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. Inventing a different physics is serious business and everyone has their own ideas on how to go about it ... or that they already did and people should just read what they have written. Be that as it may, it seems to me that there might just be a lack of communication between the proponents of various competing views to mainstream physics.
While some may think I am off my rocker, many seem to agree that current physics, from cosmology all the way down to particles, does not have all the answers. Competing views have been "crowded out" of the mainstream journals, and although there are some new journals that accept views that differ from the currently held beliefs, they are not universally read, even among the growing community of dissidents.
Rather than blow my own horn though, I would like to let others talk about this and let you "listen in" on some of the conversations - but let me warn you that this is a long and tedious read. I also believe it can be a fascinating discussion to follow for anyone interested in changing the physics paradigm...
This starts with comments to my previous posting of Eit Gaastra's links and view on cosmology. And please, if you have a comment you would like others to read, you can append it at the end of this post. There is a form provided for that. If you know how to do it, you can also use html for links you may want to include.
- . - . - . - . - . - . -
27.11.2004 - Frank Morgan comments in a rather intense sounding email:
... BUT EINSTEIN DID NOT LIKE THE BIG BANG IMPLICATION OF HIS THEORY EITHER AND Worked in vain FOR 30 YEARS TO TRY AND FIND AN ANSWER, AND KNEW THAT NEW MATH Would BE NEEDED! IGNORANT ego-driven DISSIDENTS TEAR AT Einstein so they can feel superior every time they re-discover the obvious - of course Big Bang is a joke! Not one of the really great scientists ever really swallowed the idea as popularly presented today as part of the Standard Model - and as incredibly dumb - understood by every would be scientist on the internet!
27.11.2004 - Charles Weber says in a message which I then forwarded to Eit:
I take note that you believe that the cosmic background is cooler when observed in a cluster. Do you have any original references to this phenomenon? You do not mention the possibility that quasars are due to a gravitational lensing of its light by a huge mass WITHIN the quasar. Perhaps you have not seen my proposal along those lines at www.geocities.com/isoptera.geo/index.html (link no longer active) now at http://charles_w.tripod.com/quasar.html.
27.11.2004 - Caroline H Thompson, in a comment addressed to Eit Gaastra of which I received a copy, says:
You say (in http://www.eitgaastra.nl/print/leeuwardenengels.html) that you have been very interested in physics since 2001, and I gather that you have concentrated on what is wrong with Einstein's theories of relativity and the Big Bang. But his invention of the photon may go down in history as an even worse blunder! All true scientists were against the idea at first, and it only caught on, I think, because the media had promoted Einstein to god-like status after the supposed confirmation of his General Relativity theory by the 1919 eclipse data.
I too think that there are exciting things yet to be discovered, but they are mainly in the area currently dominated by quantum theory. I have been studying this (mainly optics) since 1993, and consider most of the claims of confirmation to be worthless. In quantum optics, there is nothing that cannot be modelled much more satisfactorily using a purely wave model of light and ordinary classical methods.
Perhaps if you have a spare moment you could look at my web site? I think you might be interested in what I have to say in the section http://freespace.virgin.net/ch.thompson1/History/forgotten.htm. You might also like to read about my own TOE: "The Phi-Wave Aether: a Wave Theory of Everything", (in PDF to download).
27.11.2004 - Ove Tedenstig from Sweden comments directly on the site, after reading the previous post with Eit Gaastra's article:
To understand things in the large (Cosmology) you must firstly understand things in the small. That is not the case in today's official physical theories. Much is described in a proper way but not understood. For that reason I have concentrated myself on the task of understanding fundamental processes of matter on very low level, such as the qutantum atom, the electromagnetism, the gravitation, upcome and existence of elementary particles, the basic nature of light. Starting in this way I think Cosmologial problems get their solutions in a natural way.
It always makes me happy to hear someone else has discovered the truth.
Sepp Hasslberger relyed to me your essay about Absurdities of the modern science. You are apparently already aware of my opinion about gravity, by which no pushing, bent space time or any esoteric theory is needed anymore. I, with Professor Hughes proved experimentally - and anybody can repeated it - that electrical attraction always prevails over repulsion. This Universal fact gives a plausible reason for gravity - inherent in to matter and energy as such.
I believe that everything is made by organized energy, and I also believe that there must be somebody there who knows how to organize it. So I am less surprised about miracles or so called supernatural. I am not dogmatic or fanatic by any means. I am analyst, so I analyze. Evolution without a clear plan is hard to accept, since we have clear examples proving plan and engineering. My latest favored subject in this matter is a common plant burdock which has developed seeds with "velcro" hooks having a purpose to hang on the fur of animals or in modern day on clothing of humans. It also grows it at the ends of branches to be exposed to such function.
This case alone, by itself is the proof, that atheism is scientifically unsound.
I have also a different opinion about heavy core of stars and planets, about "tired" light which is relatively easy to explain, and I also believe that there is a "life convenience zone in the galaxy. I attach a brief disagreement with Einstein's Equivalence principle.
Now, when I know better your background, I found it might be interesting to share with you my views - completely to your discretion...
28.11.2004 - Frank Morgan replies to my saying "I gather you are a great fan of Einstein, and I won't try to argue on that point" as follows:
Sepp, science is not about being a fan of someone. Einstein is without the slightest doubt to the tiny few who have managed to follow his theories with good understanding, the greatest scientist since Newton and the solid, fantastic fully verified Predictions of his theories are accomplishments that are recognized and routinely taught throughout the world of science.
He is not responsible for all his theory came to imply thru others - he knew from the beginning to the end that his theory was not complete - he argued with Neils Bohr endlessly about the problematic basis for a quantum mechanics that his own incompleteness forced, and was never comfortable with the non-deterministic implications of his own theory as it was finally developed. He wanted desperately to prove that the universe is stable, closed but infinite (no Big Bang) - that the universe is timeless and immortal. Surely you must be able to see that most of those in the NPA really have no foundation as scientists capable of proving Einstein wrong about anything! - those who do understand the Standard Model and its many limitations, and they are very few in number, will tell you in an instant that any person who calls themself a dissident is by definition a Tiny-Piecemeal-Theory Nut! Has no real depth or breadth in physics....The NPA is just another phony Vanity Cub of highly specialized technicians pretending to be total-system-level (all disciplines capable) scientists---convinced they are of genius stature beyond Einstein, the Automatic Target of all true NUTS.
E = M(c-squared) alone and all that it routinely does today and everyday for science is enough all by itself for the majority of believers.
I share this with my list...
To which Roger Rydin comments:
Einstein may have made a significant contribution, but the interpretation that GR explains the movement of the Universe has never been proved. I am somewhat a scientist, and I believe there is evidence supporting a case for this. The problem is that no one including Morgan has a replacement theory that fits all the real observations.
28.11.2004 - Jim Wright offers the following comment to Eit Gaastra:
I was directed to your Web-site by Sepp Hasslberger and have just finished going through it in some detail. I'll not try to respond to what you have written, except to suggest that you investigate the philosophy of Ayn Rand, which is called Objectivism. It deals with Objective Reality as the only reality and with Reason as the only means of apprehending that Reality. In it she points out that our Feelings are the result of our Conceptions which, in turn, are the result of our Perceptions and what we do with them.
As for your Cosmology, you've done your homework! I applaud your efforts.
I believe that you will be interested in what I have developed, over the years, which does not agree with Conventional Wisdom in many ways. To initiate this, I've appended various papers of mine, most likely not in chronological order of development, which explore various aspects of Cosmology, from the Infinite to the Lab. My incentive to look into the field came, some 40 years ago, from the desire to develop a fully logical cause for the Cosmological Redshift, one fully consistent with the evidence and without fantasy of any kind. Look where it led me!
29.11.2004 - Evert-Jan Post good-naturedly defends Einstein with the following words - quoting from a number of short messages I received:
... be kind to old man Albert, he did so many marvellous things-he was entitled to a few mistakes - we hope all of us are!!
Keep in mind among the first questioning the premise of Euclidean space (time) were Gauss, Riemann, and after that Albert first experimented with deviations from Euclidean structure; even if not perfect a measure of relevance of which is hard to deny.
1.12.2004 - I comment to Evert-Jan Post as follows:
My feeling is that Euclidean geometry or structure, as you call it, is an artificial construct that does not accurately reflect the Nature we see around us. Probably fractals and vortex-forms of flow are much more close. I take your point that Einstein questioned the concept of space (time) following Euclid's prescriptions. Might I say that he has not gone far enough? My own idea is that dimensions themselves are an artificial way of looking at reality. To illustrate that, I proposed a tetrahedron-based system of co-ordinates some years back. At the end of that article I ventured to say something about dimensions that goes against accepted wisdom of our world being "three-dimensional"
to which Evert-Jan Post replies:
...the dimension question I believe has been given a basis in set theory (Brouwer). I am attaching a derivaton of the Schwarzschild factor using global methods published in Galilean EM. (I had trouble saving this file in a useful format for posting. Anyone interested in reading it, please contact Evert-Jan Post directly.)
3.12.2004 - after my saying that I am not a math person, Evert-Jan Post further comments:
... a lot of physical reality is hard to separate from the mathematical language being used. The paper I sent you is an example how the major verifiable results of the general theory are obtainable by a global argument without using the field equations. The argument is global, making assumptions about a closed static universe (no chance of overreaching ourselves with big bangs), and invoking Mach's principle. Yet retaining the spacetime geodetic line hypothesis! The local field equations, by contrast, get around the Mach principle, its local solutions tell a similar story though while still retaining perspectives on an evolution in time (Still inviting apocalyptic big bang stories for some).
As the Indians say, if you criticize people first walk some miles in their moccasins. There are so many angles here, keep the views open and keep your own mind open, because sometimes also a seemingly nonmathematical argument can open our eyes for new horizons.
My statement about empty space does not have to take the word “empty” in the sense of “nothingness”. I am simply saying that there is distance between the entities that make up an atom. Experimentally we see electron effects as if they are very small particles. We see similar effects for neutron scattering, alphas, etc., and can assign sizes to these particles. We can experimentally size a nucleus and show that it is a packing of proton-sized particles. There is experimental evidence that electrons do not exist inside the nucleus, but are born at the moment of beta decay. The atom is about 5 orders of magnitude larger than the nucleus (10E-8 vs. 10E-13), so that means there is “empty” space inside an atom.
The measured magnetic moment ratio between a proton and a neutron argues for having an internal structure of quarks, with a diquark and a valence quark combination. These move relative to one another producing the measured nuclear spin. I don’t know what quarks look like, or their other properties, but I conceive that there is also “empty” space between them and they are much smaller than the size of a neutron or proton. I conceive that the “size” of the neutron is made by the orbit of the quarks moving around each other, just like the “size” of an atom is made by the orbit of the outer electron shell.
We call a Pulsar a Neutron Star, or a giant nucleus made up of only neutrons. These have been experimentally found as remnants at the sites of prior supernovas. When more mass is added, there is a “collapse” to a Black Hole. I conceive of a Black Hole as still containing neutrons because they have no place to go, but the “empty” space has been squeezed out of each neutron, leading to my term “squashed”. If the experimental observation of Quark Stars is valid, these more dense bodies may be partially collapsed Neutron Stars. So to me, a black hole is a very large and heavy body that still contains the constituents of neutrons. General relativity may account for the attraction of light towards the center, making light go in a circle and not get out. That is the observational definition of a black hole. I do not ascribe to the mathematical definition of singularity, and I don’t agree with the derivation on the Strings website of the escape-velocity-speed-of-light as defining the “event horizon” size.
3.12.2004 - Nigel Cook joins this conversation, he writes:
The word "brainwashing" was used by quark theorist Gell-Mann to describe Niels Bohr's political defence of mathematical quantum mechanics against Einstein.
Embarassingly, the only people who are in assent over such issues are those paid to be in order to teach it to reluctant and often hostile students.
When a student asks a baited but bona fide question, they have to pretend that the student is being a nuisance and deal with the problem like that.
We all know that modern physics, which attempts to describe everything (some trivial things very well indeed, like the dipole moment of an electron to 10 decimals), is not out to explain everything.
My uncle has a physics PhD and at a recent wedding was asked by my mother (who will not discuss science with me) to define the objective of physics. He replied it is to formulate equations to describe everything accurately.
Now my understanding of the objective of physics is different: it is to understand mechanisms, but it is also to formulate equations from those mechanisms.
When electricity enters a capacitor plate at the speed of the dielectric from a connecting wire, energy starts going in two directions at once: along the capacitor plate (pointed out by Catt) and also between the plates, because energy travels through the circuit as the capacitor charges up. This implies that energy is delivered at light speed in the direction of the electric field lines which bridge the charging capacitor plates. According to classical electromagnetic theory, energy like radio waves travels in a direction perpendicular to both the electric field and the magnetic field vectors. So this analysis shows that the electric field lines actually indicate where light speed energy is flowing, at least while the charge is building up. In the steady state situation, there is no net transfer of energy but a force exists (electric force), indicating that momentum is being mutually exchanged between charges (you need momentum to appear in a force field to make the field accelerate objects).
Sadly, the discussion in the paragraph above is heretical to Ivor Catt, who will not discuss physics with me (like my mother). People who go off the mainstream, like Catt, end up being suppressed and then refusing to invest further time or effort because they believe that it will not be published.
If I were to go mountain climbing or scuba diving, I would not be sneered at or ridiculed by the expert mountain climbers or scuba divers. However, physics is in the state of being a pompous profession where the word amateur is pronounced to sound like crank. There is no amateur theoretical physics. The people in that area have been forced to develope a paranoia and arrogance in order to maintain where they are despite a lot of "free thinkers" (pronounced crank again) who both put forward new ideas and ridicule modern physics. The professional modern physicist displays paranoia by simply lumping together all free thinkers as cranks and displays arrogance by ridiculing those who come up with new ideas which are not published in his favourite journal as being "ignorant".
Counter-attacking such people just ends in a mud-fight which onlookers see not as a heroic attack on bigotry, but as a boring political debate instead of interesting science.
I think Morgan's concept of the black hole electron, also put forward later I believe by DiMario in Electronics World, very useful. However there is a lot of work needed to integrate a simple electron model with the concept of spin speed and the electromagnetic field of an electron. If we assume that all matter has a speed of spin equal to c, then we can understand why c comes into E=mc2, the emission of the normally trapped light speed energy in matter.
The fact that there is no amateur theoretical physics indicates that the subject is unstable. Contrary to Catt, empirical equations of modern physics are fundamentally sound and cannot collapse; knowledge cannot be lost. However, the assembly of that knowledge can be changed, and this is what will happen at some point.
The equations required to accurately predict observations are always derived from some kind of underlying model. To the extent that there is an underlying unification physics, any low level model you choose, which is sufficiently close to some aspect of the actual physics, can be coerced to produce accurate results at some set of boundary conditions.
For example, one can model the Sun, planets and moons as points of mass and apply classical orbital mechanics to predict with great accuracy the various orbits. However, we also know that the physics of curvature will not only accurately predict orbits, but will also accurately predict higher order behaviors like precession.
The fact that there are so many low level models (classical, particles, waves, strings, spinning black holes, etc.), tells me that there definitely is some kind of unifying physics which will bring everything together. A necessary attribute of it's low level model is that it must be able to explain why all of the others seem to make sense.
There is one theory that stands out from all others, Einstein's Theory of General Relativity. Of all the potential unification physics, this has generated the most number of substantial, non obvious and contentious predictions about behaviors, which were later verified. Unfortunately, none of the other unification models can adequately explain why space-time becomes curved in the presence of stress.
Most physicists would not consider GTR as a unification theory, even though Einstein arrived at it as part of his lifelong quest for unification. The fact that GTR appears to break at the small scale has pushed it away from being considered the Unification theory that it represents. The reason it breaks is that the math applied to the theory introduces unresolveable singularities at the small scale.
It only takes a small tweak in how we quantify curvature to make this problem go away. In the context of L.F's theory, what this does is quantify the surface of the spinning black holes and defines what's inside them. From Nigel's point of view, it describes where the substance of the neutrons that were compressed into a black hole ends up. It links cosmic back holes to Hawking's miniature ones.
The tweak is to consider curvature as the substance of existence and that existence in equilibrium consists of equal and opposite amounts of curvature and anticurvature (Conservation of Curvature). The symmetries of the organization determines properties like mass and charge. The arrow of time is a consequence of the curvature and anticurvature attempting to cancel each other out (the Universe resists curvature). However, the separation of time between them prevents annihilation. That is, curved space-time (what we observe when we look into the Cosmos) represents the past while anticurved space-time represents the future and the boundary between them represents the present. This boundary, while occupying space, occupies only a singular point in time, which leads to the Uncertainty Principle and particle wave duality. All forces and interactions of curvature functions can be completely described by the interaction of this boundary with the ambient curvature contributed by everything else. All the various particles are just different stable and quasi-stable organizations of curvature and anticurvature. Photons are symmetrically equal amounts of curvature and anticurvature (I have a simple proof for this). Electrons are like photons with more curvature than anticurvature (i.e., a local violation of Conservation of Curvature), causing it to propagate in an orbit around itself, rather than in a straight line and making photons the natural way to add or remove kinetic energy. Particles have the curvature on the outside and the anticurvature on the inside. Antiparticles have the anticurvature on the outside and the curvature on the inside. The inside of particles never overlaps the inside of any other particle, while the outsides of all particles do overlap, the net effect of which is indistinguishable from what we currently consider to be curved space-time.
4.12.2004 - After a message of mine, saying that there have been changes in the last decade and a half, and that the dissident sector of physics seems to be actually growing, Nigel Cook commens:
... the big bang model starts off with the universe at the same temperature shortly after the big bang when it was a cloud of expanding high pressure hydrogen gas, and ends up with the universe of today where there are large differences in temperature (2.7 K in outer space and 15 milion K in the sun's core). This goes the opposite of the law of entropy, where you would expect temperature differences to even out rather than increase with time.
I did a cosmology module at university, but this was not mentioned as a specific problem withe the big bang theory. Big bang theorists would probably just say that gravitation causes the temperature differences and is the force which reversed the entropy of the universe since the early period of the big bang, in which case the law of entropy requires modification for gravitational situations where a cloud of uniform gas is pulled into lumps which undergo high temperature reactions while other areas freeze. The alternative explanation is that the big bang is wrong.
I'm actually locked into the big bang because I've worked on a mechanism of gravity which accurately predicts the force law and the force strength but it has nevertheless been rigorously suppressed by Nature's editor Philip Campbell, Physical Review Letters' editor Stanley Brown (who emailed me back with the silly claim that the mechanism is an "alternative theory" to the current existing mechanism of gravity, which doesn't exist!), and so on. The few people I've found who have studied it, like Matthews (editor of the book "Pushing Gravity") are against the big bang, so I can't win!
I may try repackaging it as trivial evidence which supports the big bang, and see if I can slip it past the editors that way (so far it has only been published in Electronics World).
5.12.2004 - My reply to Nigel Cook, which I then copied to a number of people:
What a shame we have such a highly dogmatic physics and that journal editors - rather than promoting discussion of new and preferably diverse ideas - believe to be the custodians of the current prevailing view and that this view needs to be shielded from the onlsaught of new ideas and explanations. I am continuing to be amazed, although of course I know this to be the case and have known for years.
Looking at your web page with the paper, I cannot help but think that what we need for ideas to start circulating again is a way to get around journal restrictions. There should be a site or preferably numerous sites on the web, which do not "push" one view, such as our individual author's sites do, but strive to make diverse views known and let them be discussed by peers and others interested.
You say you may repackage your paper to sneak it past the controls. Yes, you may get your paper published, but to what end? In a way you just end up supporting the bigoted "current view is holy" attitude of the journal editors, even as you tricked them into publishing. They are keeping not only yours but a thousand other viewpoints out as well. So getting around them in one instance will make it no easier for all the others to get heard and it will actually perpetuate the system by granting it power to decide autonomously which views deserve publication and which ones do not.
Coming back to this website idea, my first thought when seeing your site was actually that it could be structured better, to make it more easy for a visitor to navigate. But then one thing leads to another, and I thought, why not provide space for more than one alternative theory? That is really what the magazines should be doing, rather than being gatekeepers to protect orthodoxy.
What I envision is a site similar to my own Health Supreme site
not in content, but in structure, where diverse ideas in physics - and maybe other sciences as well - might get a hearing (by being published) and could on the same page be commented on by anyone interested. Both the original and the comments would remain visible for those who come and visit later. That is the idea of the type of site I have. Publication of selected information (in this case selected for diversity rather than uniformity of viewpoint) and a possibility to share both the information and the subsequent discussion and comments with others who come to look later.
I made my site with the help of a friend who is researching cutting-edge internet based communication technologies. The technology we use are weblogs, sites that can be easily updated without knowledge of any html coding or such. You can find out more about the initiative on this page.
I think the physics community - especially those interested in the spread and discussion of alternative ideas - should very well adopt these latest communication technologies and get over - once and for all - the limitations that a closed-circuit journal system has brought to progress.
My friend Robin Good (here is his one of his sites on communication technologies) is offering to work with anyone interested in applying these new communication tools to bring about much needed change in some areas of human endeavour, science being one of these.
I am just bringing this up in a rather general way and I'm also sending copies to others who might be interested. I would like to see if perhaps there's someone could put the promotion of their own theory somewhat in the background and take on the more journalistic function of reporting on the ideas of others.
We could be developing in this way a "conversation" among those who think current physics is not providing all the answers, and at the same time we could stimulate thinking in certain directions of change that might prove profitable for the progress of physics as a whole.
What do you think?
5.12.2004 - Frank Morgan is the first one to respond:
Thanks for the kind messages Sepp - and if you ever visit my site [www.angelfire.com/wi/HolisticScience] that has been there for 12 years now, everything you suggest is there in spades! You have to be motivated in an unbiased/non-dissident manner to adequately search for and see scientific truth. Those who bar NPA member materials from publication really do know what they are doing for the most part - science is not about popularism and vanity that lets everyone be a self proclaimed genius worthy of fame! The only thing wrong with the highly prediction successful Standard Model is that is totally denies scientific truth at the detailed, material point mechanical level - BECAUSE ALL THE PREDICTION IS BASED ON PROBLEMATICS, ADVANCED STATISTICAL MATH! A MATH THAT IS NON CAUSAL AT ITS ROOTS BECAUSE IT DENIES DETERMINISM WITHIN EVERY OBSERVABLE ENERGY SURFACE ENVELOPE THAT WE SHOULD KNOW IS A CLASSICAL MATERIAL POINT!!
LONG BEFORE HE DIED KNOWING HIS THEORY WAS INCOMPLETE, EINSTEIN WROTE IN A PLAIN LANGUAGE ARTICLE PUBLISHED IN SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN WHICH I AM LOOKING AT RIGHT HERE ON MY DESK. APRIL 1950, VOL 182, NO 4: HE STATES AT LENGTH THE SHORTCOMINGS OF HIS THEORY AND ENDS WITH THE SENTENCE: "THE DERIVATION, FROM THE EQUATIONS, OF CONCLUSIONS THAT CAN BE CONFRONTED WITH EXPERIENCE, WILL REQUIRE PAINSTAKING EFFORTS AND PROBABLY NEW MATHMATICAL METHODS."
I THEREFORE CONCLUDED THEN AND DO AGAIN NOW, THAT HE KNEW THAT THE EXTAORDINARILY COMPLICATED MATH OF HIS GENERAL THEORY WAS NOT GOOD ENOUGH TO REVEAL SCIENTIFIC TRUTH! MY THEORY FINISHES WHAT HE SO MAGNIFICENTLY STARTED -using causal math!
5.12.2004 - My reply to Frank Morgan:
I did visit your site before, and I just did so again. What I propose in my message is something very different. One site that promotes not only one man's theory, but a number of different and even diverging ones, giving each one some space.
What you have is a site to promote your theory, but - excuse me if I say so - it is not going to be very effective unless you find a way to give your readers some "bits and pieces", some bite-sized samples of the changes you envision. It is all fine and good to say "my theory is there for everyone to see, but unless you give your readers a reason to desire reading 300 or more pages of manuscript, you will have to entice them with details that arouse their interest. Not many people will download a book length manuscript and read it, unless they see a very good reason that they must find out about something important. You have got to sell your idea better than just putting it there to download.
Checking again on your site, I see that there is a new, very brief summary announced, but unfortunately the link does not lead to a document - oops, it does, but it simply downloads a document and puts it on my desktop. That is a rather combersome way of navigating to find out what your ideas are.
What is my point? We are (most of us) not very efficient in communicating our ideas in a way that will be attractive and even compelling for others to find out about. There are things to learn, in other words.
5.12.2004 - Paramahamsa Tewari from India says:
In your recent mail, I find an interestiong comment from Nigel Cook in his correspondence with you. He comments "speed of spin c in all matter". In fact in the space vortex theory of elctron (starting 1974/1977 with my first book "Substantial space and void-nature of elctron") , electron spin in its space vortex structure is postulated to be c, as you know it. The latest book "Universal Principles of Space and Matter -- A call for Conceptual Reorientation", electron is concluded to be the only fundamental particle by deriving all the known universal constants in terms of c, and explaining the observed properties of electron with space vortex structure. At www.tewari.org, there are papers, decades old, based on vortex structure and central-void structure of electron.
Please forward to Dr. Nigel Cook.
I agree with the idea of expanding our horizons!
5.12.2004 - Roger Rydin sends a reply to all and wishes of Merry Christmas:
It seems that a dialog has now opened on how to publish “dissident” ideas. I am actually not that interested in publishing new papers as I am in critiquing what I read from various sources in looking for some kind of truth. Perhaps I have spent too much time as an intelligence analyst learning to read between the lines as well as reading disparate, conflicting and sometimes misleading stories. So I take everything with a grain of salt.
I started out as an experimentalist in an engineering physics environment, but spent most of my career writing and modifying computer codes and using them to analyze experiments. However, I also took a lot of graduate mathematics, and ended up teaching applied math before I retired.
Anyway, I have learned that we start out with a balance equation containing those terms that we think are important, and neglect others that we don’t feel make a big contribution. Then we usually neglect cross terms or linearize the problem so that we can solve it in some meaningful sense over the range of variables we are interested in. Then we usually simplify the geometry to make it amenable to solution. All of these amount to the fact that we always approximate reality. Then we compare our solutions to experiments to see if we have an adequate model. In my experience, we then have to rationalize the effects of experimental errors as well as the effects of errors in the fundamental data fed into our computations.
All this is to bring out a couple of points:
1. I think it is impossible to find a Theory of Everything. There is no way we can ever include all of the contributing effects to the highest nonlinear order to explain the complete range of experimental observations of any kind of phenomenon;
2. Any equations or solutions are only valid over the range they were derived and experimentally verified over. An attempt to apply a theory such as General Relativity over the big as well as the small is doomed to failure;
3. We should beware of thinking that a theory has been proven if it only has a few experimental observations that support it. Such a case is the Big Bang, which really can only point to the Hubble expansion, the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, and the Nucleosynthesis of light elements as suggesting that General Relativity has something to do with the motion of the universe. All three of these observations are subject to alternate interpretations, and there is a great deal of other experimental evidence that is in conflict with the Big Bang interpretation or remains totally unexplained by any theory;
4. The state of theoretical particle physics is by no means in good shape. Quantum Chromodynamics may have a place for all of the subparticles that fill the geometrical theory, but the interpretation of how an exchange of particles explains the four fundamental forces is incomprehensible in terms of time, mass, and distance. The theorists are currently off postulating the properties of exotic dark matter, which may not even exist. Meanwhile, there is no viable theory of gravity, which is why some of the dissidents are proposing new ideas;
5. Better mathematical techniques are not the answer to all our problems, since it is the failure to include all of the terms in the formulation that gives us problems. We engineers call this “Garbage in – Garbage out”. I have learned not to be overly impressed by sophisticated mathematics or mathematicians.
Anyway, this brings me to the last point in my previous e-mail, that no one of you really addressed. The data for the deep redshift experiments and their correlations are shown below. The data points are simply counts of the number of galaxies found in small oriented cones versus distance, as converted from redshift using Hubble’ law. Frank says that he has an alternate theory of what causes redshift. So do others who propose tired light or Compton scattering energy degradation. Nevertheless, the data are periodic, with a period that corresponds to about 400 million light years. Such periodic clumps and voids seem to be general for most types of cosmological observations. Even Halton Arp, who doesn’t ascribe to Hubble’s Law, notes that periodic redshift observations need to be explained by some physical mechanism.
When a companion survey was taken 45 degrees from the North-South survey, the same period was found! The two surveys, and others, are all correlated, meaning they have a common cause.
Now what this data says to me is that the galaxies are spherically distributed about a center not far (~150 million light years) from Earth (our only observation point) near the Virgo Supercluster, which is also where the Cosmic Microwave Background frame seems to be centered. Furthermore, they didn’t correct the data for the fact that the cone volume increases with distance, so that the density of galaxies strongly decreases with distance.
Anyway, how do any of you explain this data using General Relativity! And if it can’t be explained, then does General Relativity apply to the motion of the universe?
I’m ready for a new theory, but show me how it treats this problem.
5.12.2004 - Tom Van Flandern has some advice on publications:
Closed-minded editors abound, but not all editors are like that. Every editor’s first job is to guard against a danger far greater than the suppression of an occasional good idea, which is the unlimited dissemination of unworthy ideas. That would make science a jungle with no clear paths of time-tested ideas to guide us. It is why all decent journals have some sort of standards and review process, and why those that do not are not widely read.
Some of the mainstream physics journals are no longer open to criticisms in certain areas, relativity being a common example. They did not start that way, but evolved to that position from being burned repeatedly by protests that did not withstand close scrutiny. (For example, “Physics Today” published the Dingle letters and the full Mendel-Sachs controversy in the 1960s and 1970s, following the AIP debate on relativity in 1960. But when these objections were shot down, as were all previous objections, editors learned that, to keep their jobs, they needed to be heavy-handed about new objections. Survival trumps altruism.)
The solution was to start new journals that still allow such controversial subject matter. We now have many that are open to new and controversial ideas: Physics Essays, Galilean Electrodynamics, Apeiron, Journal of Scientific Exploration, and the Meta Research Bulletin are some of the better known. All these are peer-reviewed. We also have wide open journals such as “Reality and Meaning” that do not have prior review. People whose careers depend on mainstream theories do not read journals critical of mainstream theories because doing so would jeopardize their own careers. But could you reasonably expect otherwise?
Anyone can put anything on a private web site, so these tend to get the attention they deserve, which is usually very little. The essence of peer review, properly done, is to weed out major flaws and to determine the communicability of the ideas to others. Why would any of us want to waste our time reading material that was either flawed or written in non-communicable language?
I would like to see if perhaps there's someone could put the promotion of their own theory somewhat in the background and take on the more journalistic function of reporting on the ideas of others.
The peer-reviewed journals I mentioned do that. Here at Meta Research, in addition to our quarterly Bulletin, we offer the “Extended Meta-notes by Email” (EME) service, which culls the leading journals for articles about puzzles, anomalies, and major new findings that impact (usually negatively) on paradigms.
We could be developing in this way a "conversation" among those who think current physics is not providing all the answers, and at the same time we could stimulate thinking in certain directions of change that might prove profitable for the progress of physics as a whole.
A great deal of progress has been made by replacement theories in the past decade, with the publication of the 20-author Pushing Gravity in 2002 being the most significant achievement of this movement to date. It provides a complete theory of gravitation from its quantum nature to its cosmological implications, including both the “how” and the “why” aspects. Why not join the various movements already in progress? If you have good arguments for change that are persuasive to others, you will find a ready, receptive audience. Isn’t that better than starting from scratch? I assume this is not just about promoting egos, but about the advancement of science. -|Tom|-
5.12.2004 - George White writes in reply to Roger Rydin's message to all:
The periodic phenomenon you describe could very well be an influence of curvature and quantifiable with GTR.
The 400 million light year periodic character could be a gravitational lens effect, caused by a large scale ripple (with a period of about 400 million light years) in the ambient curvature of the Universe near our galaxy. This roughly corresponds to the size of the 'Great Attractor', which is in the direction of Cantaurus and about 250 million light years away (little more than half of its apparent size). The Great Attractor is thought to be a very large galactic super cluster whose gravitational (curvature) influence on us and out neighboring galaxies is very strong.
Thinking about these kinds of things means thinking in terms of 4 non-linear dimensions. Even though we perceive space as 3 dimensions, what we perceive is a projection of a curved 4-dimensional manifold into a flat, 3-dimensional field. It's not always obvious how things would appear when we infer effects based on our flat 3-d perception. For example, why we see the effect in any direction is because we are within the gravitational lens itself!
Another recently discovered and more or less periodic function, is the nature of the acceleration of the 'expansion'. The period appears to be the age of the Universe with a midpoint of about 7 billion light years. Prior to this midpoint, the acceleration appears to have been decreasing and subsequent to it, it appears to be increasing.
I like to think of the observed expansion of the Universe as a simple consequence of the passage of time. The observable Universe is then a projection of the history of the Universe, constrained by the speed of light relative to our position in it. When history is projected on a line between an observation point and the end of the Universe, more history is projected onto further points away than onto nearer points along this line. This would give the illusion that the expansion was slower in the past.
5.12.2004 - Sean McCutcheon replies to my mail on publicizing new ideas and to Roger Rydin:
I think that's a great idea but the challenge will be to retain the benefits of peer review while discarding the political aspect. That is, you'll have to moderate the publishing of articles and the posting of comments sufficiently to keep the signals from being lost in the noise. If you just say all bets are off, you'll get a lot of unsophisticated, poorly thought-through nonsense posted that will waste readers' time sufficiently that they will rarely be patient enough to pick through the pile of bullshit for long enough to find the hidden diamonds - and as a result, the site will not be very effective. (This has happened time and time again in internet publishing, unmoderated newsgroups, and bulletin boards.)
I'm not saying I have an answer as to how to go about doing that, short of investing a huge amount of time; I'm just saying that is the challenge.
To be charitable, that is a big part of the problem with mainstream journals (and the mainstream media, for that matter) and the existing peer review process. Sure, politics plays a big, nasty part of it - but by no means is that the whole picture. Just as significant is the fact that the reviewers have to separate the wheat from the chaff and select work of higher quality and greater promise from among a large pool of submissions. Unfortunately, writing of sufficiently high information density is indistinguishable from nonsense. Since many alternative points of view differ widely from the theoretical frameworks that the reviewers already understand, trying to lay out a viewpoint of wide divergence from such frameworks - however promising - in an article of publishable length often results in a level of information density that is above the "don't have time to try to make sense of this" threshold. The alternative is to write something of book length that begins by carefully defining points of divergence from more widely understood theories, methodically and point-by-point, instead of jumping right into a whole different conceptual frame of reference. But this places more of a burden on the reviewer's time and a would-be publisher's resources. And if it is published, the would-be reader is confronted with the same problem.
In other words, how do you get people to invest the time to learn a whole new physics, in order to understand what the author is saying and thus determine whether it has merit or not, when a more cursory look is insufficient to distinguish a promising, revolutionary new model from a load of utter nonsense? Once again, I'm not saying I have an answer. But that is the challenge that you will be faced with in an alternative scientific publishing enterprise.
I agree that a final theory that explains literally everything is a priori impossible - because, as Korzybski said, "The map is not the territory" and if you try to include every detail and dimension of the territory in your map, you will quickly discover that your map has to be as "big" as the universe you're mapping - which, of course, defeats the purpose of abstraction. Moreover, reality as it is in itself, and as directly apprehended without the mediation of human perceptual and conceptual filters, is inherently non-conceptual and can never be reduced to an abstraction or fully expressed linguistically.
However, it is also the case that many of our more useful concepts, especially in mathematics, appear to be discovered rather than invented. Claiming otherwise has not proven to be a tenable position in the philosophy of mathematics. So, there most certainly is order in reality that is not merely imposed by our conceptual and perceptual processes and assumptions. Given that, I don't see that there's any reason to suppose there is a limit to how far we can go in creating more and more comprehensive, more and more precise, more and more profound, and more and more elegant models. There is no reason for pessimism and there is at least a pragmatic reason for optimism (namely, we won't attempt anything we assume is impossible).
The important thing is to keep trying, while keeping in mind that since there is an enormous difference between reality itself and any model of it, there will always be alternate maps that will elucidate features of the territory that our favorite maps do not - and hence it is crucially important to keep an open mind and keep looking and thinking. As Thomas Kuhn showed, every scientific revolution has involved reframing all of the data and some of the theoretical constructs of the previous theory in a new, more elegant way that simultaneously explains whole classes of data that were anomalous (i.e., off the map) from the point of view of the previous theory. The message should be clear: you will be more likely to make quicker progress by paying attention to the data that your pet theory cannot explain, and by habitually examining alternate maps, than by dwelling on the explanatory power of your pet theory (whether or not that explanatory power compares favorably to other theories). Both mainstream and alternative scientists forget this far too often. The irony is, in this one particular respect only, the social sciences (especially psychology) are far more advanced than the "hard" sciences: the multimodal approach is considered a given in those fields because the phenomena are too varied and too complex for any one of the existing theories, by itself, to explain a majority of them.
5.12.2004 - Frank Morgan, in his somewhat abrasive manner, replies to Sean McCutcheon:
Sean you could not explain the systems level comprehension intelligence miracles of, or personally identify with, Newton, Maxwell, or Einstein to save your bloody neck, man!
Physical Reality has not gotten one iota more complicated since any of their times! Did you ever penetrate why Einstein was totally convinced to stick with 3 dimensions of space and one of time? It was not because he could not imagine more of them!
The human imagination & dark matter are the only things that are impossible to model in four dimensions!
Einstein, Penrose and Wheeler were the only ones of record that knew in their mind and gut that over-complicated math is a huge start-up mistake. That's where Superstrings is Today.
Imagination is not scientific truth until is predicts better than Einstein did and at the same time reveals truth the same for everybody able to think straight mechanically, so they can mind's eye see the 4-D model details - that formal model using only 4D super-simple new causal math.
Truth is about as reserved for those interested only in impossibly higher dimensions as the human race and its DNA is reserved for only those with super high IQ!
Can you really imagine new science being designed by a committee? Especially of dissidents? I really give YOUR IQ more credit than that!
I paste your words for my list .... where you laboriously attempt to proclaim that the possibility of another Newton, Maxwell or Einstein cannot ever be ... and that only you can and other dissidents can be the judge of what reality is and is not ... sounds like you are promoting a "Commission of Piecemeal Capable Outsiders" to create the final Holism of Truth ... We desperate need right now a Truth that can save ALL humanity on this planet whether they can think in N dimensions or not ... you need to use your incredible imagination in N dimensions to clearly see yourself as The Most Import Journal Editor alive, who is in constant need of better/more peer review -- can you honestly imagine that you or any other NPA member you have known could be bottom-line-usefully chosen?"
5.12.2004 - Nigel Cook comes back with a reply to my mail:
Thank you for your reply and suggestions. Ivor Catt has published articles and lectured the Ethical Society of London on suppression, but his approach to research tends to be from a single direction. He does not read all the material, and sometimes refuses to compare different approaches in the literature before deciding what to do. As you say, going along with the scientific establishment will be counterproductive in the short term at least. It depends on whether you see using the "thin end of the wedge" as being at least a step in the right direction (towards forcing the door open), or not. Ivor Catt sees it as being counterproductive, as you do.
My website is a mess, but I can sort it out when I finish my book which will treat a lot of material to favourable analysis including Frank Morgan's and Ivor Catt's, since I can upload sample pages from the book to form individual internet pages. All pages in the book are illustrated and have a minimum of text, mainly captions to diagrams.
The physics establishment has a friendly atmosphere inside it, but the theories and data - though mathematically sound so far as tested - are disorganised, so the continual insults from outside against quantum mechanics and relativity and the lack of dramatic success with superstrings and the big bang for over a decade is allowing a demoralised outer edge to creep inwards. In the core, Hawking still sells a lot of books and the media shields them from "ignorant" questions. But at the edges, less able teachers in lecture theatres have less shielding, less pay and lose students when scientific discussions are terminated irrationally for political reasons. The disorganisation of theoretical physics will lead to a steady decline at the edges, but the core of physics is still well funded and able to live in an ivory tower.
William F. Ogborn, author of Social Change (Viking, NY, 1922) and other works on technological innovation, identified 3 mechanisms whereby innovation makes an impact:
(1) spreading to many people (divergence)
(2) by itself, causing further developments (succession)
(3) combining with other pre-existing developments to cause other developments (convergence).
Ogborn says that sunspots were discovered independently by Galileo, Fabricius, Scheiner, and Harriott all in 1611 because of the invention of the telescope. Ogborn later looked at radio, which led to further inventions in electronics, and which itself combined many components together to make a revolutionary development.
If we apply Ogborn to science rather than purely technological innovation, we see that there are 3 mechanisms available to succeed. But this is radical, for Ivor Catt says in effect that only mechanism (1) is important, or at any rate, that only mechanism (1) is important in the first place. Catt offers no proof of why there must be a sequence starting with (1). In fact, before most innovations can spread a lot of (2) and (3) must first occur in science.
For example, Darwin spent a lifetime not just collecting his own data, but collecting other people's as well, and spent most of his time over decades editing and presenting his ideas in a concise book, rather than doing actual research for the book. (However, once he published his book in 1858 and became famous enough that Mendel sent him his paper on genetics in 1859, Darwin binned Mendel's paper unopened, grandly thinking himself past the stage of having to study half baked ideas. What a shame!)
All 3 mechanisms above will be opposed by bigots if only for the reason that they will divert some existing interest in superstrings, etc., to another direction.
We can easily make a list of bigots:Scientists who revere the past, whatever problems it caused and still causes
Scientists religiously obsessed with scientific traditions and rituals
Scientists who want to make the customs and beliefs they hold an everlasting creed
Scientists who will take up a new idea only after everyone else has done so first
Scientists who score brownie points by sneering at and being abusive to innovators
Historically, in 1579 the Council of Dantzig ordered the strangulation of the inventor of an improvement to the weaving machine, because weavers complained, while it is well known that Hargreaves' home was invaded by spinsters who destroyed his spinning jennies (Bernard J. Stern, Resistance to the Adoption of Technological Inventions, in U.S. National Resources Committee, 'Technological Trends and National Policy', 1937, p. 39). Most property developers come under attack from those surroundings are affected, American radio for decades suppressed the introduction of FM in preference to existing AM boradcasts, etc.
I would claim that Ivor Catt's work is of no relevance to practical or computational electronics (from which it comes), and has a relevance only for physics, and will therefore never succeed without either being combined with other existing ideas or being used as a stepping stone for further physics work. Ivor does not agree with me, and sees his own highly technical case of suppression as being of wide relevance in science as it stands. We disagree even about that. Once a person like Ivor has spent a lifetime developing waferscale integration of IC's and cross-talk evaluation procedures, he is so familiar with mutual inductance and TEM waves he cannot determine easily whether other people are either bigoted or stupid if they don't understand.
To see the problems of suppression, consider Leonardo da Vinci. In the fifteenth century, he drew pictures of a machine gun, aerial bomb, hydraulic pump, helicopter, air conditioning, army tank, etc., but they had to await until engineering and materials science caught up. In any case, he did not publish and they were just pipe dreams. Probably cave men dreamed of flying, but were rightly suppressed as well. Steam engines and horse drawn carriages did not lead to cars for a long time, partly because the roads were too bad before tarmac and railway lines. Thompson patented the pneumatic tyre in 1845 but it was ignored and when it was finally developed it was developed for the bicycle not the car and the tyre was reinvented by Dunlop in 1888. Horses were more practical than cars until the horse drawn carriage had paved the way for better roads. George Selden in 1895 combined good roads with petrol engine, gear transmission and clutch to make a car. Pasteur's germ theory came about because he was paid to stop French wine turning into vinegar. The triode and pentode vacuum tubes were invented to amplify radio signals, but were used for switching gates in the first high speed digital computers. The zipper was invented in 1891 but ignored for 25 years because the Victorians were quite content with buttons.
Similarly, I would suggest that the way to measure the success of any idea is not how many people think it is wrong or right (even Hitler got a massive popular big vote in 1933), but rather the real potential uses the development has. Catt's EM theory has uses and so does Morgan's black hole matter. It does not follow that they have to be completely expounded by the originators. If you look at Archimedes, his proofs of the theory on the lever and buoyancy are now often hyped as essential to science. However, people levered things long before Archimedes discovered the exact relationship between force and distance from a fulcrum, just as they made boats. I can well imagine even Archimedes being ridiculed and abused by bigots if he was alive today. Ivor would be better off complaining about the continued use of dozens of messy imperial units in society when three simple base SI units (m, kg, s) are available, than complaining about the technical suppression matters. People understand units.
6.12.2004 - Sean McCutcheon responds to Frank Morgan:
Um, pardon me, but I didn't say anything in my original message contrary to--or even particularly relevant to--anything that you said in reply. In fact, if you hadn't included the text of my message, I would have thought that you were replying to a different message altogether. I certainly did not say or imply anything about science being done by a "committee" of "dissidents," nor did I cast any aspersions on the great scientists you mentioned or imply that I thought any "dissident" I know of is of similar stature. Ironically, my comments to Sepp were more along the lines of a partial defense of the mainstream. (My main point was that a lot of the exclusivism has less to do with the politics of dogma and more to do with pragmatic considerations, such as the effective use of the reviewer's time.) My comments to Roger were, likewise, just as critical of alternative theorists as of mainstream theorists and were just a general observation about the philosophy of science and the nature of linguistic abstraction, rather than a specific comment on, or criticism of, any particular scientific theory, mainstream or otherwise.
Nor did I even mention higher-dimensional space or anything of the sort, or even use the word "dimensions" except in the generic, non-spatio-temporal, non-mathematical sense in which it is a synonym for "aspects" or "facets."
Nor am I a member of the NPA, although I did join that group at one time, perhaps six or seven years ago, before I realized that their actual angle (i.e., neo-classical alternatives to General Relativity) is substantially different from the much more general way that they bill themselves and is fairly opposite to my own point of view (with the exception that I agree that some important work is being systematically ignored by the mainstream).
Honestly, I'm not sure where any of that came from unless you were just saving up things you wanted to say to me from previous conversations until I made my next post.
6.12.2004 - Here is a comment from Frank Meno :
Thanks for the wishes and communication. You are bringing up pertinent ideas, so let me make some comments.
I have been in this struggle already about 40 years, and have figured out what is going on. It is actually quite simple: behind all the nonsense in current physics is not science but economy. Namely due to the bomb development physics became a glamorous enterprise attracting individuals that really do not belong in scientific endeavours. After the cold war was over, these people became concerned for their job security, and decided to get organized, like the American Medical Association, or any other labor union. Thus, it was decided to make sure that the job has to be structured so that the funding will continue. They know that the public at large and the politicians can be duped as none of them know enough physics to figure out what makes sense and what not. So, they launched the public relations campaign to convince the public of the "great scientific work" they are doing. Just to be on the safe side, they connected particle physics with cosmology which really are not experimentally accessible by the average citizen. They are safe to make up all the fantastic stories about time running backwards, about worm holes to other universes, about the existence of the quarks which have never been observed, about virtual particles that support their theories. A virtual particle, by definition does not exist, how then can it perform any function? Yet, presently most of the public believes all this nonsense.
Since I did not believe all this, I decided to come up with a model that explains everything in sensible terms. Anyone competent of reasoning will come to the conclusion that an aether is essential, so I formulated my anisotropic aether which resolves the difficulty encountered during the 19th century. I then developed the model for the photon which not only agrees with all known experiments, but is also based on Euler's fluid mechanics, thus, explaining the reality without introducing a single unknown concept, and is supported by rigorous mathematics.
When I attempted to publish my results, all journals rejected the paper, but none of them gave a review, they merely recommended to publish it somewhere else. After trying some 30 journals, I gave up. Then I came accross an article of a speach given by the president of the American Physical Society. He surprisingly made it perfectly clear what the reason was for rejecting my papers. I quote this article, and a few rejection letters in my books. You can also find an abbreviated version in my website: http://www.gyrons.net/ in the appendix of my geological theory. By the way, the geologists, and most of the academia play the same funding games, and do not allow outsiders to meddle in their affairs. All this has nothing to do with fostering scientific progress, but merely to secure a fairly good living standard.
Therefore, we are not faced with a genuine dispute in science, but merely a sociopolitical situation. The public could launch a class-action suit against the government that supports this nonsense with their taxes, but this is unlikely to happen, even some 40 billion dollars are wasted yearly in the USA, and a similar amount in Europe. If you can come up with a competent scientist who can follow my theory, I wil prove it to him. I thought that my disclosure on the Internet will settle the issue, but unfortunately it did not.
The establishment is simply ignoring it, and the so called dissidents have all their own theories which they promote, not understanding that science does not progress through debate, but through rigorous mathematical proofs, which they cannot implement. Therefore, the whole thing is in limbo.
If you are serious about your effort to make progress, then you must insist that someone disproves my theory. If no one can do that, in spite of the fact that it is completely accessible, then we have a basis from where to proceed to larger structures. It is clear that if you want to do rigorous science you must lay a foundation with the simplest possible postulates, which my theory provides. Thus, we begin with the photon, then we go to the electron which is a vortex, and is more complicated. After this we go to the mesons and barions, and so on. You do not start with cosmology, which is insane for anyone who is competent to do physics research.
This should give you an idea how you must proceed to make genuine progress. This is nothing new, it has been the traditional approach to science until Einstein and his followers injected the bizarre mathematization into physics that abolished common sense.
GW: The periodic phenomenon you describe could very well be an influence of curvature and quantifiable with GTR. The 400 million light year periodic character could be a gravitational lens effect, caused by a large scale ripple (with a period of about 400 million light years) in the ambient curvature of the Universe near our galaxy.
RR: I was told by Paul Steinhart in an e-mail that he had developed a theory based upon fluctuations of the Gravitational constant or the Fine constant at the time of the BB that could have produced this period, but then he claimed that the data were probably an aberration that washed out in 3D. Unfortunately, a 2001 paper by D.P. Kirilova and M.V. Chizhov gives lots of examples of this period in 3D for whole classes of different objects.
GW: This roughly corresponds to the size of the 'Great Attractor', which is in the direction of Cantaurus and about 250 million light years away (little more than half of its apparent size). The Great Attractor is thought to be a very large galactic super cluster whose gravitational (curvature) influence on us and out neighboring galaxies is very strong.
RR: I actually read a book on the Great Attractor, written by one of the investigators. I wrote to him but he did not do me the courtesy of replying, even though I personally know Kent Ford, an astronomer who told me to write to his friend. There is a curious S-bend in the Hubble data in the vicinity of the GA. They separated out the "peculiar motion" from the "proper GR motion" and then postulated that there was something out there causing the deviation. Of course, since they assumed that the BB was correct, they have biased their own analysis. Also, since there is no accumulation of galaxies at the site of the GA, that particular point could simply be an artifact!
GW: Thinking about these kinds of things means thinking in terms of 4 non-linear dimensions. Even though we perceive space as 3 dimensions, what we perceive is a projection of a curved 4-dimensional manifold into a flat, 3-dimensional field. It's not always obvious how things would appear when we infer effects based on our flat 3-d perception. For example, why we see the effect in any direction is because we are within the gravitational lens itself!
RR: Well here again, I beg to differ. I have decided finally after lots of reading and thinking that space curvature is nonsense. That is partially based on arguments made by Van Flandern about defects in Einstein's thought problems concerning the Equivalence Principle and shortening of length with velocity. I also now believe that mass does not increase with velocity, but only the kinetic-energy-velocity relationship is nonlinear. Also, according to Hatch, neither GR nor SR correctly calculate GPS clock errors, and neither explains the Sagnac effect or Rulon Wang's linearly moving light source data.
GW: Another recently discovered and more or less periodic function, is the nature of the acceleration of the 'expansion'. The period appears to be the age of the Universe with a midpoint of about 7 billion light years. Prior to this midpoint, the acceleration appears to have been decreasing and subsequent to it, it appears to be increasing.
RR: Once again, the acceleration has been calculated from only about 10 individual observations. You have to assume a velocity and distance from Hubble's law, and then get acceleration from the differences. All measurements contain measurement uncertainties. So the data are sparse, there is no independent confirmation, and the BB model has been assumed to be valid which biases the results.
GW: I like to think of the observed expansion of the Universe as a simple consequence of the passage of time. The observable Universe is then a projection of the history of the Universe, constrained by the speed of light relative to our position in it. When history is projected on a line between an observation point and the end of the Universe, more history is projected onto further points away than onto nearer points along this line. This would give the illusion that the expansion was slower in the past.
RR: Well, I think that the expansion is real motion in a spherical geometry caused by an entirely different process than that of the BB.
6.12.2004 - Amrit Sorli from Italy comments, sending a paper on time and gravitation:
In the Theory of Relativity time is an imaginary quantity that cannot be observed; it is a multiplication of a number that indicates the duration of material change and the number i that is an imaginary number. i squared is -1. Time t * i is a mathematical time that describes the speed and the duration of material change. In the Universe one can observe physical time only as a stream of material change. It is not that change runs in physical time, change itself is physical time. Distinguishing between imaginary mathematical time and visible physical time opens new perspectives into the understanding of time dilatation, space contraction, time travel, gravitation.
I'm sending you my article "From Space-time to A-Temporal Physical Space".
6.12.2004 - Michael Anteski comments on Roger Rydins previous message:
Reply to a part of "Roger's" consideration of neutron stars, their genesis and the subsequent course in Space. The most rational concept of neutron stars is that they are formed by like-to-like resonance of neutrons after a supernova forms. A former star's atomic signatures are erased by the violence of the supernova, with electrons speeking away as cosmic radiation, like-to-like resonance accounting for both the formation of a new star (protonic elements) and a neutron star. The neutron star becomes a Space wanderer because there are more neutronic forces in empty Space than in the vicinity of the new star, which is protonic, and like-to-like resonance draws the neutron star out into Space. The speed of light photons is also resonance connected, with the vast uniform distribution of light in Space damping any local photonic or photonoid resonance factors that could otherwise fluctuate light speed.
6.12.2004 - Daniel Athearn has a comment to my previous missive:
I very much like the idea of a web forum for ideas critical of the official physics. However, I think that if it simply thrown open to anyone's dissident ideas it will be way too unfocussed. There should be either one specific topic at a time or a list of specific topics at different links.
If I had my preference, I would focus for a while on the this matter Nigel raises about modern physics being (so far) a purely descriptive rather than an explanatory science (and even "description" here has a peculiarly limited, even questionable meaning as essentially recipes for prediction, or as Merleau-Ponty said, physical "theory" becomes a "most peculiar treatment by algorithm.")
This topic has the distinct advantage of being essentially semantical and philosophical, thus of broader interest and more generally accessible. This is a crucial point, as I see it: the need is for reforming physics by revitalizing its philosophical dimension. The primary need that emerges here is for a skill specific to the philosopher, not the mathematician. A combination of the two would be especially fortuitous.
As Herbert Dingle said, "The processes of mathematics are to be contrasted with rather than identified with the process of rational thought. ... mathematical ability and the ability to conduct operations of thought are distinct faculties, and although I know of no reason why they should not co-exist in a single person, it is only too clear that at the present time, except in a rare instance, they do not." The "rare instance" would be where there is a genuine balance and complementarity of philosophical and mathematical abilities, one such as A. N. Whitehead, cited in the passage.
Of course, any radical reform ideas will have to have a technical-quantitative aspect or correlate, but the initial and primary orientation should be philosophical simply because the underlying failing of modern physics, it seems to me, is the evaporation of the specifically philosophical/explanatory dimension of physical theory, as exemplified by the underrated critical and theoretical work of Michael Faraday, for instance. I would also favor the topic of "empty space" and what this means physically, for the same reasons and others.
7.12.2004 - In a message that does not seem directly related but certainly is timely and in tune with what has been discussed, Margaret R Kelso says:
I gathered your emails from an old 1999 post at ANSWERS TO "BARTOCCI INQUIRY". I hope I'm not being too intrusive to write to you.
My late brother, Todd M. Kelso, would have enjoyed joining your discussion about relativity. Todd had many arguments against relativity. Among them were:Confusion about Space as a Continuum
Confusion between Abstract Structures and Physical Objects
Lack of Definitions
Confusion over What 'Understanding' Is
Diversion from Meaningful Approaches
I have put some of Todd's writings up on the net at http://wbabin.net/papers.htm#Kelso. Please take a look at the "Pythagorean Physics" site to see if it is of interest to you. If so, you are welcome to make comments and/or to list your webpages in the site's guest book.
Unlike the Theory of Relativity, Pythagorean Physics employs an axiomatic system in order to achieve meaning. It postulates the existence of a basic unit of matter, the Pythagorean atom, and deals with discreteness in favor of continuity. It considers both time and space to be absolute. Motion is a function of space and time. Unlike classical mechanics, Pythagorean Physics considers mass to be a variable and it has a different concept of what a particle is.
Pythagorean Physics indicates that one can start with the premises of one infinite space, one eternal time, a numberless eternal set of indivisible parts and explain some of the things that relativity has been used to predict. It shows that one can, in fact, begin with absolutes and step by step make some headway in explaining the universe's behavior. In addition to its pure math passages, the Pythagorean Physics site also has some narratives about the philosophy and history of science.
Margaret R. Kelso
Dear Sepp and Friends,
The purpose of the Journal of New Energy is to do just what you are proposing. The problem is that it makes a product that is difficult to sell. For example, we have published some excellent (in my judgement) articles about both the "Big Bang" and "General Relativity" which are two of the sacred cows of much of the current scientific community.
It costs far more to produce a quality Journal that will look like it should belong in the technical and scientific libraries than can be expected to be recovered by subscriptions. However, we shall continue to produce the JNE, because such a Journal is needed. Several of our Journal editions are the Proceedings of some of the conferences that are set up to move science out of the doldrums of the past and into the reality of the future.
The Internet is a marvelous invention and development, however, one can put anything on the Internet, including highly advanced pornography. There needs to be some standards for a journal, with Internet or published. For example, if there are obvious mathematical flaws in a paper, we do not publish the paper. Therefore, we do have some review standards, but the reviews are not to keep out challenging new physics. In some cases, the theories are very difficult to understand, and we ask for some simple experimental procedure that provides some initial degree of experimental evidence.
A good example: In over 15 years of searchin the world for new energy devices, there have been many rotating devices presented. In almost all cases, the devices really did not produce more energy out that energy input. The current only exception that has passed our review is the Minato Motor in Japan that has sufficient data (and even commercial sales) to demonstrate that here is a new-energy device that appears to solve some energy problems - so we asked for a paper to be presented to the JNE.
Look at the concept of "space energy." It is not generally accepted by most universities that I know of, however, here are some articles about space energy also known as zero-point energy:
ARTICLES ON INERTIA and ZERO-POINT ENERGY
Harold Aspden, "Discovery of Virtual Inertia", New Energy News, vol 2, no 10, Feb 1995, pp 1-2. See also Hal Fox, "The Aspden Effect", pp 2-3.
Bernard Haisch, Alfonso Rueda, & H. E. Puthoff, "Inertia as a zero-point-field Lorentz force," Physical Rev A, Vol 49, No 2, Feb 1994, pp 678-604, 45 refs.
Robert W. Bass and Dean Zes, "The Physical Basis of Zero Point Energy? (Planck's Constant from Hubble's Constant: Cosmological Origin of Terrestrial ZPF and Zitterbewegung)," J. of New Energy, Fall 1999, vol 4, no 2, pp 8-15, 28 refs.
Robert W. Bass, "Proof that Zero-point Fluctuations of Bound Deuterons in a Supersaturated Palladium Lattice Provide Sufficient Line-broadening to Permit Low-energy Resonant Penetration of Coulomb 'Barrier' to Cold Aneutronic Fusion," presented at ICCF4, 16 pages, 8 refs, 3 figs.
Thomas E. Bearden, Energy From the Vacuum, Concepts and Principles, Cheniere Press, Santa Barbara, CA 83109, c 2002, 951 pages, 752 notes and refs.
C. Eberlein, "Sonoluminescence as Quantum Vacuum Radiation," Phys. Rev. Lett. vol 76, pp 3842-45, 1996. Also "Theory of quantum radiation observed as sonoluminescennce," Phys. Rev. A., vol 53, pp 2772-87 (1996). Shows that abrupt motion of matter activates zero-point energy.
Moray B. King, Tapping The Zero-Point Energy, Paraclete Publishing, P.O. Box 859, Provo, Utah 84603, c1989, 170 pages, illus, 424 refs.
H.E. Puthoff, "Gravity as a zero-point-fluctuation force," Physical Review A, Vol 39, No 5, March 1, 1989, pp 2333-2342, 33 refs.
H.E. Puthoff, "Ground state of hydrogen as a zero-point-fluctuation-determined state," Physical Rev D, Vol 35, No 10, May 15, 1987, pp 3266-3269, 20 refs.
H. E. Puthoff, "The Energetic Vacuum: Implications for Energy Research," Spec. in Sci. and Technology, 13, 247 (1990).
Kenneth R. Shoulders, "Energy Conversion Using High Charge Density", U.S. Patent 5,018,180, issued May 21, 1991. This was the first charge-cluster (EV) patent to issue and states: "An EV passing along a traveling wave device, for example, may be both absorbing and emitting electrons. In this way, the EV may be considered as being continually formed as it propagates. In any event, energy is provided to the traveling wave output conductor, and the ultimate source of this energy appears to be the zero-point radiation of the vacuum continuum."
Note that the books have been reviewed and the reviews published in both NEN and J. New Energy, similarly with patents. How many university professors do you know who are teaching classes about the vast, tappable, energy of space?
After reading all these messages, if your head is not swimming yet, I have a question:
Where do we go from here?
Any suggestions for initiatives which could contribute to using the net to promote an open dialogue in physics that does not exclude non-paradigm-conforming views from being aired and becoming accessible to those inquisitive enough to look?
I would like to hear your views and ... you can use the comments box below.
A theory of Einstein the irrational plagiarist
The fact that Einstein was a plagiarist is common knowledge in the physics community. What isn't so well-known is that the sources Einstein parroted were also largely unoriginal. In 1919, writing in the Philosophical Magazine Harry Bateman, a British mathematician and physicist who had emigrated to the United States, unsuccessfully sought acknowledgment of his work.
"The appearance of Dr Silberstein's recent article on General Relativity without the Equivalence Hypothesis encourages me to restate my own views on the subject," Bateman wrote.
"I am perhaps entitled to do this as my work on the subject of general relativity was published before that of Einstein and Kottler, and appears to have been overlooked by recent writers."
posted by Sepp Hasslberger on Saturday December 11 2004
updated on Friday December 17 2010
URL of this article:
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
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
Physics and ultimate cause
Physics is struggling to comprehend the workings of our Universe but most of the establishment physicists refuse to consider that they might have to transcend the purely material to find the whys and wherefores and thus the basic laws of physical existence. John Dobson, in a lecture held more than two decades ago, has pioneered the way towards understanding the energetic interactions that form the base of all physical existence.... [read more]
November 15, 2003 - Sepp Hasslberger
Dutchman predicts scientific revolution
One would not think, reading what we are served in current media, that there could be much wrong with Science itself. Yet, there are problems which actually impede real progress in the development of technologies necessary for getting into space. Current physics is not a small weight around the necks of leading developers of the cutting edge technologies we need. There are dissident scientists who have recognized the limitations of... [read more]
September 18, 2003 - 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
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... [read more]
May 13, 2004 - Sepp Hasslberger