7 Reasons To Abandon Quantum Mechanics-And Embrace This New Theory

[andrewgray]

Rodin.  Let's do Special Relativity first. 

 

1)  You are correct.  It is possible to define a "Universal Time" (UT), and with such time,

    the speed of light is not constant. 

2) However, if you define and then use this "Universal Time", the electromagnetic equations

   become nasty when transforming between UT frames and they "blow up".  You do not have well-behaved

   force equations and UT EM fields in the new "UT coordinate system" are really unusable!

3) By contrast, if one uses "light-travel-distance-divided-by-c" to define time, then you get

   well-behaved, Lorentz transformations, and Maxwell's equations stay sane and "nice".  

4)  So most physicists choose 3), even though your "Universal Time" definition is possible,

    and transformed UT EM fields are (possible but) REALLY NASTY!

5)  So it comes down to just, "how do you want to define time?"

       a ) Universal? --> real nasty transformed EM equations

       b ) Lorentz?   --> nice, well behaved transformed EM equations

 

6) Most physicists pick 5b)  It is just that simple. 

 

You say, "this does not prove that time slows down at speed...."

 

Well, you really do not "prove" anything.  You define.

If you define time as "light-travel-distance-divided-by-c" rather than

"Universal Time", then Maxwell's equations are nice and sane,

and you get to use the Lorentz transformations (if you recall,

Lorentz knew nothing about his "Lorentz Transformations" other

than the fact that they left Maxwell's equations intact after transformation!!!)

 

So, SR is indeed self-consistent, even though you may not like "time dilation" and

other effects with time defined using light instead of "Universal".  But I choose to

use SR because Universal Time is just not practical/usable.

 

[andrewgray]

OK, Rodin, next: ... "Re: Gravity Being a Residual Electric Force"...

 

1) Rodin, we are not talking about "local" residual forces having much effect. For example...

 

Wikipedia gives 40 pico-Newtons as the force of a hydrogen bond. That's

 

4x10^-11 Newtons.

 

Compare that to the gravitational force between two hydrogen atoms in an H₂ molecule of about

 

4x10^-44 Newtons.

 

Thats a factor of 1x10³³ difference! So this local gravitational force is irrelevant for any local bonding forces

and irrelevant with anything to do with the molecule or its density or "oxidation".

 

 

2 ) So, lets shift astronomical perspective here.

So, just for an example, suppose you had a 10³⁰ kg hydrogen star. We assume for ultimate simplicity,

that the star is composed of 100% hydrogen. And further suppose that a lone hydrogen atom was floating around

in space with a separation distance of a billion km (1x10¹² m) from the star.

 

So there are (very) roughly 10⁵⁷ H atoms in the star.

.

3 ) Now let's compare a few things., The electrical force between a proton/proton and an electron/electron,

(one in the star, and one in the H atom a billion km away ) is approximately

 

F_e-e = F_p-p = k e²/r² ≈ 2x10^-52 Newtons

 

The electrical force between a proton and an electron,

( one in the star and one in the H atom a billion km away) is also approximately

 

F_e-p = F_p-e = -k e²/r² ≈ -2x10^-52 Newtons ( minus sign means attractive rather than repulsive ).

 

4 ) The TOTAL gravitational force between the star and the hydrogen atom is roughly

 

G m_H M_star/r² or about 1x10^-31 Newtons

 

 

Now when two quantities are VERY SIMILAR but describe VERY DIFFERENT ENTITIES,

ARE THEY EXACTLY THE SAME? For example, sample 10,000 tigers and 10,000 lions.

How many eyes do they have? Well, some tigers and some lions have 3 eyes, while some

are born with only one. Most have 2. But NO LOGICAL MIND WOULD SAY THAT TIGERS AND LIONS

HAVE EXACTLY THE SAME NUMBER OF EYES!!! Perhaps tigers, e.g., have

 

2.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000125 eyes

 

on average, and lions have

 

2.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000467 eyes

 

on average. No logical mind would expect these to be the same out to a google decimal places.

Lions and Tigers are VERY similar but INHERENTLY DIFFERENT!

So the same goes for protons and electrons and F_e-e , F_{p-p , -Fe-p ,and -Fp-e} !!!

(We are NOT talking about an electron and an anti-electron here!!!)

No logical mind would expect F_e-e , F_{p-p , -Fe-p ,and -Fp-e} to be the same out to a google decimal places!

 

 

5 ) So THE BIG BIG question is: for our star and atom..... what is

 

10⁵⁷ x ( F_e-e + F_p-p + F_e-p + F_p-e ) ????

 

The quantity within the parentheses is supposed to be zero. But is it?

 

What if the quantity in between the parentheses was

 

1x10^-88 Newtons??? (An EXTREMELY SMALL RESIDUAL FORCE!!!)

 

10^-88 is unimaginably close to zero!!! The human mind cannot even imagine a quantity that small!

But if the quantity within the parentheses was 1x10^-88 Newtons,

 

6 ) Then...

 

10⁵⁷ x ( 10^-88 ) = 1x10^-31 Newtons ≈ G m_H M_star/r²

 

^{WE HAVE GRAVITY!!}

 

It is just that simple.

 

 

The only thing left to do is explain Einstein's Gravity Theory ( which I have done, but you will have

to wait a while for this, as I am busy busy preparing it ).

Edited October 8, 2018 by andrewgray

[rodin]

@ Andrew

 

 

1) Where exactly do Maxwell's equations become 'really nasty' under universal time? Does this mean UT is wrong, or Maxwell?

 

2) re residual gravity due to a charge differential between p and e

 

What if an electron was -1 and a proton +2

 

attraction = 2x1 + 2x1

repulsion = 2x2 + 1x1

 

This indicates to me that a quantitative charge differential would result in anti gravity... ?

[andrewgray]

Rodin,

 

This website:

 

https://www.quora.com/Why-do-Galilean-transformations-on-Maxwells-equations-fail

 

talks about this. If you believe the Lorentz force... and you compare this force in two frames, one stationary and one moving....

using Galilean "Universal Time" so that time derivatives stay the same....

 

 

 

 

Now Newtonian mechanics was the prevailing theory of mechanics when SR was being developed, and it happens to be invariant under the Galilean Transformation (GT). That is, key laws like F=ma are unchanged. In fact it’s even simpler than that: F is invariant, m is invariant and a is invariant, so it’s not just the form of that equation, but the value of every variable in it that’s the same.  So if F is to be the same, it turns out that we must have

                                      E′=E+v×B

and

                                     B′=B−v×E/c2

and if you plug those into Maxwell’s equations and massage, you don’t get the same equations with E’ and B’ where there had been E and B. You get some ugly equations which happen to have wave solutions with velocity c-v, which is as it should be because the GT should always map velocity u to u-v.

 

So Rodin,

It looks as if you will either have to give up the Lorentz Force or Maxwells Equations if you insist on "Universal Time".

Andrew

.

 

[andrewgray]

@ Andrew

 

What if an electron was -1 and a proton +2

 

attraction = 2x1 + 2x1

repulsion = 2x2 + 1x1

 

This indicates to me that a quantitative charge differential would result in anti gravity... ?

 

 

Well, Rodin,  if that were the case, all atoms would all be extremely positively charged!

This is not what I meant.  Atoms are clearly neutral in charge, with no net force between them

down to one part in 10³³!

 

And indeed, with the residual force scenario that I am talking about, anti-matter would have the opposite

residual force!   Anti-matter would "fall upwards" in a "normal matter gravity field". 

I believe this will be experimentally verified soon.

 

Andrew

[rodin]

Of course a differential of a whole charge was ridiculous, but qualitatively speaking, even a charge differential of 1 in 10^^100 would produce the same effect, no? Or are you talking about a residual electrostatic force without a charge differential?

 

Thank you for the Lorentz link. I will look into Lorentz and Maxwell asap. (It's been a long, long time since I did double differentiation) 

 

2 points strike me immediately from it

 

Now Newtonian mechanics was the prevailing theory of mechanics when SR was being developed, and it happens to be invariant under the GT. That is, key laws like F=ma are unchanged. In fact it’s even simpler than that: F is invariant, m is invariant and a is invariant, so it’s not just the form of that equation, but the value of every variable in it that’s the same.

 

 

1. F = ma will not work with an aether since the aether will progressively resist motion relative to it. This effect would likely only become apparent at 'relativistic' velocities. F = ma is adequate for the world of engineering etc.

 

2. At your link the next answer states

 

c maybe a universal constant but the speed of light depends on the medium it propagates in. It’s only equal to c in a vacuum.

Light is an electromagnetic photon. 

 

We know the above not to be true :o)

 

Graham

[rodin]

re : 

F is invariant, m is invariant and a is invariant

 

 

I go to a writers' group, and I told them about the F = ma issue. One cussed critic pointed out that F = ma isn't an equation (hence should not have an equals sign in it) and doesn't work if you are pushing on a wardrobe that won't move. My point is that F can never be applied in a vacuum, as in a region of nothingness, as no such place actually exists in nature. Space must contain something that allows light to pass through it as a wave, causes Lorentz' Law and the right hand rule to apply to a moving charge etc. Better men than me coined the term for this 'something' - the Aether. And that something must provide resistance to movement through it, however imperceptible

[andrewgray]

Rodin!

 

First the Wardrobe.  If you push on the wardrobe and it does not move, Newton says that the sum of the forces on the wardrobe are zero and the acceleration of the wardrobe is zero.  That's all.  So that means that the force you apply to the wardrobe is equal (and opposite) to the frictional forces that the carpet applies back.  Those two forces sum to zero, so the acceleration is zero.  Really, there is not much argument here.

 

F can be applied in a vacuum. Think of a "gedanken" spaceship (out in a vacuum) with an ion engine.  Turn the ion engine on and the spaceship starts to accelerate by pushing ions out the back of the ship.  But you are nearly correct.  The floating spaceship in a vacuum MUST eject some mass to get a moving force generated. 

 

Rodin,

 

A charge difference of 1 part in 10¹⁰⁰ would produce no measurable effect.

 

Andrew Ancel Gray

 

 

[andrewgray]

And Rodin,

The real mystery is not light traveling across the vacuum of space....

 

The real mystery is how the electric force reaches across space to attract without touching.

Once the electric force is there, light is just “ripples in the electric force” when the charges

are accelerated.

 

So Rodin, if you insist on an “aether” for these ripples, (with some particular reference frame),

you are back to ‘Unversal Time” and nasty EM equations after transformation.

This scenario is possible, but not very practical. Maxwells equations work so much better

with Lorentz’s transformations and Einstein’s definition of time. I do not see the problem

with using the most convenient definition of time (Einstein’s), and the most convenient set

of transformations (Lorentz’s). Heck, it is even possible to use a set of transformations that

transform the coordinates so they move faster than light!

 

This is not a very useful set of transformations either. And heck again, that is why they

think that black holes exist, from using such ill-behaved coordinate transformations!

Using nasty transformations can get you in trouble because it is hard to see what is

going on!

[rodin]

As noted in the previous chapter Maxwell’s equations (1.10) to (1.12), along with their derivatives (1.20) and (1.21), were formulated for static systems, namely: no motion relative to the RCS. Their wrong application to dynamic systems led to the Lorentz transformation and Einstein’s theory of relativity.

In this chapter a solution to the complete and corrected set of Maxwell equations [(1.1) to (1.8)] is presented. This solution demonstrates that the Galilean transformation and Newtonian physics are universally valid.

 

The above comes from this paper in the Journal of Physical Mathematics.

 

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/back-to-galilean-transformation-and-newtonian-physics-refuting-thetheory-of-relativity-2090-0902-1000198.php?aid=80761&view=mobile

 

PS I realised after I posted my previous that F = ma is a vector sum, and that to every force there is an equal and opposing force.

 

Cheers from Edinburgh

[GAHD]

The above comes from this paper in the Journal of Physical Mathematics.

 

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/back-to-galilean-transformation-and-newtonian-physics-refuting-thetheory-of-relativity-2090-0902-1000198.php?aid=80761&view=mobile

 

PS I realised after I posted my previous that F = ma is a vector sum, and that to every force there is an equal and opposing force.

 

Cheers from Edinburgh

I'm going to check out that paper in full, it looks amusing.

 

I'd never seen this particular journal before so I checked out that website itself a bit just now and it is rather...odd. From the point sample I looked at I came across a bunch of year 1 and year 2 basic subjects. One Mohamed Daris showed up several times. Apparently he's with "University of Science, Rabat, Morocco" That alone has me getting up from my chair, throwing a bag of popcorn in the microwave, and chuckling all the way there and back. This one's going to be fun. Can you guess why?

 

Edit:

 

 

re : 

 

I go to a writers' group, and I told them about the F = ma issue. One cussed critic pointed out that F = ma isn't an equation (hence should not have an equals sign in it) and doesn't work if you are pushing on a wardrobe that won't move. My point is that F can never be applied in a vacuum, as in a region of nothingness, as no such place actually exists in nature. Space must contain something that allows light to pass through it as a wave, causes Lorentz' Law and the right hand rule to apply to a moving charge etc. Better men than me coined the term for this 'something' - the Aether. And that something must provide resistance to movement through it, however imperceptible

F=ma applies perfectly well to the wardrobe: it's force (f) is zero because it's not moving (a) it's rest-mass(m) relative to the floor(or the person failing at pushing it). What you have there is a pleb who doesn't understand what the equation is FOR and is MISAPPLYING it. Now if said person used a bit of Archimedes to tip the wardrobe over, that equation would apply more and more, especially if you wanted to calculate the Force(f) with witch the wardrobe(m) hit the floor in the last instant of it's fall(a). Maybe this particular writer is better off reconciling the paradox of how a unicorn can be both invisible AND pink at the same time? Protip for you and them if you/they want to actually grok why it's the way you use it that matters: "inertia" "resistance coefficient" google them. Also Leonhard Euler, great stuff from that guy!(some of it MAY have actually been from his mistress, but that's beside the point!) Read Euler. Read. Euler. Read it ALL.

 

A region of nothingness would have no mass to calculate the force of, I suppose. It's great that you understand it might not be the best place to apply that particular equation. This is a good realization to have! Once you follow the keywords of inertia and resistance you'll learn other things about where not to use an equation too! Do share it with your writer group. :) Euler I mean. Euler should be in everyone's book club at least twice a year for their entire lives.

 

It's weird that Aether and Quantum foam seem to have connections in their descriptions. I'm personally kicking the old Aether doctrine around as it relates to brane doctrine. Best to try standing on giants shoulders instead of nibbling at their ankles, amirite?

 

 

 

 

Edited November 22, 2018 by GAHD

[rodin]

Re the wardrobe the force is not zero. It is counteracted by an equal and opposite force.

 

I like this:

Engineer=Physicist + common sense

 

Wherefrom it follows that:

 

Physicist=Engineer - common sense

 

 

Here is the .pdf link to above paper

 

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/back-to-galilean-transformation-and-newtonian-physics-refuting-thetheory-of-relativity-2090-0902-1000198.pdf

[OceanBreeze]

Re the wardrobe the force is not zero. It is counteracted by an equal and opposite force.

 

 

 

" It is counteracted by an equal and opposite force."

 

Yes. That is exactly why the net force = 0 

[GAHD]

Here is the .pdf link to above paper

 

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/back-to-galilean-transformation-and-newtonian-physics-refuting-thetheory-of-relativity-2090-0902-1000198.pdf

I can click the button plainly displayed on the first link's page, thanks. Your helpful olive branch is noted. I'mma note that omicsonline doesn't seem to have any peer-review in it's process that I can see, and the owner/operator of it seems to be well intentioned but quite removed from this branch...but that alone is just a redflag not a total write off moment. Even when the university(&ies) associated with many of the "papers" of the site seems to be fictitious, again only flag not instant write off... ;) You can find diamonds in coal after all.

 

 

Re the wardrobe the force is not zero. It is counteracted by an equal and opposite force.

Or a greater opposing force, or it's moment of inertia is simply large, or... Again. READ EULER.

As the Breeze points out: 2-2=0 and once again, it's HOW YOU APPLY an equation that matters. Using it WRONG (like you are even now in your obstinance) is a freaking crime to your own intellectual growth. Fix that, you seem to be missing the tools to self-asses your competence. Just trying to help.

 

[exchemist]

The above comes from this paper in the Journal of Physical Mathematics.

 

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/back-to-galilean-transformation-and-newtonian-physics-refuting-thetheory-of-relativity-2090-0902-1000198.php?aid=80761&view=mobile

 

PS I realised after I posted my previous that F = ma is a vector sum, and that to every force there is an equal and opposing force.

 

Cheers from Edinburgh

Eh? F=ma is a vector sum? ma is a product.

 

Or do you mean F and a are vector quantities - and therefore can be vector sums and can be resolved into component vectors?

[andrewgray]

Rodin,

 

I read your quoted paper... As I said, if you demand a special "Relevant Coordinate System" (RCS)...

 

"then you will get nasty Maxwells Equations". Well... your quoted paper gives a good example of this. Eisenman calculates:

∂B/∂t + ( V⋅∇ )B = −( ∇×E ) + ( B⋅∇ )V − ( ∇⋅V )B Faraday’s law

 

Now Rodin... Come on... If you were in a spaceship in interstellar space and you needed to calculate the frequency of

an LC circuit (with a magnetic coil) so you could match a resonant cavity....

 

Are you honestly going to instead use Eisenman's above (fairly nasty) equation to analyze the LC circuit and assume that the usual Lenz's Law and the usual Faraday's Law for the coil are incorrect? (and come up with a different frequency!!??) Even if your life depended on it??!!

Really?

 

And another question, Rodin.... Are you going to carefully synchronize all your electronic clocks in your ship to the this Relevant Coordinate System's time t by using some interstellar beacon to do the synchronization and then use THIS clock to count the frequencies so Eisenman's equations can be (and they would be!) correct? Really???

 

And are you going to carefully calculate/measure your Spaceship velocity V relative to this RCS so you can stick it in Eisenman's equation so you can get A VERY ACCURATE magnetic calculation for your LC circuit??? Really??? Really??? (depends on V!)

 

 

Rodin... If [and then After] you answer "YES!" to these questions, I will continue...

Otherwise... I think you got the point and answered "No".

 

Andrew Ancel Gray

Edited December 6, 2018 by andrewgray

[andrewgray]

Announcing Four New Videos:

 

New Wisdom Unifies Physics!

 

These four videos explain the paper, "The Theory of Intermittent Electrons" and this forum.

("A video says a 1,000,000 words").

 

So here they are.  Get busy watching them and then commenting right here!

 

Episode 1: The X-Ray Frequency Limit!

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lAdUM62V3ALN_cxKOHUNdYnQDh5DZDZu/view?usp=sharing

 

Episode 2: The PhotoElectric Effect!

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tg6h0d9vPSCWhZ_-WEf7-maSRUZMa0_q/view?usp=sharing

 

Episode 3: The Atom! (Part 1)

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NCyVCmRfzkFZiRdGNCnJ571xIP4tr9zS/view?usp=sharing

 

Episode 3: The Atom! (Part 2)

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BWntBRHMufBjXSILDlaradEmPPUcZ6bq/view?usp=sharing

 

Finally, I am working on the final unifying video:

Episode 4: Gravity!

It will be done this year.  You will have to wait in suspense to see how this theory unifies Physics.

But it is coming!

 

 

Note: If you have a slow internet connection you can download these videos directly to your computer

and watch them locally on your computer.

You can then put them on a thumb drive and give the videos to your friends and tell them to come here

and comment on them!

 

 

Andrew Ancel Gray

Edited May 1, 2020 by andrewgray