Cut The Bullshit In Physics

[exchemist]

Why would you conclude that? I never said you could not observe (or prove) its existence. Did you not read the theory, or are you basing your comment on my abbreviated statement to Moronium?

What observations does your theory predict that would provide evidence for the existence of this void energy?  

[MikeBrace]

What observations does your theory predict that would provide evidence for the existence of this void energy?  

 

Well, let's see...pgs 9-11 explain the all observable interactions of the force of gravity itself (and that’s it not really a ‘standalone’ force at all, but a resultant force), pgs 13-15 explains all of the observations of the 'anti-gravity' wheel (gyroscopic principles), 16-19 explains away all of the observations WIMPS and how matter is constructed using Void Energy pressure using conventional pressure dynamics of PSI over a 3-dimentional construct, pg 20 explains all of the observations of Black Holes very nicely as well as Gravity Waves ... all done with conventional tests, examples and confirmed observations. All I did was look in another direction for something that most others had not been looking for.

 

To do this I started with A)

 

A) We observe a physical interaction between known particles and then build a sound, mathematical model to define this observed interaction.

 

Then I went to B) We conceive a desired interaction between known particles, based on the observed interactions of those particles, and then we hypothesize a mathematical model to predict this future observable interaction.

 

I then constructed a hypothetical particle and plugged it into the above model to see if it fits any and all of the observed reactions that other known particles produced (and I looked at a lot of particles to base mine on). When it didn’t explain an observation (or point to the methods for a future predictions) I modified the hypothetical particle until I could define its existence in observable terms and meet future predictions. (pgs 15-17)

 

(I referred to them as Gravitons since that is the accepted nomenclature for the hypothetical particle that causes gravity.)

 

Since I haven’t proven the existence of my Graviton particle, I continued to refine my definitions of that particle until I ran out of observable physics that it didn’t satisfy. I have ran out of observable phenomena that cannot be explained with my theory.

 

Since there are so many observed observations that can be explained with my model, I then set about designing a series of experiments that could each indicate the existence of this particle as I have defined it. I found that many of these experiments have already been done, and that many produced the results I would be looking for. The originators of these experiments were not looking for the predicted results I would have been.

[exchemist]

Well, let's see...pgs 9-11 explain the all observable interactions of the force of gravity itself (and that’s it not really a ‘standalone’ force at all, but a resultant force), pgs 13-15 explains all of the observations of the 'anti-gravity' wheel (gyroscopic principles), 16-19 explains away all of the observations WIMPS and how matter is constructed using Void Energy pressure using conventional pressure dynamics of PSI over a 3-dimentional construct, pg 20 explains all of the observations of Black Holes very nicely as well as Gravity Waves ... all done with conventional tests, examples and confirmed observations. All I did was look in another direction for something that most others had not been looking for.

 

To do this I started with A)

 

A) We observe a physical interaction between known particles and then build a sound, mathematical model to define this observed interaction.

 

Then I went to :cool: We conceive a desired interaction between known particles, based on the observed interactions of those particles, and then we hypothesize a mathematical model to predict this future observable interaction.

 

I then constructed a hypothetical particle and plugged it into the above model to see if it fits any and all of the observed reactions that other known particles produced (and I looked at a lot of particles to base mine on). When it didn’t explain an observation (or point to the methods for a future predictions) I modified the hypothetical particle until I could define its existence in observable terms and meet future predictions. (pgs 15-17)

 

(I referred to them as Gravitons since that is the accepted nomenclature for the hypothetical particle that causes gravity.)

 

Since I haven’t proven the existence of my Graviton particle, I continued to refine my definitions of that particle until I ran out of observable physics that it didn’t satisfy. I have ran out of observable phenomena that cannot be explained with my theory.

 

Since there are so many observed observations that can be explained with my model, I then set about designing a series of experiments that could each indicate the existence of this particle as I have defined it. I found that many of these experiments have already been done, and that many produced the results I would be looking for. The originators of these experiments were not looking for the predicted results I would have been.

Can you give an example? 

[Dubbelosix]

 

 

I look at inertia as being a phenomenon related to motion., not gravity, per se, so I'm not sure how this responds to the point, Mike.

 

Inertia is a measure of the mass content of a gravitationally charged body. It's related to motion because inertia tends to resist it. However, a gravitationally-charged body also exerts deformation of the spacetime metric, so the motion is also connected to the geometry of the space it moves in. Inertia might be loosely thought of a gravitational phenomenon - let's demonstrate a thought experiment. An electron only has an electric charge because it moves inside an electromagnetic field. In similar light, inertia could be thought of as the analogy of this, in which gravitational masses experience a gravitational charge when moving in gravitational fields.

 

 

It's quite complicated and the full picture eludes us still.

[MikeBrace]

Can you give an example? 

 

Gravity Waves 

[Dubbelosix]

I think that was a quote by Dirac? It is of course a theory that fields become what he called ''a particulate aether.'' But what makes me wonder, is why Einstein's gravitational aether never took hold... it solved so many problems when treating this aether as a refractive index, it showed explicitly that light can escape black holes.

 

Physics can be so confusing.

[Sherwood]

 

    A very fundamental problem with physics is Special Relativity (SR).  It turns out that SR is a 1:1 mathematical transformation of ordinary Newtonian Mechanics (NM).  In other words, given the numbers found in SR, one can come up with the correct NM numbers and vice versa.  The equations and concepets of SR are derived from NM by one simple change in a simple physical 'model'.  The change is this:  Something (it can be anything or even just an imaginary thing) travels the same speed (any speed will do) in both of two reference frames moving with respect to each other.

    On the face of it, this seems silly.  However, math can be derived from the assertion ("postulate") in the previous sentence and that math is SR with all its equations and concepts.  Notice that since the SR equations can be derived for any object traveling at any same speed in both reference frames moving with respect to each other, SR is about math, not reality as we normally think of distance, time, and velocity.  This is demonstrated on the website <redacted>.  To emphasize the point of SR and NM merely being mathematical transforms of each other, the website even has an article deriving the NM transform equation x´=vt+x from only the equations of SR.

    The following will give an inkling of how far off base SR really is using the SR Interval equation and one of the four SR transform equations. I will use u for velocity between reference frame in SR because it is never the same as the velocity v​ of NM, not at any speed.

I² = (ct)² – x² = (ct´)² – x´ ²​ = (ct´´)² – x´´ ²​ = …

x´ = g(x + ut)

x´ =  g(u/c)ct +  gx

where "g" is the gamma function of SR.  

    Let the prime frame be moving past the unprimed frame starting at x=0 at speed u according to SR.  Then ct represents the distance that the light emitted in the non-moving unprimed frame moved in that frame during the time t and since x=0, I=ct.  x´ of course is the distance the moving frame has traveled during the time t.  So 

x´/I = x´/ct = g(u/c)

according to SR.  Since g(u/c) approaches infinity as (u/c) approaches 1.0, the moving reference frame or object can easily travel a far greater distance than the light did.  Obviously it can be moving far faster than light speed c in any meaningful sense although the speed according to SR is always going to be <1.0.  By the way, the NM velocity for this situation would be (v/c)=g(u/c), probably just what you would expect: the distance the reference frame (object) traveled divided by the distance the timing signal (light) traveled, times the speed of the timing signal c.  

    This should be enough to make you very suspicious of Special Relativity (SR).  I will be posting more on this subject.  In the meantime the website <redacted> has the whole thing well described.  Amazingly, the math is pretty much algebra.  The trick was examining the actual SR equations carefully to see what was really going on.

Edited April 21, 2019 by GAHD
read the rules newbie

[exchemist]

Gravity Waves 

So, nothing that isn't already predicted by standard physics?

 

If not, what is the advantage of your theory? 

[LightStorm]

I will start I think all the forces of nature should be unified into a single framework,

 

My work unifies all fundamental forces into single framework where a "field line" is interpreted as a turning screw (helix). The right hand rule gives the direction of the force. This brings gravity, electric force and magnetism under one umbrella. What works for a planet works for an electron or a proton or a magnet or a star. The link below takes you to my work. I started a thread in alternative theories called, Screw Physics. You can comment there if you like. 

 

http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/35757-screw-physics/

Edited April 22, 2019 by OceanBreeze
removed external link

[exchemist]

My work unifies all fundamental forces into single framework where a "field line" is interpreted as a turning screw (helix). The right hand rule gives the direction of the force. This brings gravity, electric force and magnetism under one umbrella. What works for a planet works for an electron or a proton or a magnet or a star. The link below takes you to my work. I started a thread in alternative theories called, Screw Physics. You can comment there if you like. 

 

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=31SjCAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

I've reported you for spamming. If you have something to discuss you should be discussing it here, not sending readers off-site and trying to drive sales of your book.

 

(By the way, the fact you seem unable to spell your own name does not fill me with confidence.) 

Edited April 22, 2019 by exchemist

[LightStorm]

Like I said, I started a thread in alternative theories called, Screw Physics. You can comment there if you like. (What's in a name). 

Edited April 22, 2019 by LightStorm

[LightStorm]

I've reported you for spamming. If you have something to discuss you should be discussing it here, not sending readers off-site and trying to drive sales of your book.

 

(By the way, the fact you seem unable to spell your own name does not fill me with confidence.) 

 

A field line is a turning screw. That's the gist of the idea. This mechanism works for a planet, or a proton, or a magnet. Like I said, it brings all fundamental forces under one umbrella of screw mechanics.

[LightStorm]

I wasn't spamming, I was addressing Victor. But you are free to respond.

[OceanBreeze]

I wasn't spamming, I was addressing Victor. But you are free to respond.

 

As long as you are having a responsive discussion, you don't get flagged as a spammer. But I have removed the external link to your book.

[LightStorm]

As long as you are having a responsive discussion, you don't get flagged as a spammer. But I have removed the external link to your book.

 

Okay, no problem.

[Sherwood]

 

    A very fundamental problem with physics is Special Relativity (SR).  It turns out that SR is a 1:1 mathematical transformation of ordinary Newtonian Mechanics (NM).  In other words, given the numbers found in SR, one can come up with the correct NM numbers and vice versa.  

 

 

    The following shows that Special Relativity (SR) is simply a warping or 'encryption' of Newtonian Mechanics (NM) which can be 'decrypted' back into (NM) on a 1:1 basis.  This shows why (SR) 'works' to solve problems although it is based on the physical impossibility that, e.g., a flag being raised at 3 m/s on a train moving 4 m/s is also moving at 3 m/s with respect to the ground rather than the obvious 5 m/s resulting from the combined vertical and horizontal motions.  

 

Special Relativity theory (SRT) can be derived from Newtonian Mechanics (NM) in a simple

way that exactly shows the similarities and differences between them and makes (SRT) much

more understandable.

There is an object (Obj1) which is not moving. It sends out a timing signal from itself at a

known speed s in all directions. Let us consider that portion of the timing signal going in one

direction, call it the “y” direction. Hereafter, this will be called the “vertical” direction. The

signal can be considered a timing signal because its speed has been measured many times in

(Obj1)’s reference frame and s is always the result.

A second object (Obj2) is moving by in a perpendicular direction which will hereafter be

called “horizontal”. When the moving (Obj2) passes the non-moving (Obj1), (Obj1) sends out its

timing signal vertically at speed s. Later, the timing signal, during the time (t), has traveled the

vertical distance I=st as well as spherically. In the meantime, (Obj2) has traveled the distance x´ horizontally. The

velocity of (Obj2) with respect to (Obj1) is

v = x´/t = x´/(I/s) = (x´/I)s

the ratio of the distance (Obj2) traveled, x´, to the distance the signal traveled, I, times the speed

of the timing signal, s.

During the time t, the objects have moved the distance x´ horizontally from each other and

the timing signal has moved the distance I vertically from (Obj1). So during the time t, the

timing signal has moved the combined vertical and horizontal distance H along a diagonal path

relative to (Obj2). This distance H equals

H = (x´² + I²)^1/2

The ratio H/t can be called s´ and is the speed of the timing signal in (Obj2)’s reference frame.

So H=s´t.  s´ is obviously a greater speed than s. We can now rewrite the previous formula

as

I² = H² – x´² = (s´t)² – x´²

I can be named as the “Interval” because it is the distance the timing signal has traveled in its

own (i.e., (Obj1)’s) reference frame.

Note that if (Obj2) had traveled at any different speed v´´ for the different distance x´´, I would still

be the same and would represent the time t, since the timing signal always travels at speed s from

(Obj1).

A term I has been defined, although there would seem to be little use for it in Newtonian

Mechanics (NM). Another variable can be defined as gamma (g).

(g) = H/I = s´t/I = s´t/st

(g) is essentially the ratio of the distance (H) the timing signal traveled in the moving (Obj2)

frame to the distance I the timing signal traveled in its own non-moving frame.

Later, (g) will be shown in another form that is probably more familiar. It will still be the ratio of

these two distances.

 

This has all been very straightforward, though unusual, Newtonian Mechanics (NM). But let

us change something. Suppose we insist (propose, postulate, etc.) that (Obj1)’s timing signal

travels the same speed in both (Obj1)’s and (Obj2)’s reference frames.

If you think about it a bit, this is physically impossible. Nothing moving away from its

source (the timing signal) can possibly move the same speed with respect to an object moving

toward or away from the source. A man running forward on a moving train is not running the

same speed with respect to the ground as he is moving with respect to the train. Not if

considering what we normally mean by distance, time, and velocity. A flag being raised at 3 m/s

vertically on a train moving 4 m/s is moving up and forward at 5 m/s with respect to the ground,

not 3 m/s. But let’s proceed anyway.

In other words, s’=s or H/t=I/t, which means I=st and also H=st or I=st=H which is obviously

not the case. But if we let I=st and H=st´ then the fact that H is greater than I is no longer a

problem. What we now have is

I² = H² – x´² = (st´)² – x´²

Gamma (g) is still

(g) = H/I

but now

(g) = H/I = st´/I = st´/st

If you put the Interval equation in the form of a triangle where the vertical leg is the

distance (I) that the timing signal traveled at speed (s) for time (t), the horizontal leg is the

distance (x´) that (Obj2) traveled from (Obj1) during the time (t), and the hypotenuse is H=st´, the

distance the timing signal traveled in (Obj2)’s reference frame, what preceded and what follows

may be clearer.

While we solved the problem that H ≠ I, we have a new ‘problem’: deciding which ‘time’ to

use for calculating the speed of the moving object relative to the non-moving object. Since the

‘prime’ moving (Obj2)’s reference frame seems to have a new time, we will define (a different)

velocity between (Obj1) and (Obj2) as

u´ = x´/t´

u´/s = x´/st´ = x´/H

Remember that g was defined above as = (H/I)= (s´t/st)= (st´/st). Looking again at ,

g² = H²/I² = (st´)² / ((st´)² – x´²)

Dividing through by (st´)² yields

g² = H²/I² = 1/ (1 – (x´²/(st´)²))= 1/ (1 – (u´²/(s)²)) = 1/ (1 – (u´/s)²) and

g= (1 – (u´/s)²))^(–1/2)

which, if c is substituted for s, is the usual way gamma is written in Einstein’s Special

Relativity theory (SRT).

We now have enough information to determine quantities in the moving frame from

quantities in the non-moving frame. In terms of t

x´ = (st´/st)(x´/t´)t = gut = g(u/s)st

t´ = (st´/st)t = gt and st´= gst

The full transform equations in Special Relativity (SRT) are

x´ = g(x + ut) = gut + gx = g(u/c)ct + gx

t´ = g(t + ux/c²) or ct´ = gct + g(u/c)x

where c replaces s as explained below. These are the same as the “s” equations except for the

added term in each. There are two more SRT transform equations for values of x and t in terms of

x´ and t´ which can be derived by manipulating these.

If you change all the above s’s into c’s, you now have the equations (and concepts) of Einstein’s

theory of Special Relativity derived by turning the NM form of the Interval equation into the

SRT Interval equation. Obviously H is greater than I and therefore the speed of the timing

signal in (Obj2)’s reference frame, s´, is greater than the speed s of the timing signal in (Obj1)’s

frame because of the added horizontal component. However, by ‘postulating’ that the velocity

of the timing signal is the same in both frames and compensating for the fact that H>I by

making a ‘new’ time, (t´), greater in the moving reference frame of (Obj2), Einstein’s theory of

Special Relativity (SRT) has just been created. This is the exact point where (NM) becomes

(SRT).

The full SRT transform equations add gx to the first and g(u/c²)x to the second. These

two equations in terms of s and the other two (reverse) transform equations, derivable from the

above, can be used to derive the x and (u/c²) needed to complete the SRT transform equations.

This will not be shown here but can be seen online in section 5.5 of the article titled “A simple

Special Relativity model is offered which easily explains the ‘twin paradox’, why c is a maximum

speed limit, and makes the concepts of SR easy to understand,” available in the Special Relativity

section of the website www.trybasics.com and also referred to as “SR Model”. Accessed 4/11/19.

The important thing to note here is that these (SRT) equations were based not on the speed of

light but only on a timing signal of some known speed s. The speed s is totally arbitrary. It

doesn’t have to be the speed of light, usually written c. The equations in terms of s are exactly

the same as the (SRT) equations in terms of c. This demonstrates that (SRT) is about

mathematics, not physics in the real world. Notice also that there was only one physical

situation described and it was described correctly for both (NM) and (SRT). This demonstrates

that there is a 1:1 mathematical correspondence between (NM) and (SRT).

From either the s equations above or the same actual c equations of (SRT) it can be seen

why, according to (SRT), nothing can go faster than light speed c. (SRT) velocity is

u´/c = x´/ct’ = x´/(x´² + I²)^1/2

which will obviously always be <1.0. On the other hand NM velocity v/c = x´/ct. The distance

(Obj2) has moved past (Obj1) is

x´ = vt = (ct´/ct)(x´/t´)t = gut

When working from one point in the non-moving reference frame (x=0), to convert from (SRT)

to (NM) or vice versa

v = gu

u = v/g

g= H/I = (ct´)/I (SRT) = (c´t)/I (NM)

but has the same numeric value in both, i.e., (ct´) = (c´t),

g² = (v/c)² + 1

t´ = gt

[(SRT) time (t´) is a function of (NM) time, velocity, and location],

t = t´/g = I/c

equals (NM) time and (SRT) ‘proper time’.

I² = ((ct´)² – x´²) (SRT) = ((c´t)² – x´²) (NM)

but has the same numeric value in both. The speed of the timing signal, s or c, is not needed in

(NM) unless velocity is being expressed as v/c. The timing signal only serves to provide the time

which is the same in all reference frames (as is (I/c) in (SRT)).

Either (NM) or (SRT) can be used to solve time/distance/velocity problems; however NM does

not mess with concepts of time and distance. Since any SRT time/distance/velocity problem

can also be accurately described in NM, there is therefore no time dilation and consequent

length contraction.

Objects can go any speed, including faster than light according to (SRT), as shown by

x´/I = g(u/c)

wherein the distance (x´) traveled by (Obj2) from (Obj1) approaches ∞ as (u/c) approaches 1.0

because of g. Of course, (u/c) will always be <1.0 for moving objects.

Momentum in (NM) is P=mv and P=mu in (SRT), but since v=gu, the value for momentum

(P) is the same in both. Since collision problems can be solved using only momentum (P) and

mass (m), solving collision problems can be done without invoking (SRT) because P=mgu=mv.

Multiplying the Interval equation

I² = (ct´)² – x´²

by various values is the easiest way to get some of the other formulas used in (SRT). Without

further explanation, here are some examples the author has derived in this way:

(gmc²)² – (mc²)² = (Pc)²

E² – (E₀)² = (Pc)²

E₀= mc²

E = gmc²

g² – 1 = (v/c)² = (g(u/c))²

The famous Einstein equation E = mc² is incorrect— E = gmc² is the actual correct (SRT)

equation.  m is a constant that does not vary with velocity or kinetic energy— g does. This does

not meant that mass and energy cannot interchange—just not due to velocity or kinetic energy.

Notice also that E₀ is due to mass (m) and therefore (E) is merely a stand-in for

momentum (P) and g is a stand-in for the (NM) value (v/c) (or (SRT)’s (g(u/c)) if you prefer).

What has been shown is that (SRT) is derivable from (NM) in a way that shows it is always

convertible into (NM) with total accuracy, and vice versa. However, since this (SR) math

derives from a physically impossible premise, it is silly to use it. The (SR) math, not reality, is

what creates time dilation, maximum velocity limit of c, and light rays in every direction

traveling the same speed with respect to everything in the universe moving in every direction

with various velocities.

By the way, there are other ways to show that (SRT) is just plain not possibly correct

even though time/distance/velocity and collision problems can be worked, thanks to its

relationship to Newtonian Mechanics (NM). To again show this relationship, go to the article

titled “How to derive Newtonian Mechanics Directly from Only the Equations of Special

Relativity” available in the Special Relativity section of the website www.trybasics.com and also

referred to as “NM from SR”. Accessed 4/11/19.

Edited April 25, 2019 by Sherwood

[Sherwood]

My work unifies all fundamental forces into single framework where a "field line" is interpreted as a turning screw (helix). The right hand rule gives the direction of the force. This brings gravity, electric force and magnetism under one umbrella. What works for a planet works for an electron or a proton or a magnet or a star. The link below takes you to my work. I started a thread in alternative theories called, Screw Physics. You can comment there if you like. 

 

http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/35757-screw-physics/

Lightstorm,

    I am a newbie as a poster.  I glanced (literally) at your "The Story of Our Universe".  You commented negatively about mass supposedly changing according to the famous E=mc².  You might wish to look at my second (literally, again) post.  E=mc² is actually incorrect Special Relativity (SR), even if Einstein did come up with it.  The correct SR form is E=gmc². where g is the gamma function [i couldn't get the Greek letter to type].   m does not change with velocity or kinetic energy.  However, g, which is a function of velocity, does change the value of E.  This fact does not prevent the possibility of mass interchanging with energy; only that mass does not change with velocity (kinetic energy).

    If you read the whole post, you will realize that Special Relativity (SR) itself should be considered silly and dropped.  The basics are all in that post.  There are other articles on my website which expand on the post.

Edited April 23, 2019 by Sherwood