IET
Decrease font size
Increase font size
Topic Title: New Physics
Topic Summary:
Created On: 12 August 2013 04:58 PM
Status: Read Only
Linear : Threading : Single : Branch
<< 1 2 3 Previous Next Last unread
Search Topic Search Topic
Topic Tools Topic Tools
View similar topics View similar topics
View topic in raw text format. Print this topic.
 08 September 2013 08:49 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



jarathoon

Posts: 1041
Joined: 05 September 2004

Hi Clive,

Originally posted by: acsinuk
"In new physics the electric and magnetic force effects need to be considered and never ignored."


Yes but what about gravity, and the strong and weak force, don't they need to be considered as well? As to ignoring things: engineers can choose to ignore things by making simplifying assumptions, so can physicists.

If the time is now right not to ignore anything then should not the new physics you propose encompass all the fundamental forces we have so far discovered.


"In an electric universe there can be no neutral matter only seemingly neutral matter, because if the outside enclosure is at the same potential as the inner charge you can touch it without a shock."


What do you mean by "seemingly neutral"? I think you are thinking about what happens at the earths surface and are implicitly applying that in analogy to what happens inregards to atoms and elementary particles. This doesn't work.

All individual atoms are electrically neutral in an absolute sense. They can't be accelerated in an electric field. The neutron is neutral in an absolute sense, it can't be accelerated in an electric field. The anti-neutron is neutral in an absolute sense, it can't be accelerated in an electric field.

As you know, on the earths surface, earth connections to ground are not "absolutely" neutral. For one thing the earth's surface is negatively charged relative to the atmosphere and there is an open air fair weather electric field of around -100 V/m (which can be measured with a field mill containing an electrometer). In addition to this there are eddy currents induced in earth's surface by charged ion and electron currents in the ionosphere above.

The eddy currents create a daily varying potential difference between distant earthed points can be measured by running insulated wires between them and attaching them to a voltmeter. (if electrochemical potentials are present they change very slowly, and don't depend on the distance between the two earth points used).

Earth connections to ground are not "absolutely" neutral anywhere on earth, just approximately so in fair weather (normally within a few hundred volts or so). We normally choose by convention assign an earth point with a zero potential, so I suppose this is what you mean by "seemingly neutral".

[Is an electrical connection to the inside an externally earthed faraday cage, an absolute zero reference potential for example?

No it's just at earth potential just like any other earth.

So can we in a single place make voltage measurements relative to an absolute zero reference potential?

I am not sure. People claim to be able to measure this sort of thing, although I have never tried. Apparently if you leave a very well insulated capacitor in a small sealed faraday cage (with low background radioactivity) and connect one end to earth, and then after briefly connecting the other end to earth, leave it disconnected from then on.

Then using an electrometer measure the potential of the open end of the capacitor every now and again over time; this apparently gives the local earth potential at a single place relative to what it was when the open connection of the capacitor was last earthed, and how this varies over time.

If this works experimentally it probably works best at locations where the variation and size of daily earth currents is strongest.]


"This [matter seemingly neutral] means that neutrons are really negatrons enclosed in a negative electron shell."


You now apply your analogy concerning earthing things on the earths surface and then try to apply this to the domain of atoms and elementary particles.

I assume by negatron you mean an anti-proton, which is negatively charged. So in your view two particles with the same negative charge can combine together somehow to make a neutral particle or a "seemingly" neutral particle. This makes no sense to me.

Free neutrons decay to a proton, an electron and neutrino. The conservation of charge law applies exactly for elementary particles; neutrons really are "absolutely" neutral, not "approximately" neutral or "relatively" neutral or indeed "seemingly" neutral.

How can you make a model where the free charge of an elementary particle depends somehow on its environment or the nature of the particle it is paired with? This doesn't make sense to me.


"Anti-neutrons would need to be protons enclosed in a positron shell."


Anti-Neutrons really are "absolutely" neutral.

Anti-Neutrons are definitely not positively charged as you suggest.

How can Anti-Neutrons be positively charges and neutrons be negatively charged, whilst at the same time both being neutral and having no discernable charge?


"At creation you want to force the negative matter outwards and keep the antimatter inside."


I don't understand. Antimatter can have a positive charge (positron) or a negative charge (anti-proton). The anti-proton would have to be inside and outside at the same time according to this statement.


"If they ever meet they would annihilate with remaining spin energy signature emitted as a photon. The law of conservation of charge is then doubly confirmed."


I don't understand. All your statements above seem to ignore the conservation of charge.


"The solar wind is comprised of ionised H+ which means there is a voltage in space pulling the ion forward."


No I think there are roughly equal numbers of positive ions and electrons.


"Particle physicists are again ignoring the voltage effects and trying to make old Newtonian constant velocity physics fit."


You are proposing a model that includes some sort of potential differences across space accelerating charged particles, so act to neutralise that potential difference over time.

How are the potential differences maintained or created in the first place?

Is it not far better to model the solar wind as consisting of outer layers of an ionized solar atmosphere expanding out with enough pressure to beat the sun's gravitational field in a vain attempt to fill and pressurize a vacuum the size of the universe?

James Arathoon

-------------------------
James Arathoon
 09 September 2013 10:27 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



acsinuk

Posts: 153
Joined: 30 June 2007

Just copied this paragraph from the wiki reference on solar wind that you sent me:-
"Emission
While early models of the solar wind used primarily thermal energy to accelerate the material, by the 1960s it was clear that thermal acceleration alone cannot account for the high speed of solar wind. An additional unknown acceleration mechanism is required, and likely relates to magnetic fields in the solar atmosphere."

Well perhaps the age of new physics is just about to dawn?

Regarding the idea that neutrons are not negative is incorrect because we on planet earth are completely awash with electrons having negative enclosures of matter, liquids and gases. Everything we touch, breath or use a voltmeter lead to touch is fully negative. If we get a reading on a voltmeter is it full negative plus or minus the reading. Looking from the suns surface our planets surface is 100 million million volts negative if solar wind final speed is 400 km/sec.
CliveS

Edited: 09 September 2013 at 10:43 AM by acsinuk
 09 September 2013 12:02 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



Zuiko

Posts: 521
Joined: 14 September 2010

I have read more credible physics on the Answers in genesis web site (which is as scientific as the Flintstones).


(wikipedia is not a credible reference source btw)
 09 September 2013 06:14 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



jarathoon

Posts: 1041
Joined: 05 September 2004

Originally posted by: Zuiko

I have read more credible physics on the Answers in genesis web site (which is as scientific as the Flintstones).

(wikipedia is not a credible reference source btw)


I expect stone age people knew more about their world than we will ever know. Dump most us in a field next to a river, with no clothes and just nature to live off, and I expect the majority would not live longer than it took to die of hunger or exposure.

Anyway...

Maxwell's theory started off as a cog wheel and belt mechanical model. This is no longer considered a plausible model.

Since you are a judge of these things, where would you personally start today if you wanted to derive Maxwell's equations in three dimensions of space from a set of underlying primitives, concepts and assumptions, that also gave all the other forces (gravitational, inertial, strong and weak forces)?

James Arathoon

-------------------------
James Arathoon
 09 September 2013 07:53 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



Zuiko

Posts: 521
Joined: 14 September 2010

Originally posted by: jarathoon
I expect stone age people knew more about their world than we will ever know. Dump most us in a field next to a river, with no clothes and just nature to live off, and I expect the majority would not live longer than it took to die of hunger or exposure.


James Arathoon


What's the point here? Humans still live like that now, except they die in their thirties (if lucky) of infections and/or malnutrition. All any 'sucessful' animal has to do is live long enough to breed, which is exactly what our ancestors did (and there is a lot of evidence to say that they nearly did not, and humanity was down to barely a few thousand breeding pairs at one point).

It's a complete digression; and about as valid as arguing about putting a stone age man in a car and asking him to go work in a call centre in the centre of London. Or a gorilla, or a microbe, knows more about survival than a pin-striped business man. An utterly fallacious argument.


And if I, or you, or anybody here, was smart enough to discover what Maxwell discovered; well we would not be 'here' at all, and we would be known around the world as one of the most gifted thinkers to live.


Do all your arguments require fallacies to keep them going?
 10 September 2013 09:31 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



acsinuk

Posts: 153
Joined: 30 June 2007

James
You are quite right. What we need to do is rewrite Maxwells equations in terms of volumes of space and energy in Volts,Amps and time notation. No reference need be made to mass only conservation of opposite charges need be considered. These are all that are required to make a big bang creation.
CliveS
 27 September 2013 10:44 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



acsinuk

Posts: 153
Joined: 30 June 2007

Watched a programme on TV last night about space and the Large Hadron Collider at CERN and it appears we are still looking for more evidence of the Higgs particle. But why look for a particle??
Why not look for the strong force and weak force which electrically bind the nucleus of a molecule together? Look for the force not a particle.
Electrically speaking, we do not need particles of matter, gravitons, Higgs or anything massive to bond atoms or the galaxies together; just magnetic and electric forces will do; which are by definition massless as they can interact at the speed of light. There seems no point in looking for a particle of something that is massless. We need new magnoflux physics.
CliveS
 28 September 2013 01:16 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



ectophile

Posts: 546
Joined: 17 September 2001

The Higgs isn't massless. The point of it is that it has rather a lot of mass for a subatomic particle. It appears to have a mass of about 125GeV. Particle physicists like to measure mass in terms of energy, relying on e=mc².

-------------------------
S P Barker BSc PhD MIET
 30 September 2013 03:57 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



acsinuk

Posts: 153
Joined: 30 June 2007

Yes, I know they like to think of 125Gev energy as a mass equivalent particle but it isn't and confuses everyone.
By thinking conserving energy instead of conservation of electric charge you can miss the point. We know what is inside a molecule surely! There are protons, neutrons and electrons. All electrical and we know there are forces that bind it together. We don't need to invent anything just think in terms of new physics.
Like charges repel , so how come all the protons are bunched together in the centre of the nucleus. We need a strong short range force to bind them together which turns out to be 10^38 times more powerful than gravity G. The neutrons are neutral as far as the electrons are concerned so cannot be allowed to touch the protons. As the total negative enclosure is magnetised then both protons and neutrons are magnetised the same way up thus will repel each other magnetically with a force of 10^36G which is stronger than the electric weak attraction force of 10^25G which holds the whole enclosed magnoflux energy volume together. Gravity and relativity are so insignificant inside molecules that to all practical purposes they can be ignored. We don't need to find any other particles or anything, just think new physics.
Same with the stars to balance all we need is to magnetise them the same way and they will repel each other with a force in this case of -22G[if WMAP 72% dark energy is correct] and induce a magnetic hub at the centre of each galaxy around which the stars rotate in spirals. We don't need to look for dark energy or any anti levitation particles, just think new physics.
To balance the individual stars planetary system requires an extra attractive electric force of 5G . We don't need to imagine dark matter, which we know is not there anymore; just think new physics.
CliveS
 30 September 2013 09:58 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



kengreen

Posts: 400
Joined: 15 April 2013

dear me - and at risk of repeating itself - oh dear dear dear!

At school at the very beginning of my studies in science it was hammered into me that, if you wish to be a scientist, then you must learn to say exactly what you mean and to mean exactly what you say.

all these words spun around words which in turn are span a round words do ,in Ttruth convey Little.

Gentlemen, if you wish to progresSs in the discipline of science then you must take a step to the rear,take note of what goes on around you and sort your mind in words preferably of one syllable and cease trying to duck the issue by piling up mathematical hieroglyphics.

Some 2 zilLlion words back I think it was zuiko asked to be directed to a peer-reviewed paper reference a reported "new physics"? ThEe only such work known to me is my own which, at this moment, is being prepared for the publisher by my elder daughter - I can no longer cope !

I will tell you that to keep separated In my own mind the difference between Physics and my new take I eliminated the first three letters and substituted my Iinitials - hence I refer to Khgsics. the difference is that while physics attempts to understand the natural phenomena which surround us so Khgsics predicts those phenomena.

As an example of the changed perspective I offer Einstein's famous formula - e = mc|2 ; in plain English this proposes a relation between e and m with a constant c to create an equality. Khgsics offers that the constant of proportionality is Mass - the varying relation is between the forces of gravity and radiation.

Yes! I am indeed aware of the heresy. Get busy sharpening those shillelaghs for an orgy of destruction possibly around Christmas 2013.

Ken Green





























-

Edited: 01 October 2013 at 02:29 AM by kengreen
 07 October 2013 02:00 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



acsinuk

Posts: 153
Joined: 30 June 2007

Thanks Ken
I can tell you are a sceptic at heart.
We need new physics to try and explain how a 3D electric universe would work. Surely, we can't just muddle on thinking everything is already known?
CliveS
 07 October 2013 08:05 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



kengreen

Posts: 400
Joined: 15 April 2013

hello Clive,

Thanks very much indeed. I have been a sceptic since my early thirties and have been growing more so with each inch added to my scholarly beard :-) .

Indeed my first rebellion took place around the age of twelve when I was given a book entitled "marvels and mysteries of the universe"; it was there that I first encountered the M-M experiment and I immediately thought it was ridiculous to accept that the speed of light was constant irrespective of relative motion by the measuring apparatus; it seemed to me that if anything was to be drawn from this it was that light did not travel from A to B but must be moving on a path orthogonal to AB (technical terminology was to become available much later).

Indeed when I began to make measurements I concluded that the M-M experiment was not measuring (as thought) the velocity of light - in fact there was an enormous boo-boo hidden therein. I had been too often humiliated by achieving a ridiculous result!

Once doubts had been sown I began to recognise other holes in our basic physics but I have ever since been amazed at the way senior scientists, whose opinion would stand up in legal courts, will swallow codswallop and stick out their necks in defence thereof - that was at least until I learned the his story of phlogiston? ? ?

Odd moments spent contemplating these things began to suggest all sorts of scenarios most of which I turned on and destroyed; but I was hooked and pressed on to become obsessed. By summer 1995 I had achieved a small breakthrough - followed by a large heart attack which terminated the project until early this year. I added to my score a Stroke; for a couple of weeks I was out of my mind until a GP examined my medical notes and adjusted my medication - since then I seem to be repairing the damage caused by the heart attack.

My older daughter had gathered up all my notes, sketches and models and kept them safe for 16 years and, as the bug re-established I was able to return to the greatest puzzle in the universe. Alas I was 17 years older and I had departed from my excellent memory; now my daughter has undertaken the task of cleaning up my notes and diagrams and I have found a publisher (not in the UK) who, professing confidence in my style of writing, promptly sent to me a contract!. It's'sot all a bed of roses, of course, for now we have to write the ruddy book - which would be a lot easier if I were not obliged to reply on this heap of crap which is supposed to be a digital computer?

Steady progress at tens us - but don't watch this space :-)

Send me a snail mail address and I will be delighted to send you a copy some time around Christmas or the new year 2013.

Ken green
 07 October 2013 08:05 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



kengreen

Posts: 400
Joined: 15 April 2013

hello Clive,

Thanks very much indeed. I have been a sceptic since my early thirties and have been growing more so with each inch added to my scholarly beard :-) .

Indeed my first rebellion took place around the age of twelve when I was given a book entitled "marvels and mysteries of the universe"; it was there that I first encountered the M-M experiment and I immediately thought it was ridiculous to accept that the speed of light was constant irrespective of relative motion by the measuring apparatus; it seemed to me that if anything was to be drawn from this it was that light did not travel from A to B but must be moving on a path orthogonal to AB (technical terminology was to become available much later).

Indeed when I began to make measurements I concluded that the M-M experiment was not measuring (as thought) the velocity of light - in fact there was an enormous boo-boo hidden therein. I had been too often humiliated by achieving a ridiculous result!

Once doubts had been sown I began to recognise other holes in our basic physics but I have ever since been amazed at the way senior scientists, whose opinion would stand up in legal courts, will swallow codswallop and stick out their necks in defence thereof - that was at least until I learned the his story of phlogiston? ? ?

Odd moments spent contemplating these things began to suggest all sorts of scenarios most of which I turned on and destroyed; but I was hooked and pressed on to become obsessed. By summer 1995 I had achieved a small breakthrough - followed by a large heart attack which terminated the project until early this year. I added to my score a Stroke; for a couple of weeks I was out of my mind until a GP examined my medical notes and adjusted my medication - since then I seem to be repairing the damage caused by the heart attack.

My older daughter had gathered up all my notes, sketches and models and kept them safe for 16 years and, as the bug re-established I was able to return to the greatest puzzle in the universe. Alas I was 17 years older and I had departed from my excellent memory; now my daughter has undertaken the task of cleaning up my notes and diagrams and I have found a publisher (not in the UK) who, professing confidence in my style of writing, promptly sent to me a contract!. It's'sot all a bed of roses, of course, for now we have to write the ruddy book - which would be a lot easier if I were not obliged to reply on this heap of crap which is supposed to be a digital computer?

Steady progress at tens us - but don't watch this space :-)

Send me a snail mail address and I will be delighted to send you a copy some time around Christmas or the new year 2013.

Ken green
 07 October 2013 08:05 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



kengreen

Posts: 400
Joined: 15 April 2013

hello Clive,

Thanks very much indeed. I have been a sceptic since my early thirties and have been growing more so with each inch added to my scholarly beard :-) .

Indeed my first rebellion took place around the age of twelve when I was given a book entitled "marvels and mysteries of the universe"; it was there that I first encountered the M-M experiment and I immediately thought it was ridiculous to accept that the speed of light was constant irrespective of relative motion by the measuring apparatus; it seemed to me that if anything was to be drawn from this it was that light did not travel from A to B but must be moving on a path orthogonal to AB (technical terminology was to become available much later).

Indeed when I began to make measurements I concluded that the M-M experiment was not measuring (as thought) the velocity of light - in fact there was an enormous boo-boo hidden therein. I had been too often humiliated by achieving a ridiculous result!

Once doubts had been sown I began to recognise other holes in our basic physics but I have ever since been amazed at the way senior scientists, whose opinion would stand up in legal courts, will swallow codswallop and stick out their necks in defence thereof - that was at least until I learned the his story of phlogiston? ? ?

Odd moments spent contemplating these things began to suggest all sorts of scenarios most of which I turned on and destroyed; but I was hooked and pressed on to become obsessed. By summer 1995 I had achieved a small breakthrough - followed by a large heart attack which terminated the project until early this year. I added to my score a Stroke; for a couple of weeks I was out of my mind until a GP examined my medical notes and adjusted my medication - since then I seem to be repairing the damage caused by the heart attack.

My older daughter had gathered up all my notes, sketches and models and kept them safe for 16 years and, as the bug re-established I was able to return to the greatest puzzle in the universe. Alas I was 17 years older and I had departed from my excellent memory; now my daughter has undertaken the task of cleaning up my notes and diagrams and I have found a publisher (not in the UK) who, professing confidence in my style of writing, promptly sent to me a contract!. It's'sot all a bed of roses, of course, for now we have to write the ruddy book - which would be a lot easier if I were not obliged to reply on this heap of crap which is supposed to be a digital computer?

Steady progress at tens us - but don't watch this space :-)

Send me a snail mail address and I will be delighted to send you a copy some time around Christmas or the new year 2013.

Ken green
 07 October 2013 09:10 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



Zuiko

Posts: 521
Joined: 14 September 2010

Ken,
If you have evidence that the speed of light in a vacuum is not constant, and have both a theoretical model and evidential proof, you will win a Nobel prize and be as well known as Einstein.
 07 October 2013 11:51 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



kengreen

Posts: 400
Joined: 15 April 2013

Zuiko,

Your post highlights one of my major problems in that it is surely impossible to provide evidential proof? It is also the reason why over forty years I have been able to garner help from only the most senior of my colleagues else I raise ribald laughter. But you see I am one of those cussed types who merely become more dedicated! - And alas those helpful types pass also into the unknown.

No, I'm afraid I do not show that light does not travel with constant speed - I merely say that it does not travel! Perhaps you begin to understand my problems and why I am extremely grateful to my would-be publisher and to my daughter. T two pile insult upon insult I start by destroying the concept of an electric current and eventually claim
that magnetism, as such, is equally an illusion. But it Ddoesn't stop there and I get the feeling sometimes like an illusionist plucking an endless stream of rabbits from a hat.

I would never claim that I have the ultimate answer - assUuming that there is one. All I can say is that, with each minor revelation, I have cOome to believe morEe and more that Khgsics is superior to Physics. Most certainly there isan ultimate puzzle - what exactly is this fundamental particle on which Khgsics is built?

My eye is telling me to stop the Ddrivel:-)

My things indeed for your intervention,

Ken
 08 October 2013 12:46 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



jarathoon

Posts: 1041
Joined: 05 September 2004

Originally posted by: Zuiko

Ken,

If you have evidence that the speed of light in a vacuum is not constant, and have both a theoretical model and evidential proof, you will win a Nobel prize and be as well known as Einstein.


Einstein's great advance were postulates not a model. The postulates however were consistent with Maxwell's theory, which is what really mattered.

Maxwell's theory as currently understood gives us no option but to settle for a constant theoetical speed of light in a vacuum. Although Maxwell's theory started out as a cog wheel and belt mechanical model (which was never intended to be taken too seriously), the framework of the theory cannot accurately be described by the term model now. This is because no one has found a way of deriving Maxwell's theory from what could be described as a 3D 'physical model', all we can currently say is that Maxwell's theory exists as stated in Maxwell's equations, normally expressed in the vector notation first used by Heaviside. (or if you want to be a historical purist about it, the quaternion notation first used by Maxwell)

So we are confident we can theoretically postulate that the speed of light must be constant in a vacuum (i.e just state), We can also manipulate mathematical equations that are themselves just stated, and derive a wave equation which implies a constant theoretical speed of light in a vacuum.

No nobel prizes were given for any of this.

Evidential proof involves experiment combined with an associated theoretical interpretation.

The interpretation of the Michhelson-Morley experiment is too mathematical to discuss in a textural forum; lets simplify the experiment and just make it a one way measurement of the speed of light using an atomic clock [famously and ironically invented by someone who rejected Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity, Louis Essen (of the National Physical Laboratory)].

The experimental arrangement is simply to time a pulse of light travelling between two light sensors. All you have to make sure is that the electrical cables from the two sensors to the atomic clock are exactly the same length (so the time delays are identical)

Now you just have the equation c = d / t, and this is much easier to talk about in a forum like this.

Where c = measured speed of light, d is the measured distance between the two sensors (defined by some physical length standard) and t is the measured time interval using the atomic clock.

Now wherever you take your instrument to measure c you will find the same constant value for the speed of light in a vacuum. You can rotate your apparatus in space if you want, c is still the same. No directional anisotropy in terms of c, no effect due to the velocity of the earth relative to the instantaneous Doppler shift in the measured cosmic background radiation. You can even take your device into space and get the same result.

So there you have it Ken is wrong to be a sceptic.

Well no not quite so quick. We must remember that the rate of clock varies with gravitational potential and relative velocity.

So if we have two such mechanisms for measuring the speed of light in a vacuum, one located at place with a different gravitational potential to the other, we have two instruments both confirming that the speed of light in a vacuum is constant, but with clocks that we know are ticking at different rates. Arrghhh!

Therefore some other part of nature must be changing or conspiring to keep the measured speed of light in a vacuum constant.

However we only have two other variables c and d.

We know that the rate of atomic clocks slows as the gravitational potential increases. Therefore one explanation is that distances get shorter as the gravitational potential increases in just the right way to keep measured speed of light constant. That's fine, there are no directional effects.

However if one clock is placed in a capsule that has a speed v relative to the other atomic clock, then we again find that the clocks tick at different rates. (I won't get into the twin paradox as it takes too long)

Lets not worry about which clock goes faster and which clock goes slower. All we really need to know in terms of my argument is that changing the spatial orientation of either clock, or both of the clocks, does not affect the rate at which they tick.

So if we believe that a changing d is the answer to why we always measure a constant speed of light in a vacuum, then we must also believe it changes with velocity in a way that does not depend on the direction of travel.

Length expansion/contraction if it exists as a phenomenon must be the same independent of the orientation of the measured length relative to the direction of motion.

Well this seems impossible, as theoretical length expansions
or contractions always seem to correlate with the direction of travel.

The paradox is that changes in d can't be scalar, whereas changes in t must be scalar, not dependent on the orientation of the clock in relation to the direction of travel.

So now if d changes it can't change in the way we want, which is annoying to say the least.

As an alternative therefore, why not assume that d remains constant.

Well if d is constant and t changes, than c must change. But how can that be true when the measurements always seem to show that it stays constant.

Well in this case nature would have to conspire in stopping us measuring a varying c. That could happen for example if the ratio that c changes with relative velocity or gravitational potential, is exactly the same as the ratio with which t changes; the factors always cancel independent of relative velocity and gravitational potential changes.

In this way we could begin to develop a theory that contains a theoretical speed of light that can vary, whilst always maintaining a single in-frame measured speed of light in vacuum which cannot.

Perhaps the existing evidential proof from experiment is not as clear cut as we would like to believe.

James Arathoon


-------------------------
James Arathoon
 08 October 2013 01:36 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



kengreen

Posts: 400
Joined: 15 April 2013

James,

I wish I could say that I understood much of your post, but I'm afraid that I cannot mainly because, for many years, I have discarded physics in favour of my khgsics.

Fortunately, I am not called upon to pontificate in that discussion. I simply observed what I thought to be an absurdity in the physics as taught to me in school, but which I found faltering in my professional life. Just like a cow I havea great curiosity and will stick my neck almost anywhere; that was a habit that did not endear me to most!

My interest in Einstein's relativity was triggered by an early television documentary which described Einstein's imaginary journey on a train which steadily accelerated; once again, it was all plain sailing until they started in with common conjecture. I am unable to accept anything until I have investigated it myself - which, if you like, directly contradicts that which I have written above?

My book did not arise out of any intention; rather, was iTt an effort to bring order to a massive pile of Ppaper - a contest which I must say I lost.

Ken Green
 08 October 2013 02:17 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



jarathoon

Posts: 1041
Joined: 05 September 2004

Ken,

I was defending the sceptical origins to your thinking, not the conclusions you have come to as a result; which from what you have written in this forum seem absurd and inconsistent.

However if no one published anything heterodox (most of it being absurd and inconsistent), fewer people would have the motivation to think differently from the herd and society would stagnate and suffer as a result.

I think the original scepticism that drove you to come up with an alternative view of physics, has now failed you in regards to helping you towards a self-critical appraisal in respect to the validity and consistency of your own ideas.

James Arathoon

[By the way I should have said above that if c changes, if d is constant, c must change in inverse ratio to t, in such a way that the changes cancel]

-------------------------
James Arathoon
 08 October 2013 06:19 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



kengreen

Posts: 400
Joined: 15 April 2013

thanks James,

I can well understand your condemnation as "absurd and inconsistent" and, on reading my full account, you may or you may not retract those words. To be truthful, that was entirely mYy reaction when I first began to find my way into that which I now call Khgsics; it was specifically, the consistency which eventually led me to take it seriously.

I wish I could find even a fraction of that consistency in the idiocy with which this ruddy dictation program "Dragon" constantly alters my syntax and punctuation ! ! ! As has been said before the Americans and the English are two nations separated by a sIingle language!

Your final addition highlights what I conSsider to bEe the ultimate sIin in classical physics, namely that you comment on the characteristics of d and c when Iin fact you know nothing of which I write? IIn my work c has no existence and so caNnnot be in error?

Ken
IET » Energy » New Physics

<< 1 2 3 Previous Next Last unread
Topic Tools Topic Tools
Statistics

See Also:



FuseTalk Standard Edition v3.2 - © 1999-2014 FuseTalk Inc. All rights reserved.