. If E, in line with Descartes pilosophy and later as per SVT, postulates an earth vortex rotating the earth axially, carrying the moon around, and also now, as per him, driving the sun around the earth, he has to work out as follows.
Determine the maximum velocity field in the Earth vortex that rotates the Earth axially; find out the Earth vortex constant with the orbital motion of the Moon and its distance from the earth; applying Kepler's law as per which the speed of a planet falls inverly as the square root of its distance from the sun -- but now taking the earth as the primary and the Sun as the secondary-- he will find from calculations that the sun should orbit around the Earth with an orbital speed of (1 / 19.8) km / s , as against 29.8 km / s that he observes.[Earth orbits at 29.8 km / s around the sun, but for E it is the Sun orbiting the earth at he same speed] Clearly an absurd result! and this is because E has ignored the spatial forces that exist in solar system space that drive the planets around the sun.
Best wishes,
Paramahamsa
Posted by: Sepp on January 2, 2011 10:12 AM
Try combining vortex theory with wave length theory. Bounce off of all the particles spinning in circular motion at right angles downwards- particles bouncing off particles to accelerate anti gravity off the De Broglie Wavelength (particles in suspension) with magnetism and its relationship with electricity. E=hc/H combined with frequency over 200nm. Represent the vortex by a two cylinder cone and particles are shooting upwards from the bottom of the cone and boncouncing off the sides of the cone cylinders to force an object upwards in a double vortex that defies gravity.
Posted by: The Machine on September 20, 2011 12:01 AM
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.
These articles are brought to you strictly for educational and informational purposes. Be sure to consult your health practitioner of choice before utilizing any of the information to cure or mitigate disease. Any copyrighted material cited is used strictly in a non commercial way and in accordance with the "fair use" doctrine.
1127
|
|
