## Whirlpool model of Gravity

I have explained elsewhere how the double slit experiment provides a strong proof of Ether.

Here I will explain how the same Ether model solves another great mystery i.e. gravity, without resorting to absurd concepts like bending of space or warping of space as proposed by General Relativity. It’s a common observation that a spinning body in a pool of water draws near by objects towards it. As a body spins in water, it creates a whirlpool around it, and into which near by objects ‘fall’. Similarly as our earth spins in the ocean of Ether, it creates a whirlpool around it and draws objects in its vicinity. Thus gravity is no more a mystery.

And the faster the body spins, the greater the whirlpool effect or the attractive force. This whirlpool effect or attraction force obviously becomes weaker as we go farther from the body. Thus we can explain all the phenomena of gravity using the whirlpool model.

But how do a whirlpool drags near by objects? Or how does a spinning body attracts near by objects?

### To understand this we need to study Bernoulli Principle.

Scientists utilise Bernoulli principle to ‘lift’ aircrafts against the Earth’s gravity but I am sure they don’t really understand how this principle works. If they had, they would have realised long ago that it is the same principle that underlies the mystery of gravity. And Bernoulli principle would have become much more famous than Newton’s laws and wouldn’t have let Einstein’s theories distort our understanding of Gravity.

Bernoulli principle as understood by physicists states that ‘the pressure exerted by a fluid decreases as its velocity increases’. In other words, as a fluid moves faster, it exerts less pressure. Some physicists think that it is the law of conservation of energy that underlies the Bernoulli principle; while others attribute it to Newton’s 2nd law. That just highlights the physicist’s ignorance on not just Bernoulli Effect but also on the laws which they try to make use of to explain Bernoulli Effect. The fact is that we need neither of them to understand how Bernoulli principle works. What we need is just common sense.

To correctly explain Bernoulli’s effect we must first correctly understand about pressure. Pressure is defined as force per unit area. We know that force is a vector which means that a force is not just a quantity but also has a direction. For example if someone says ‘‘a force of 1Newton is applied on the ball’’, it conveys little meaning because we need to mention in what direction that said force is applied to make sense. There could be a number of forces acting simultaneously on a body from many directions, but the sum total of all the forces is what decides the final force vector and hence the direction of work. Because pressure is nothing but force, it implies that pressure is also a vector. So whenever we talk about pressure, it makes again no sense if we just say 1 Pascal or 2 Pascals and not mention the direction of pressure. This fact is often ignored or forgotten when physicists talk about pressure. Pressure i.e. the force exerted by a body, can be different in different directions. For example a book lying on a table may exert a downward pressure of 1pascal but it exerts no pressure in the upward direction or laterally. And we all know that the pressure exerted by water inside a container on the earth is not same in all directions.

Having realised that pressure is a vector; now we will go on to understand what pressure means at a deeper level. We know that a gas or a liquid exerts pressure on the walls of its container. But what is the fundamental mechanism that underlies the phenomenon of pressure? In other words from where does that force which we feel as pressure come? For this we will have to go to the kinetic theory of gases which states that the pressure of a gas is caused by collisions of its molecules against the walls of the container. The sum of the impacts per unit area of a wall is what we measure as the pressure applied upon that wall or in that direction.

We ‘know’ that the molecules or the atoms of a gas are in a state of random motion and collide with each other and with the walls of the container. Random motion implies that the molecules of a gas move equally in all directions (or in other words there is no net movement) and hence collide equally with all the walls and exert equal pressure in all directions. This is probably the reason why physicists ignore direction when they talk about pressure.

It is may be true that a gas inside a balloon exerts equal pressure in all directions in some situations, for example in the outer space and away from the celestial bodies when there is no ‘external influence’ upon the gas particles. But in the vicinity of earth, the effect of gravity can make the molecules move faster toward the bottom wall of a container and hence we may expect a little more pressure exerted upon that wall. (More over the term ‘random motion’ is only true at a gross level. If we magnify things and look deeply into the microcosm we would probably appreciate a highly ordered motion of the molecules and will be able to appreciate the slight differences in pressure in different directions)

In summary,

1) Pressure is nothing but force exerted per unit area of a surface

2) Pressure is a vector quantity

3) It is collisions of particles against a surface which manifests as pressure upon that surface.

Now imagine a container ‘filled’ with some gas. The gas molecules or particles move randomly and collide with the walls of the container. As discussed earlier, the sum of the impacts per unit area of a wall is what we measure as pressure upon that wall. If we ignore gravity and other external influences, the gas molecules collide equally against all the walls and hence exert equal pressure in all the directions i.e. on all the walls of the container. Now let’s remove the left and right walls of the container and make the gas to flow through the box in the rightward direction. Obviously the gas particles no longer move ‘randomly’ in all directions but move ‘preferentially’ towards the right. So the number of collisions against the top, bottom and other remaining walls of the container diminish. The result is that we measure less pressure being exerted by the gas on these remaining walls of the container. And the faster a gas flows in a given direction, the lesser the number of collisions on the side walls and hence the lesser the sideward pressure.

The gas particles collide equally against all the walls and hence exert equal pressure in all directions

The gas particles are no longer in random motion but are moving preferentially toward the right. So they impinge less often upon the sidewalls and hence exert less pressure sideward. The particles obviously exert more pressure towards the right.

The statement that a fast moving fluid exerts less pressure makes no sense. The truth is that it exerts less pressure only on the side walls (i.e. in the perpendicular direction). If we place a pressure gauge just opposite to the flow of gas, we will realise that it actually exerts much higher pressure in the direction of flow. (And obviously much lower pressure in the opposite direction)

Now imagine a body suspended in a tank of still water. Obviously the water particles keep colliding with the body on all its sides with equal force. In other words the water exerts equal pressure on all the sides of the body. And because there is no net force acting upon it, the body remains still and suspended inside the water.

Now imagine that there exists another body in the vicinity and which starts spinning vigorously. The body obviously stirs the water around it and induces circular currents in the water tank. Obviously the water particles that are closer to the spinning body get stirred faster than the ones that are farther away.

How would this scenario influence the first body?

1. the body which was still before starts moving in the direction of the water currents (rotation)
2. it starts spinning (in opposite direction to that of the ‘inducer’)
3. and it gets dragged towards the second body. Why?

Look at the force vectors in the picture below to understand why that happens.

Now replace water tank with Ether universe. Imagine our Earth spinning in that Ether ocean. Now we can explain why Earth attracts objects i.e. gravity.

Go to Main Index

• cheesecookies  On April 1, 2014 at 11:01 pm

I love relativity and astrophysics and I am hoping to major in it in university. Your blog really made me realise the implications beyond what I had learnt.

Like

• SomeGuyFromNJ  On March 19, 2017 at 2:55 am

Maybe this invisible water that’s acting on us to give us Gravity is “dark matter” and it’s just spinning around us right now as we type

Like

• Mikhail Rakovsky  On August 8, 2019 at 6:25 pm

It is result of rotating Dark Matter. All the planets position get determined by their density. Distance from Sun get reduced with increasing planets density.

Planet Average Density (gm/cm3) Required Mass for 70 cm3 (gm)

Mercury 5.4 378.0
Venus 5.2 364.0
Earth 5.5 385.0
Mars 3.9 273.0
Jupiter 1.3 91.0
Saturn 0.7 49.0
Uranus 1.3 91.0
Neptune 1.6 112.0

The only not consistency is the orbit of Earth, because its density bigger than Venus, but if we calculate summary density the Earth-Moon system at the moon orbit the number of average density comes-out about 4.5, or less than Venus but bigger than Mars. Increasing density for Uranus and Neptune could be explained with in decreasing density of the dark matter (DM) to periphery of Sun system, suggesting “bagel” form high/low pressure DM and disturbances between them very similar picture to Jupiter’s atmosphere. The generally low DM pressure in Milky Way galaxy in rotating Sun system with combination of DM and VM get extremely low DM pressure in the center. DM pressure is growing-up to orbit of Saturn and stars to get reduced to the periphery.

Like

• Aaron Do  On July 3, 2014 at 12:21 pm

The ideas you have in your website are really interesting. The problem is you need to back up your theory with measurement.

Like

• drgsrinivas  On July 4, 2014 at 9:03 pm

The problem here is not lack of experimental proof or backup by ‘measurements’. The whole point is that observations and ‘measurements’ need to be interpreted logically to make sense out of them. When people don’t bother about logic, any ‘measurement’ can be used to back up any stupid statement.

The observation: Apple falls to the ground

Relativists’ explanation: because space is curved.
(Even then, why should the apple fall ‘down’? Why doesn’t it fly ‘away’? In other words, what force makes the apple to move from the less curved space to the more curved space? I am sure relativists resort to circular logic here: They might say ‘that is because of gravity’!!!)

Ether theory: due to ‘whirlpool effect’ as the Earth spins through the ocean of Ether.

The observation: A photon appears to pass through both slits and interfere with itself

Quantumists’ explanation: A photon particle travels through all paths simultaneously and hence is able to pass through both the slits.

Ether explanation: when a photon is fired inside the Ether Ocean, it creates a wave just like how a water particle fired inside a pool of water results in a water wave. And it is this wave which spreads and travels in all directions simultaneously. So it is not the particle itself which travels via both the slits, but it is the particle energy which does so in the form of ‘daughter waves’.

Similarly better logical explanations exist for cosmic ray muons reaching the Earth in large numbers, slowing of GPS clock, neutral pion decay, aberration of star light etc etc.

So all the observations and ‘measurements’ claimed by modern physicists as proof of their weird theories actually prove that our physicists are mad because all of them can be explained logically and without resorting to the stupid preachings of their relativity and quantum religions.

Like

• Aaron Do  On July 24, 2014 at 12:27 pm

So you’re saying that we have plenty of measurements, they just need to be interpreted properly…

Regarding the “whirlpool” theory, I have some difficulty visualizing how it would work in 3 dimensions. If you have a spherical object spinning in a tank of water, then it is only spinning on one axis. So would there be any attraction to the “poles” of the object, and how would it compare to the “equator” (pardon the terminology)?

Like

• drgsrinivas  On July 24, 2014 at 11:30 pm

You are actually on the right track. If you look at our solar system or the numerous galaxies, they are more or less disc shaped and not spherical. According to the ‘whirlpool’ model, the gravitational influence exerted by a celestial body is greatest in the ‘equatorial plane’ and it decreases towards the poles.

But how do we explain the observation that the weight of an object is more towards the Polar Regions than at the equator? A body’s weight is decided upon by two forces. One is the gravitational force which pulls the body inwards i.e. towards the Earth. And the other force is the centrifugal force which pushes the body away from the earth. It is the sum of these two forces which probably decide the actual weight of a body. As we move towards the poles, not only the gravitational attraction becomes weaker, but is also the centrifugal repulsion force. I think probably there is more reduction in the centrifugal repulsion force than in the gravitational attraction force as one moves from the equator towards the poles.

The phenomenon of gravity can be easily conceptualised by understanding how a centrifuge works- “Centrifuge model of gravity”. Of course it is ultimately Bernoulli’s effect that underlies both.

Like

• Aaron Do  On July 27, 2014 at 7:24 pm

I still have two doubts though. The first is that at the precise position of one of the poles, you would expect both the centrifugal and the “whirlpool” force to equal to zero. i.e. no gravity. I think that kind of effect would be well documented. Unless the earth’s precession has some effect too (I would expect it to be very small…).

My second doubt is that if you take a spinning sphere in a tank of water, and water is moving towards the “equator” then it would have to be moving away from the poles in order for the water to circulate. In your ether model, wouldn’t something similar occur?

Like

• drgsrinivas  On August 3, 2014 at 12:55 pm

Yes, the above described Bernoulli phenomenon can’t fully explain the gravitational ‘attraction’ near the polar regions. And thanks for your thought provoking question: I have stumbled upon a new concept that not only solves the gravity issue at the poles but also provides an insight into the phenomenon of magnetism.

Briefly, we know that the vast majority of the space inside the atoms is ’empty’. In other words, the vast majority of the space inside any ‘solid object’ (including our Earth) is empty. According to the Ether model of universe, all the space including this empty ‘internal mileau’ of all objects is pervaded by the Ether or photons. So our Earth may be considered as a highly ‘porous’ body suspended in the ether ocean and also filled with the ether fluid. Now as the body of our earth rotates, ether gets dragged in via the ‘poles’, flows outward at the ‘equator’.

This inward dragging of ether is what manifests as gravity near the poles and the differential spin of ether combined with Bernoulli effect explains the gravitational attraction near the equator. We can actually undertake a simple experiment to prove this: we just have to make a round porous body (made of say iron mesh) spin inside water and see how it affects near by smaller objects.

And I believe it is the flow pattern of ether in and out of the Earth which manifests as the magnetic lines/ field of Earth.

Like

• Aaron Do  On July 28, 2014 at 7:40 pm

I may have been a bit hasty with my second doubt. So I guess the water itself is only moving in a circle around the sphere, but not towards the sphere, and nearby objects are moved by the water towards the sphere? I think I might try this out in my kitchen sink just to verify… 😀

Like

• curtweinstein2  On July 31, 2014 at 7:59 am

1) Is the “spin” real? OK, I can “buy” the ether, no problem.
2) If the Earth didn’t spin wouldn’t it yet create the same “amount” of gravity?

3) Oh, OK, I know why I am confused. I think “gravity” is the ether, and “gravity” doesn’t spin with the Earth, according to our experiences with Foucault’s Pendulum and also according to Dr. Petr Beckmann.

Like

• drgsrinivas  On August 6, 2014 at 9:50 am

If Earth didn’t spin, there wouldn’t be any gravity here. Let me correct you, Ether is not gravity, it is the differential spin of Ether which manifests as gravity.

Like

• Spindizzy  On September 7, 2018 at 9:17 am

I know this is a late reply, but I’m somewhat confused.

If an object does not spin, there is no gravity? Yes?

What about things like comets which don’t have spin, and yet appear to have gravity? I mean, we’ve had the Rosetta mission, which landed a probe on a comet. If there wasn’t any gravity, it would just bounce off, yes?

Like

• drgsrinivas  On September 9, 2018 at 5:42 pm

I don’t know whether comets spin or not. I haven’t researched enough. But objects in space can probably attract other objects without the ‘external’ spin. For example, if all or majority of the atoms that make up an object orient and spin in the same direction, that object could theoretically create ether winds and attract objects in its vicinity. That is, there could be internal spin even if the object isn’t spinning externally… and may be this is what happens with magnets.

And merely making some object land on some other object in space neither proves or nor disproves gravity.
And, I am very skeptical of the scientists’ distant observations and their interpretations. They are not intelligent enough to observe things and make interpretations even in our immediate neighborhood (for e.g. waves in a pond), why talk about their capacity to study things in the faraway space!

Like

• Darcy Donelle (@Darcy_Donelle)  On October 17, 2014 at 6:45 pm

The Ether? The first strong evidence against the ether emerged in the late 19th century via the Michelson–Morley experiment…

It seems like you’re having difficulty grasping the fundamental properties of nature. Your invoking ether as an explanation for gravity is no more convincing than accepting gravity as a fundamental property of nature. All you have done is introduced a new fundamental property of nature, i.e. that the earth spins through a whirlpool. Where does Earth get its energy to spin around its axis and orbit the Sun? If this energy comes from the whirlpool, then where does the whirlpool obtain its energy from?

“We are to admit no more causes of natural things, than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.” – Isaac Newton.

Like

• drgsrinivas  On October 18, 2014 at 10:38 am

If you want to religiously believe in what your mentors preached you, I have no objection. But don’t swear your beliefs as evidence. I have explained how your mentors have misinterpreted Michelson’s experiment and exposed their stupid reasoning here – http://debunkingrelativity.com/ether-wind-and-ether-drag/
I strongly suggest that you don’t read that if you are a weak hearted individual because that would tear apart your religious theories and your heart may not tolerate that. Rather keep chanting that Ether has been disproved, so that you remain healthy and your religion survives!

So where does earth get the energy to spin? What about posing the question to your religion? Also let me ask your religion another question, where does the matter that makes the Earth come from? I have never claimed that Ether model would answer all the questions down to the most fundamental level. http://debunkingrelativity.com/2014/03/29/the-divine-stuff-explains-all/

Like

• Aerophos  On October 17, 2014 at 8:36 pm

IMPORTANT: Good theory, I like your thinking, BUT: have you proven that objects in space that DONT spin have ZERO gravity? I strongly suspect that you will find at least ONE object in our solar system that doesnt have much of a spin or any spin but it still has gravity. Also, what about magnets? If magnets can attract or repel even when NOT spinning, then WHY cant larger objects like the earth not have the same quality? If magnets can do it, in other words, if magnets can exert a force that we can call “micro gravity” towards other magnets, then why cant a planet have a similar quality? Your theory could be correct, but as long as you are not saying that there doesnt exist any other attracting and/or repelling forces when a planet doesnt spin. As long as you’re not implying that, then I’m happy. In my personal opinion, I think that non-spinning large objects in space still have gravity. Therefore, we need to try and find a different explanation for the existence of gravity and how it works. We need to try and find an explanation independent of the “ether” theory. Have you ever considered that gravity could be related to magnetism in some way?

Like

• drgsrinivas  On October 17, 2014 at 9:19 pm

I feel that gravitational attraction and magnetism are fundamentally one and the same and can be explained by the Ether model. I will have to explore more on this issue. I have explained my thoughts briefly in the following reply-

http://debunkingrelativity.com/gravity-and-bernoullis-principle/#comment-2438

Like

• JJ  On July 8, 2017 at 4:15 am

You are both correct in my opinion, they are definitely part of the same “force.” To me, time, space, gravity, EM, are all a singular phenomenon. And one can and do impact the other.

Like

• Galacar  On October 17, 2014 at 11:33 pm

To Darcy Donelle

Don’t believe what you have been spoonfed!
I know this is the original fairy tale!
But so much is wrong with it1
People later have tried to replicate it, to no avail!
You see, ; science’ is about propaganda, not real information and truth!
Once you see that, a lot becomes clear.
It really is a disguised religion.
Start unlearning what you have learned ( read: being programmed with),’
and you can start thinking rational and logical again.

Like

• J Jagannath  On May 1, 2015 at 7:39 am

I second that.

Like

• Saiz  On June 5, 2015 at 1:23 pm

I like micro explanations. You explain pressure by micro impacts of the particules againts the walls. But why the move of the particle changes from ‘randomly’ in all directions to ‘preferentially’, and why gases and liquids do this accordingly with Bernouilli law? If the particles continue moving randomly and rightward the collisions frequency would be the same, and so the pressure?
Thank you.

NB. I’m absolutly in agreement with you concerning the stupid relativity theory, even more after having seen the movie “Interstellar”

Like

• Amitabh  On July 24, 2015 at 11:07 pm

I like your explanation of floating objects. In a large vessel filled with water just leave some random free floating objects..they mimic a galaxy. The objects have different energies and exert wave patterns in the water pool…all the objects somehow keep a steady balance and flow as they chart their own orbit. They never collide. The container MUST BE ALIVE and so should be the environment. I mean a terracotta vessel is alive and water in plastic is inert ( ignoring the static) This is our cosmos. Of course the fluid contains or surrounds the planets, so is not planar in the sense of the experiment explained.

Now why the apple falls…is because the seed inside the apple wants to germinate. Are physicists blind to this simple phenomena of life meeting life ? So smoke goes to air and gross matter ones back to earth…and water evaporates to be with the clouds and reach the ocean…Is this poetry or science. .?

Like

• Trevin  On August 12, 2016 at 6:50 pm

Things do not happen only because life wants to meet life. That is like saying that dinosaurs just grew wings so that they could fly and not die when they jump off of trees. There are scientific explanations for these things (even though I do not really believe that dinosaurs grew wings).

Like

• pk surendran  On January 25, 2016 at 7:56 pm

All this boils down to one thing: Our seers short cut (learning by intuition) was the only way we could see the total from the fringes of fragments….

Like

• aether  On February 12, 2016 at 10:08 pm

I’m having trouble visualizing how ether spin alone can explain gravity on a sphere (earth). Can you elaborate?

Like

• daniel3710  On February 14, 2016 at 5:42 pm

I believe what he said was that the spin of the earth within the ether medium causes a lower pressure area around the earth and this attracts nearby bodies due to the fact that any object in a pressurized environment will move towards areas of less pressure to create balance.

Like

• aether  On February 14, 2016 at 7:54 pm

daniel3710,

Thanks for your explanation, but I’m still having trouble visualizing what happens especially at the poles.

I actually filled up my sink with water and used an electric hand held mixer to test the theory. The single mixing piece/extension (oblong, not spherical) was stuffed with steel wool. I used floating markers on the surface of the water. Admittedly crude experiment. I might try it in the bathtub or a bigger clear plastic container (round). It would help if I had colored suspended particles in the water.

Prior to accidentally finding this site, I had never considered Bernoulli effect was the cause of gravity. I’m not dismissing the idea, just having trouble visualizing it. Action at a distance just doesn’t cut it in my (simple?) mind. I always pictured an ether medium and universal pressure. Pressure differentials at points of mass.

Like

• drgsrinivas  On February 14, 2016 at 10:39 pm

I have explained that in the following post.
http://debunkingrelativity.com/2015/11/06/demystifying-electromagnetism/

The gravitational attraction near the poles can be explained by the centripetal flow of ether towards the poles of the spinning body.

And thank you very much daniel3710, I truly appreciate your input. And this is what I really need. It is becoming rather difficult for me to address each and every query posted by the readers immediately. For most questions posed by the readers, explanations already exist at one place or the other on this blog. Little more elaboration is what is often required. (I know that animations would really help understand many concepts presented on this blog but I am neither a techie nor do I have time for that now. So please bear with me).

Having said that, It is because of the questions posed by the readers that I become enlightened everyday and able to solve the mysteries of this universe and creation. I owe a lot to all those people.

Like

• Aether  On February 15, 2016 at 3:05 am

drgsrinivas,

I haven’t read everything on your thought provoking site, but I had read that piece. Still not sure, but that doesn’t mean you are wrong. I’ll play around with my kitchen mixer some more when I get the chance.

Also, at the equator, the rotational velocity of the earth is approximately 1037 mph. At the moon’s equator, the rotational velocity is about 10 mph. According to some sources, gravity on the moon is ~ 17% of gravity on earth – this doesn’t seem to square with spin differentials that are 100 times different. At least in my mind.

Then again, the moon travels farther than the earth on the trip around the sun and maybe this has an influence. And maybe the published density and gravity of the moon are wrong.

In any event, I can’t buy into action at a distance, constant SOL, time dilation…….all nonsense in my opinion. There are no paradoxes in nature imo. The Emperor’s New Clothes is the perfect analogy.

Like

• drgsrinivas  On February 16, 2016 at 10:56 pm

aether, I am unable to deduce the exact relation between the rotational velocity and the force of gravitational attraction in mathematical terms. That is beyond my mathematical brain. But I can tell you one thing: The rotational velocity of the fluid particles decrease as we go farther from the spinning object. And it is the velocity gradient between two adjacent layers of the fluid which determines the gravitational force at any locality in the space. Of course, the higher the the rotational velocity of a celestial body, the greater the velocity gradient that develops between the successive layers of ether, but I don’t think this relation is a linear one.

That probably explains why earth’s gravity is only 6 times more than that of moon despite its much faster rotational velocity. And of course, there probably exist many other factors- I would also propose ether density in addition to the ones you have mentioned.

Like

• aether  On February 17, 2016 at 1:42 am

The rotational velocity of the fluid particles decrease as we go farther from the spinning object.

Yes, this was readily observable in my sink experiments using fine black pepper particles. Unclear what happened at the poles of the steel wool or inside the steel wool for that matter.

<i.>but I don’t think this relation is a linear one.

I don’t either. Inversely proportionate to the ^2 of the distance? Do we really know the gravity on the moon? Our space gadgets typically have rocket boosters.

Anyway, I’m sure all this can all be explained by Einstein’s GR theory (at this point I’m surprised it’s still just a theory and not a law). No joke, GR can be used to explain everything.

Seemingly, everything proves Einstein was right. Behold: One year to collect the data and a whopping 5 years to massage and distort the data to maintain the religion of relativity!

What a spectacle! Theater of the absurd. A never ending Tamasha!

Liked by 1 person

• aether  On February 18, 2016 at 3:40 am

Paper on Bernoulli effect and ether:

Click to access Jom%202014-Lin.pdf

Out of my league.

Like

• bimbomechanic  On February 21, 2016 at 5:03 pm

Has anyone considered gravity as density?
Objects denser then air sink, similar to how objects operate in water.

Like

• drgsrinivas  On February 21, 2016 at 8:58 pm

Denser/heavier objects sink in water because of gravity. If there was no gravity/ external force acting upon them, objects, whether heavier or lighter remain where ever they are left i.e. neither they float nor do they sink. So density per se can’t explain gravity.

Having said that, differences in Ether density can influence the strength and extent of the gravitational field generated by a spinning body.

Like

• aether  On February 23, 2016 at 12:28 am

A few thoughts.

In my comment above, I mentioned that the spin of the moon is very small relative to the spin of the earth. While true, the rotational velocities of both the earth and moon are tiny compared to their orbital velocities ~ 67,000mph. So one can think of the moon as orbiting the sun along with the earth in a vortex streamline. Of course, the (relative) spins of the earth and moon still play a role in the system

As expected, the farther from the sun the slower the orbital velocities of the planets:

http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/orbital.htm

Scientists talk about the barycenter of our solar system, but that might be theoretically calculated rather than actually observed. And even if it is observed, perhaps it could be explained in terms of a swirling vortex.

In a hurricane, the higher wind speeds and lower pressures are nearer the eye (center).

Like

• Stephen  On February 24, 2016 at 9:55 pm

All – though as men we are equal, I will not pretend to have equal understanding or education. I am just a man who loves to learn and am fascinated with understanding the universe (small task right – ha ha )…but I learn just for the joy of it. I am still absorbing these concepts. What lead me to this page was my inability to grasp the concept of space-time, which I believe is a component of Einstein’s theories. To me, time is simply a concept to quantify change. If nothing changed (all was frozen) in essence, time would stop, but with each passing second, my body changes, cells die and are born, the clouds move, the earth spins. The concept of time allows us to reference the changes around us. Is this a legitimate way of looking at this? I relate this to this discussion topic, be cause my limited understanding of relativity is that it is used to explain gravity. I do not understand how you can make time a principle of gravity other than to reference the effect it has on things. This becomes important because if space-time is a flawed concept, doesn’t the rest of his theory start to unravel? I am basing my comments on my limited understanding, so please forgive me if I come across as un educated (because I am). I also struggle with the concept that relativity applies to everything but light (in other words, the speed of light is constant, regardless of the travel speed of the observer.) Even if light has special properties, this still doesn’t make sense to me. I am not sure there is a question buried in my rambling, but any comment or response is welcomed.

Like

• Galacar  On February 25, 2016 at 12:27 pm

Stephen,

You sound more rational then an ‘educated’ men does.
You have been spared the deep brainwashing of our ‘scientific’ culture!
(being in a ‘culture’ is really telling us something!!)
Belessings to you.
Now, be less humble, and KNOW you can work things out.
Throw all that stuff away that tells you, that because you are ‘uneducated’
you can’t and ‘scientists’ can do better.
You have the very very deep advantage of NOT being brainwashed.

As for your grasping or ‘grokking’ space-time.
Congrats! There is nothing to grasp!

Liked by 1 person

• Stephen  On February 25, 2016 at 8:03 pm

Liked by 1 person

• Galacar  On February 28, 2016 at 1:01 am

Stephen,

Actually, You are starting to get in touch wich your
multi dimensional YOU!

Great!

Nearly all of this (mainstream) world is here to keep us in
a little box, being little me.That is the PURPOSE of mainstream media,
science, politics, whatever.

(what do you do if you look up to someone? That is right! You are looking down on YOU! Makes sense?)

But , YOU ARE A MULTI-DiMENSIONAL BEING.

That will scare some people up the ladder! lol

I hope not to sound too arrogant, but this is my deep, deep conviction.

See if this resonates with you.

My two cents,

Galacar

Like

• aether  On March 2, 2016 at 1:39 am

Regarding infinity:

Derived Planck Units

Who can say for sure?

Like

• John Davis  On June 25, 2016 at 6:17 am

Interesting article on gravitational anomalies during eclipses. Known as the Allais Effect, Pendulums swing faster during an eclipse.

http://www.economist.com/node/3104321

Interestingly Allais went on to deduct this from the findings

“Maurice Allais states that the eclipse effect is related to a gravitational anomaly, that is inexplicable in the framework of the currently admitted theory of gravitation, without giving any explanation of his own. Allais’s explanation for another anomaly (the lunisolar periodicity in variations of the azimuth of a pendulum) is that space evinces certain anisotropic characteristics, which he ascribes to motion through an aether which is partially entrained by planetary bodies. He has presented this hypothesis in his 1997 book L’Anisotropie de l’espace. This explanation has not gained significant traction amongst mainstream scientists.”

Liked by 2 people

• Galacar  On June 25, 2016 at 1:06 pm

@John Davis,

You wrote:

““Maurice Allais states that the eclipse effect is related to a gravitational anomaly, that is inexplicable in the framework of the currently admitted theory of gravitation”

Well. problem is that the ‘modern physics’ is full with gravitational anomalies.
Because there is no gravity at all.

Gravity by itself is a myth, and anomalies come easy with myths. 😉

I am not saying things don’t fall etc. Of course they do.
But gravity m which is non-existing, has nothing to do with it.

btw isn’t it interesting to see that if people have a word for something,
like ‘gravity’ they think they understand it I find that fascinating.

My two cents.

Galacar

Like

• John Davis  On June 26, 2016 at 9:09 pm

I think he is on the right track though. His study of pendulum swing during eclipses alludes to an ether or emission based source of gravity. As another paper puts it – We jump and fall back down because we are entrenched in the ether – which is constantly being pulled towards the earth. If the sun is a provider of this emission then it would make sense that an eclipse would disrupt its flow – in the same way an island disrupts tidal swell as felt by the mainland shore. It also might help us better understand the dual tide phenomenon for which the current language seems a bit illusory.

Liked by 1 person

• carlchristianbarfield1st  On August 23, 2017 at 10:23 am

What if we are the ether, and all of it has the property of potential, which evolves over time?

Like

• Trevin  On August 12, 2016 at 4:45 am

If your ether theory is right, why is it that wind does not increase dramatically with altitude? If your theory was correct, would not the photons at higher elevations push the atmosphere at a rate slower than the speed the atmosphere goes on the ground? Would not these air particles cause wind, since they would be moving over a shorter distance in the same time period as the earth is rotating?

In addition to that, here is a website that presents the Concave Earth Theory, which I do not necessarily agree with: http://www.wildheretic.com/ . This theory is different from the heliocentric model, with the entire known universe being inside a concave earth. You should probably check it out, since you are theorizing things that have to do with astronomy.

Like

• Trevin  On August 12, 2016 at 6:31 pm

There is an experiment that seemingly proves that the heavens move above the earth without the earth moving. This experiment was done by George Airy with a water filled telescope. You can find out about this experiment at exhibit D in the following link: http://www.wildheretic.com/heliocentric-theory-is-wrong-pt1/ . Can your particular heliocentric model explain this experiment just as well as the immovable earth model can? If so, how?

Like

• John Davis  On August 16, 2016 at 10:03 pm

I’m open to both models – helio or geo. Airy’s experiment seems to be a simplified version of the Michelson Morley. The supposed conclusion – Either there is no Ether or Earth is not moving. However if you read through this site you’ll see that Dr. G. has whirlpooling ether models which can support both a spinning earth & ether.

Like

• Lance Nelson  On September 24, 2016 at 3:24 am

I enjoyed your description of pressure and how it changes with flow speed. However, I’m not following one of the main points to your argument. You said,

“Now let’s remove the left and right walls of the container and make the gas to flow through the box in the rightward direction. Obviously the gas particles no longer move ‘randomly’ in all directions but move ‘preferentially’ towards the right. So the number of collisions against the top, bottom and other remaining walls of the container diminish. The result is that we measure less pressure being exerted by the gas on these remaining walls of the container. And the faster a gas flows in a given direction, the lesser the number of collisions on the side walls and hence the lesser the sideward pressure.”

Let’s say the flow(or pipe) is oriented horizontally. I think you are saying that as the gas particles are accelerated horizontally, the vertical components of their velocity vectors(perpendicular to flow) will decrease, thus making their change in momentum in that direction diminish? Indeed, if that were the case, I can see how the pressure would decrease. However, how can a horizontal acceleration affect the other components of the velocity?

One more thing: your explanation relies on thermal motion being the main source of pressure. However, in many instances, it is the weight of the particles pushing down on their lower-lying neighbors that is the main source of the pressure. Can you explain in these terms.

Thanks

Like

• drgsrinivas  On September 28, 2016 at 6:05 pm

The simplest answer for your question is that when horizontally moving gas particles flow into the pipe, they displace the random particles. So the vertical pressure drops in the pipe as the gas flows horizontally. And of course, accumulation of random particles causes an increase in vertical pressure at the leading end of the stream. This increase in vertical pressure is what causes the ‘buckle’ or swelling of the water pipe at the leading end of flow.

I wouldn’t say it is ‘thermal motion’. It is ultimately Energy that causes motion of particles. We experience that Energy or motion of particles as heat in some situations. The scenario of ‘weight of particles pushing down’ only occurs in a gravitational field. There, the particles get downward acceleration because of the gravitational force and hence are able to exert downward pressure. It is again motion ultimately.

Like

• carlchristianbarfield1st  On August 23, 2017 at 10:25 am

Internal motion, in the electric field, results in much of the mass, as photons spinning exerts momentum on the surrounding space.

Like

• John Foster  On September 25, 2016 at 12:58 am

You had me excited by your revelations until you included rotation of a body having an increased effect on gravity. If anything rotation only decreases the effect of gravity due to it being a centrifugal force. Pressure is definitely the key to gravity, but maybe we need to start thinking on a smaller particle level, ones that may cause a pressure effect, but also pass through the object, and accelerate after leaving, slowly back to a maximum velocity.

If two bodies have an equal amount of pressure exerted upon them, and the particles causing the pressure can pass through the objects at a slower velocity, then slowly regain their original momentum, then that would cause the effect of attraction.

==> O =><= O<==

Also pressure on a single mass would definitely explain gravity. We need to think of gravity as a Pushing force rather than a Pulling force. Pressure caused by particles passing through us, slowing down as they do, and then slowly regaining their original velocity as they exit would explain gravity and attraction.

One other correction I would make is c=maximum speed of light. it is not constant because space is not a vacuum, but it is a maximum and hence works with the best equation Einstein came up with.

As for quantum entanglement, well this is easily explained by pressure throuout the universe. Infact any object can exist anywhere in the universe at any one time, if we apply the correct pressure on an object at the correct particle level. It is like a domino effect.

|| || // //
||||||||||| //////////
|| || // //

Time is not a dimension, it is not variable, it progresses at a universal rate. People need to start thinking outside the universal box, and observe things that way. Relativity only works because we are inside the box!, Einstein gave us equations for being in the box, and that was awesome. To progress his work we need to, erm, well think outside the box…

One thing I do have a problem with is time dilation. I cannot explain it, I do not know why it exists. I look forward to reading your theories on this subject

Like

• John Foster  On September 26, 2016 at 1:06 pm

The words relativity and space time makes my head want to explode in anger every time I hear them. Reading just this page alone was like a breath of fresh air.

As for what I was trying to say in all that garbled post….

I have been trying to understand the cause of gravity my entire life, and einstein’s theories are just a load of rubbish to me. It is not that I don’t understand what he means, I just think it’s incorrect. I wasn’t trying to correct your theories and ideas, I was trying to correct his.

E = M x the MAXMUM speed of light squared

That equation was what I may have referred to as awesome, and as for progressing his work, it would be from the time when he worked out the relationship between energy and mass.

I like to try and have ideas to explain things that have apparently been proved to exist, such as quantum entanglement and time dilation. By time dilation I mean the difference in the 2 clocks in the experiment. I don’t believe in it myself, but I personally could not explain why the clocks differed. As I have only so far read a small amount of your work, I was trying to say I was very much looking forward to reading what you have to say about it.

If I have learned anything from this, it is to not try and explain my ideas when I am drunk 😀

Like

• drgsrinivas  On September 26, 2016 at 8:49 pm

John Foster, thanks for your interest and input. I can understand the reason for the confusion. I have explained about the centrifugal force and other forces created in the vicinity of a spinning body here- https://debunkingrelativity.com/2015/11/06/demystifying-electromagnetism/

When a body spins in a pool of water, it is true that centrifugal force pushes the water particles away (and generates ripples that spread outward). But all the suspended denser objects get dragged towards the spinning body. That’s what happens in a centrifuge also.

Your centrifugal force is what generates the so called gravitational waves that spread outward from a spinning celestial body in the Ether ocean.

Like

• Daniel25  On February 8, 2017 at 12:24 pm

drgsrinivas, i love all you reports im slowing getting through them all, i have a question for you, do you believe we are on a spinning ball or do you believe we are living on a flat earth? alot of you debunking fits in line with a flat earth, tesla knew the earth wasnt moving, id love to hear your thoughts? thanks

Like

• Joe Deglman  On February 17, 2017 at 6:59 pm

After seeing this portrayal of ether flow it seems to explain the General Theory well, what will happen to light as it passes a star or the Sun. It is almost as if Einstein knew what ether was and its effects, and did his best to cover it up! Or maybe just a dunder head?

Like

• JJ  On July 8, 2017 at 4:08 am

Excellent work DrG!

I saw your comments about weight at the Polar regions and equator, as well as the centrifugal and centripetal forces.

Have you studied Nikolai Kozyrev? One of my now deceased friends who worked In “Aerospace” projects most his life told me he is the basis of many of their technologies. He successfully managed to diminish weight and gain weight EXPERIMENTALLY , through the use of spin/torsion, and proved existence of Aether (using other words). It also indicates a connection between electromagnetism, time, gravity, and “Space.”

There are also deeper implications, such as that to biology! But some other time.

He is all but ignored by modern science

I also recommend friend of Tesla, Walter Russel. While less of a scientist, I think conceptually, he is spot on. He discusses the centrifugal and centripetal (pressure) forces, and how they cycle in the world. As well as the illusion of the speed of light, and how it doesn’t actually travel the way we think it does.

Thanks for great work.

Like

• JJ  On July 8, 2017 at 4:33 am

Also, my friend told me that they had a better explanation (using Kozyrev’s theories) as to why “time was local,” and so called differences in its passage, instead of relativities time dilation. It has to do with Ether (vacuum), and how suns, galaxies, and planets spin…and their “counter spin.” One appears to create a sort of centripetal pressure toward poles (and is invisible) and the other, which we see, is the centrifugal spin at the equator.

Like “patches” of dark energy around stellar bodies, absorbed and released, at specific ratios that differ depending on the area. Perhaps the sun, was the local “clock” or conductor of the ratios of time/space. Perhaps there is indeed, a “divine order” materialistic scientists are utterly ignorant of.

In a sense, Einstein was right that time is not absolute. But all he did was see the effect, not the cause. He said space time magically bends in presence of mass (thus gravity), when actually, it may be more that the Ether (space-time) is what dynamically compresses “space” or responsible for the formation of planets, while centrifugal spin assists in expanding space (like whirpools moving outwardly).. The equilibrium between the two as the stable structures we observe as matter.

He also told me so called “free energy” technologies which draw from Aether/vacuum, have an effect on this compression or expansion of space, thus the acceleration or slowing down of time. And that abusing such technologies, actually have an impact on acceleration of time, and thus, are in no way “free.” That you could also impact space, by working only in space domain, and vice versa.

One person asked, where does the “Aether” get its energy from. I think out of all the QM physicists, David Bohm was closer. He called the vacuum a plenum, and looked at reality as enfolded in layers, implicate and explicate Orders, and in terms of Wholes instead of “individual balls” we call particles. We may not know exactly what exists beyond Aether/Vacuum, like a veil between levels of manifestation- BUT we do know that energy does exist, even QM knows this through the spontaneous manifestation of “light” which they call “virtual photons.”

One analogy is that one is the “absorbtion” of ether, or the porous planet being held together by the etheric center seeking pressure (which is correlated to youth or negative entropy) and the other, the centrifugal, as a “release” of the etheric pressure (and thus also, radiation and some magnetic phenomenon and entropy).

Maybe, As a body gets older, it bulges more at equator perhaps and also begins to lose its density. Almost as if youth is the winding of Aether (Gravity and “time)” and older age is the unwinding of Aether (radiation, and expansion). The winding like an increase in Aetheric pressure (which in turn, correlates with density, like octaves of matter or pressure), and the unwinding like a release of the pressure.

Most of this my own thoughts of course. But thanks for stimulating!

Liked by 1 person

• michael ngan  On March 13, 2018 at 9:57 am

Hey Bro.

I love your explanation on Gravity. It is the most lucid and logical, I have encountered yet, beside Euler’s explanation, who used very similar logic.

However, you seems stopped suddenly, when you reached the end. I have the audacity, to added a little bit more explanation.

“Now replace water tank, with Ether universe. Imagine a body suspended in still Ether. Imagine Earth nearby and allow it to spin.

The ether closest to the Sun, spins the fastest, so the lateral pressure, on the surface of the Sun is lowest, and further away, there is a stronger lateral pressure.

So there is a pressure vector or gradient, that is directed from outer space, toward the surface of the earth and Sun.

And the resultant etheric pressure vector, is isotropic, or is exerted equally and perpendicularly, in all direction, toward the surface of the rotating earth and Sun.

And this pressure vector, depends only, on the distance from the surface of earth and Sun.

The closer one is toward the surface, the stronger one will experience this etheric pressure vector force called Gravity.

That explains Gravity.”

Best,
Michael

Liked by 1 person

• Bloglogician  On August 10, 2022 at 12:30 am

This reminds me of the book “Gravitational force of the sun” by Pari Spolter. Now I forget the book but pretty sure she shows the grav.force of the sun is calculated from orbits of various satellites using F=areaacceleration but using F= massacceleration in the equation the “traditional” way doesn’t work or isn’t consistent

Like

• A_Concerned_Student  On June 18, 2018 at 10:59 pm

Hello Dr.G,
I am a senior physics student who has stumbled upon your blog while looking into a question regarding fluid flow and Bernoulli’s principle. Initially, I must say, I was very impressed with your thoughts and understanding of fluid flow and Bernoulli’s principle. While you are technically incorrect as to pressure being a vector, (it has no direction), changes in pressure from one region to another can very much behave like a vector would and for this reason you could very easily treat pressure as a vector in SOME basic fluid flow problems. This aside, I found your discussion of Bernoulli’s principle rather well written.

Now, onto the main reason for my posting. Your final statement as to pressure’s role in gravity and the comments following left me rather concerned. I felt that someone with a grounding in physics should comment on this post for anyone who stumbles across your blog as I have. I feel this because someone with this understanding of physics is precisely the type of person who is best suited to debate on the topic, which is why I felt compelled to do so.

I will start with what determines a good scientific theory which is twofold: the ability to make predictions, and the ability to be falsified (proven wrong), not whether or not people like the theory or find it intuitive. Your theory has both these qualities and as such is a good scientific theory, however I fear that experiment decides that your theory is (at least in its current form) incorrect. Before I get into your theory, I would first like to defend the relativity and quantum mechanics (hereafter referred to as QM), which are the mainstream (admittedly not intuitive) theories for the two reasons stated above, predictions and the ability to be proven wrong.

Initially, the VAST majority of the scientific community rejected Einstein’s relativity and believed it utter nonsense as you seem to believe. However, Einstein’s theory was easily falsified by experiment so they conducted tests to show him that he was wrong, but instead his theory correctly predicted what would happen. Undeterred, the scientific community continued to devise more and more complicated and outrageous tests of relativity, each time convinced it would prove relativity wrong but each time it was right. To this day, no test or experiment has found fault with relativity, (specifically GR), and as scientists attempted to hold onto their classical theory of the universe, they ultimately led to relativity becoming the most rigorously tested scientific theory of all time! Similarly for QM, it was an even more ridiculous and unintuitive theory. Scientists had their hearts set on a classical theory of the universe, but yet again, each experiment and test failed to disprove QM. QM made absurd predictions that NOBODY thought could possibly happen, but time after time when scientists tested them scientists were baffled when the predictions were correct. Despite the vast majority of the scientific community believing relativity and QM absurd and ridiculous, and doing their best to find a case where they failed to coincide with experiment, they never did. It is for these reasons that relativity and QM are the mainstream theories of the last century, not because people liked them, quite the opposite was true, but because they made predictions which continually agreed with experiment (even predicting the existence of undiscovered particles in some cases) and because they were easily falsifiable but never falsified. So you may disagree with them because they are absurd, I myself find them absurd as does nearly everyone, but they are extremely useful as a scientific theory and have never been proven wrong so much so that people who hated them ultimately accepted them as the next step forward in physics. Nowhere do I say they are correct, as no theory can ever be proven correct, only incorrect, but for over a century they haven’t been despite the ridiculous claims they make (which coincide with experiment). This wraps up (for now at least), my defense of the mainstream “religions” as you frequently call them.

As for your theory, initially I thought it a brilliant re-imagining of gravity and rather intuitive. However, after careful consideration I feel that it is most likely if not absolutely wrong. I considered it deeply for a few days before posting this. The main issue I can not get past is gravity at the poles. If differential spin alone were the cause of gravity then none would exist at the poles instead you would be pulled horizontally towards the axis of rotation (pole) when near the poles which would have definitely been documented by now. So if that’s not what is happening let’s consider your adjustment with the “porous Earth” theory where aether is sucked in through the poles and ejected equatorially (or vice-versa follows the same argument in reverse). If this inflow of aether is strong enough to produce the (nearly) identical gravitational attraction at the poles as at the equator then the ejection at the equator must be of a comparable strength. The disk at the equator where aether would be ejected would have far smaller area than the likely cone-like shape of inflow at the poles. This would lead to a much stronger ejection than inflow (which we established causes the gravity at the poles) so the aether would cause a strong repulsion at the equator which should lead to a much lessened if not completely nullified or reverse gravitational force at the equator. I find it extremely unlikely that every planet/star we have ever observed has the precise inflow/outflow ratio that the gravitational attraction is attractive everywhere on the object and nearly identical to the equator. Comparatively, the mainstream gravity theory correctly accounts for why this is much simpler using just the shape of the planets. Also the planet Venus spins in the same direction as the sun which is opposite to what your theory predicts. According to your theory, Venus should then drift away from the sun or begin spinning the “correct” way. Since this hasn’t happened in it’s ~4.5 billion year lifespan I believe this to be further evidence that your theory is wrong.

These are just my considerations and I hope that this helps anyone who reads this site not become convinced by these ideas as I (a senior physics major) almost was as they are quite convincing and well-formed. Any comments are welcome and I sincerely do hope for a rebuttal.

Like

• drgsrinivas  On August 24, 2018 at 11:31 am

Dear student
Please keep aside your religious assumptions and also what your science prophets think they have observed. Just make a ball spin inside a pond and you would see it ‘attracting’ objects in its vicinity, you would see that ‘attraction’ force both at the equator and also at the poles. Try to explain to yourself how and why it happens, then you would understand about gravity. You wouldn’t get that even if I explain it to you. Spoon feeding doesn’t always help!

Like

• drgsrinivas  On June 21, 2018 at 2:30 pm

Hello A_Concerned_Student
Welcome to the blog.
Your comments went into spam folder. I don’t know why, may be because they are long.
Thank you for your well thought out criticism. I will surely clarify your queries when I get some time.
Basically it is not that easy for physics majors to come to terms with truth despite one’s genuine interest and whole hearted attempts. The reason is that, by the time one becomes a physics major, one is taken too far away from truth.

Can I ask you to clarify why you think pressure is not a vector, in simple layman’s terms. I know it is not a vector according to your books. But I am sure you realize that we don’t blindly go by those books here. Thank you!

Like

• A_Concerned_Student  On June 21, 2018 at 9:23 pm

Hello Dr.G,

I do appreciate you getting back to me and am glad to hear that it was a genuine mistake that my comments were sent to spam. The reason I say that pressure is not a vector can be seen clearly in a very simple example.

Imagine we have a rectangular box with some air in it. Now imagine that by some method (how doesn’t really matter at this point) that all the air particles ended up bunched together in small rectangular section of the middle of the box. I would attach a picture if I could but the picture would look a lot like your figure showing why the pressure would be reduced when the air is flowing horizontally through the box, except with sides on the box and no flow with no particles near the sides of the box. Clearly, since all the particles are concentrated near the central strip of the box there is a high pressure in this area and low pressure near either side of the box.

Now the question becomes, which way do the particles in the center of the box go? Anyone who has seen this site would say that the particles move from high to low pressure but there is two different directions that they could go to get to low pressure. Since a vector has both a strength and a direction this simple example shows why pressure cannot be a vector. Since in the center of this box the pressure vector would need to point in opposite directions at the same time to denote which ways the particles could go. On top of this example there is also the issue of how long (strong) the vector would be. At the center of the box there would be a high pressure and there would be a slightly lower pressure slightly off center. Therefore we could draw a fairly small vector to show this, but we could also draw a larger vector going from the center to the sides of the box where there are no air particles and a very low pressure. Since vectors have a definite length and direction, and in this (and many more) example(s) we cannot with certainty say which direction the vector is in nor how long the vector is, we must conclude that pressure is not a vector. Changes in pressures between regions however result in a relative strength and give a sense of which directions the air particles will move, which can act very much like a vector does.

Like

• King  On June 21, 2018 at 11:26 pm

Pple keep bringing the issue of testing the theories of relativity etc when it is clear that drgsrinivas has a THEORETICAL dispute rather than an empirical one! This clearly show that these mainstream advocates are not very smart! If I may put it succintly, Drg is questioning (putting it in my own words):

1.)Do the aleged tests ACTUALY test the petinent theory? Drg correctly note that in all Theories, we say if A is true, B is true. We have tested and confirmed B. However, claiming that thus A is true is a nonsequitur logic. In Drg’s words, ‘no experiment proves a theory straight away’

2.)Is Occum’s Razor use properly? It make no sense to say that predictions prove a theory since there are myriads of theories that make similar predictions! This is essentialy the lesson here. It is irrelevant that QM predict interferance patterns by supposing that a single particle somehow pass through two slits. We can also predict it by supposing that particles create ripples as they move!

Liked by 1 person

• A_Concerned_Student  On June 22, 2018 at 11:44 am

King,

Your first point is true entirely. A theory can NEVER be proven to be true, only proven false. If as in your point we call the theory “A” and something the theory predicts “B” then showing that B is true does not mean A is. However if B was shown to be false then A must be false. The purpose of bringing up tests of relativity is simply for this reason. Relativity makes a lot of predictions (B’s, C’s, etc.) all of which if they were not found empirically would mean that relativity is not right. Since all of relativity’s predictions have been observed empirically (or at least not shown false) then we have not disproved it and added more evidence that it may be correct or at the very least a good approximation of what is actually happening.

In your second point you admit Occam’s Razor. The Razor is a sometimes useful tool to remind scientists not to go crazy and make up ridiculous theories when there are simpler ways to go about it. There are indeed tons of theories that predict the same outcome of any one experiment, but fail in predicting all the experiments that have been done. The reason QM is as complicated as it is comes about from the Razor (albeit secondhand). Scientists started with simple explanations to explain why nature does what it does and correctly explained some experiments but not all. So in order to explain more of what they saw, they made their theory more complex. This continued throughout history, throwing away theories that were proven wrong or adjusting them until a new experiment came along that proved them wrong until we reached QM. At some point, no doubt, an experiment will come along showing it is wrong too and it will be adjusted or thrown away completely for a theory which better fits what experiments show. This theory however will more than likely be as complicated, if not more so than QM is currently in order to explain more than QM does.

Like

• King  On June 21, 2018 at 11:47 pm

Anyway let me still debunk the claims conserning ‘tests’. The ‘student’ wants us to beleive that the modern mainstream phyc theories were significantly disliked and only embraced after they passed lots of tests. By this, he insinuates that mainstream scientists aren’t ordinary humans who are ameanable to confirmational bias!

Let me debunk the nonsense. In 1919, Einstein became an overnight celebrity! If science was done the way it is advertised, this should not have happened. We know that whenever an aleged observation goes against mainstream theories, the observer stands a chance of losing his job (Alton Harp). Furthermore, an observation during an eclipse requires independent verification. If mainstream phyc wasn’t biased, then why hasn’t Maurice Allais similarly hit headlines when he claimed to observe anomaly during an eclipse?? If they hated GR like they do, ‘theories that agree with Allais effect’, then Einstein and Eddington could have gone just like Allais: into obscurity for 50 years.

Like

• A_Concerned_Student  On June 22, 2018 at 12:05 pm

King,

I now see that you have commented several times on my post and thank you for taking the time. I am indeed a student so the quotations are unnecessary, if I were simply looking to sound more credible I would claim to be a professor or researcher of some kind instead of just a student. As for your comment, some mainstream scientists are definitely subject to confirmation bias. Scientists often choose to research the theories they are interested in or like, but this also leads many to be defensive of the theories they choose. As such, when new theories come along that threaten their own, they go out of their way to try and destroy the new theory, This was very much the case with relativity and QM. Scientists very much loved their neat and tidy classical theory of the world and when these new non-classical theories came along threatening that they were far from happy about it.

As for Einstein’s “overnight success”. As far as I know it is true that by 1919 Einstein was a well-known figure in the scientific community, however he originally published his theory of special relativity in 1905! He then went on to publish general relativity in 1915 leaving 14 years for tests of special relativity to take place and 4 more for GR before he was this well-known. So I feel it is safe to say that Einstein was far from an “overnight success”.

For this last little bit please note that I know very little of Allais’ work on the eclipse anomaly that is named after him. From what I am aware the reason Allais has faded into relative obscurity and is not taught in any form throughout schooling is due to the lack of reproducible effects. Many teams of researchers have attempted to observe the Allais effect with varying success. Some have found large anomalies, some small, and still others have found absolutely no observable anomaly. Since we cannot say that a phenomenon is occurring with certainty if we can’t reliably have it happen in a controlled experimental setting, it remains a “claimed” effect. This is likely why Allais did not become “very” famous (he did win a Nobel prize in economics), because his anomaly could possibly be due to experimental error or some other phenomena interfering with the experiment. Please note that I am not saying that it isn’t a real effect, just that it could be caused by something other than eclipses and that is why we can’t make it happen every time we try.

Like

• King  On June 22, 2018 at 12:15 am

In early 1930s, it was observed that the way galaxies spin cannot be explained by GR! This was barely 15 years after the concoction of GR. If, like the ‘student’ want us to beleive, scientists hated GR and wanted to disprove it, this should have been an exellent opportunity!! Instead, they invented an invisible kinda ‘dark matter’ as an ad hoc!!

In 1920s and 30s, we also know that mainstream physicists e.g. Paul Dirac were thoroughly working on relativity. If this theory was hated by majority of scientists, we know what should have happened: working on it would endanger careers!! We know that Diracs Theory made incorect predictions with regard to g-factor, etc. If mainstream physicist were looking for ways to falsify QM and relativity, again this was an oportunity! Instead, they invented Quantum Field Theory.

Again, QFT hits a wall by yielding infinities. This should have meant that QM is incompartible with SR. But again, they invented blatant ad-ocs such as renormalizations!

Like

• A_Concerned_Student  On June 22, 2018 at 12:26 pm

As I put in my reply to your first post the process of obtaining newer and better theories relies on modifying already successful ones. The spins of galaxies showed that GR wasn’t working in its current form, this is true. But it worked very nicely if we assumed there was more matter in the galaxies then we could see by ~70%, then all the predictions worked really well. Thus they began looking for whether this “dark” (can’t be seen) matter existed and what it could be. Therefore it shows that GR wasn’t wrong but rather predicted the existence of an entirely new form of matter that we couldn’t see! Now I know that you’re going to say that we haven’t “proved” it exists and I say how can we? If the supposed matter doesn’t “react” (layman’s terms) with light but only through gravity, and we see it interacting with gravity causing this anomalous spin in galaxies, then we’ve seen all we can to say that it’s there! Yes this does feel very ad hoc and sketchy but it makes very accurate predictions which allows us to better predict and understand what happens in the universe around us, and ultimately that is the purpose of science.

Dirac’s relativistic theory is in fact QFT, he never made a “relativity” of his own but rather pioneered combining QM with relativity to make QFT. Since both theories are so successful in describing things separately the next logical step is to combine them and that’s what he did. Since they were founded separately the math used in each wasn’t initially easy to reconcile. e.g. Consider Leibniz and Newton both making calculus from two entirely different methods and the completely unrelated notation they are combined under nowadays. Renormalizations are a completely mathematical thing which mathematicians do frequently and is perfectly valid, and applying this to physics does make it more abstract but it works very well to make QM and SR work under a single notation. Infinities are special in the sense that getting them doesn’t necessarily mean what you are doing is wrong but rather the way you are going about it is. Math becomes very abstract once you bring calculus into the picture and in many problems the slightest error in calculation or wrong approach to a problem can yield infinities. It doesn’t mean the problem is wrong or the math is wrong, it just means that you are doing something wrong using the math in that problem. Such was the case for QFT, when combining SR and QM we were doing the math wrong. By introducing renormalizations however, the infinities went away and SR and Qm combined nicely and gave good consistent predictions.

Like

• King  On June 22, 2018 at 12:32 am

But compare this with what mainstream truely dislikes. Consider the observation made by Alton Harp. If mainstream could be ‘forced’ by observation against what they like, then observation that quasars shows no time dillation should have forced them to rethink of Arps work. They don’t so they are realy not doing science!!

Consider the so called ‘axis of evil’. Why are they still seem to doubt?? Compare this to the ‘discovery’ of higgs. Why didn’t it waite for ‘independent confirmation’ like cold fussion? You see, when they see what they want, next year, you hear of nobel prizes. But some observations must waite for confirmations, then wait, then wait,…

Consider dark matter. Why are they still searching for it? Why didn’t they dismiss it based on a single experiment that failed to detect it, like they did, luminiferous aether??

Like

• A_Concerned_Student  On June 22, 2018 at 12:54 pm

As for this final comment of yours, I am afraid that I do not know who Alton Harp is nor what he has done. If you would be so kind as to enlighten me then I could give my thoughts. As for the other suggestions I will try and each fairly quickly but I want to explain each as best as I can as well.

The observation that quasars show no time dilation is a mystery. There are a myriad of reasons why this could be and many possible explanations have been put forth. Until we have more experiments to show whether any of these are correct and if quasars truly have no time dilation then there is no reason to throw out a theory which works so well in so many cases. Much like how we still use classical mechanics when considering how a ball flies instead of the full GR calculation, we didn’t throw out CM but simply realized that we need something more accurate in certain cases.

The “axis of evil” is a political term coined by George W. Bush regarding governments that allegedly supported terrorism at the time and I feel that this has no place in the current topic as it is not science related nor do I feel that I know enough about the topic to properly discuss it.

The discovery of the Higgs did not wait for independent confirmation because it isn’t reasonable to ask, and because of the strong confidence of the result. To discover the Higgs, 22 countries had to come together to establish the world’s largest particle accelerator and spend roughly 40 years to find it. It is unlikely that any one person or even large team of universities could ever imagine doing this themselves and as such it is unlikely that anyone could ever independently confirm it. The main reason it wasn’t independently confirmed though was because of it’s 5 sigma confidence. 5 sigma means that they are 99.99994% confident they saw the Higgs. That means that only 1 in 3.5 million times would they be wrong. Since they are a team of 22 countries of the world’s top researchers working together and they’re that sure they saw it, then independent confirmation doesn’t add any significant amount more confidence. So it wasn’t “required”. As for cold fusion, anytime anyone says they’ve done it they’ve quickly corrected themselves and said it was a mistake. This combined with the fact that so many countries are working on it independently means that if one of them can do it, so could another likely. As such, independent confirmation is reasonably possible and so we require it to confirm cold fusion.

Finally, the aether. While much of the scientific community does not believe in it, some are still believers (a professor of mine is actually). It is worth saying that a lot of experiments have found evidence that there is no aether, the Michelson-Morley was just the nail in the coffin. At that it only showed that there was no significant movement in the aether. All our theories on light actually don’t require an aether to completely describe everything we see it do and as such we appeal to Occam’s Razor. If we don’t need it, then why add it? There are many theories which require one and assume it exists, however the mainstream theories don’t need it so they say it doesn’t exist. It may very well exist, and if it had a noticeable effect on anything we’ve observed so far then it would be apart of our current theories. Maybe one day it will be useful in describing why something happens, then it will be brought back. Maybe not.

Like

• King  On June 23, 2018 at 3:25 pm

A concerned student,

Thanks for those good replies. You have addressed some things very well, but there is still several things that I find them unsatisfying.

EINSTEIN VS ALLAIS

My main point is not to say ‘Allais is true’. It is to say that:

1.)An anouncement of a 1954 gravity anomaly at then would just be same as an anouncement of a 1919 gravity anomally in that both require independent confirmation.
2.)The 1919 anomally made Einstein an overnight GLOBAL celebrity (not a celebrity in a German scientific community) but the 1954 didn’t create any sensation.
3.)Therefore it is evident that scientists were especting to confirm Einstein, contrary to what you said, that they were eager to falsify it.

Like

• A_Concerned_Student  On June 23, 2018 at 9:05 pm

King,

I see your point now regarding the 1919 eclipse. I think the main difference in the two cases comes from the nature of the two examples. Namely, that the 1919 eclipse aimed to see which of two theories is better (Newton or Einstein), and that the 1954 eclipse anomaly was not expected but rather Allais coming out and saying he saw something weird. In the case of the 1919 eclipse, researchers went in looking to see if the results agreed with Newton or Einstein and as such the media was aware of their intentions and the impact that the experiment had for the direction of physics. As such, when Eddington et al. released their findings that November the media was probably looking forward to it, as once again it is a big story. It is also worth noting that Eddington did have multiple teams in different locations around the Earth to observe the eclipse, not just a single guy with a telescope which lends to the credibility of his result. In the case of Allais in 1954 however, there was no build-up before the observation to receive the medias attention. He came out afterwards saying he saw something that was weird.

``````Now I ask you King, if you were a journalist looking to publish a story that'll sell newspapers and you had to choose between the two stories, which would you choose? The one of testing which theory is right, the well-known Newtonian theory or the up-and-coming relativity of Einstein and the impact this has on science? Or rather would you choose the story of an economist who made an observation that pendulums behave weirdly during an eclipse? I posit that it is the media who ultimately made Einstein a celebrity and Allais an unknown name. The desire for the media to put out sensationalist stories that are revolutionary leads them to put forth more stories like EInstein's before independent confirmation and more accurate analysis can be performed. So I believe that it is not science who is at fault for the Einstein/Allais case but rather how the media decides to report science. But that is just my opinion, it could very well be wrong.
``````

I also do want to say that Eddington was a strong supporter of relativity. Much of the dislike that I mentioned in my original post towards relativity was towards special relativity when it first came out in 1905 and by 1919 many scientists had already come around to the theory. As such it is possible that Eddington was biased, and there are many articles discussing such possibilities elsewhere. I’m afraid that I don’t know much as to the specifics of this example that I can not defend nor refute Eddington’s results and as such I will not further comment on whether or not he was biased. I have said all I can about it already and would like to leave it there.

Like

• King  On June 23, 2018 at 3:57 pm

DETECTING AETHER

you said that MM experiment was the last amongst many experiments that failed to detect aether. However, it is exactly the opposit! Starlight aberation, Young’s slit experiment and Fizeau Experiment had earlier on shown compelling evidences for aether! Latter, Sagnac’s experiment, Dayton’s experiment etc showed evidence of aether. Also if there is a problem with detecting variation in speed of light is a problem due to Lorentz’s Transforms, electrons too show wave phenomena and their speed is lesser than c so they don’t suffer the same problem as light. Or is the speed of electrons also invariant?

REPRODUCIBILITY OF EXPERIMENTS

You claim that Allais, effect is sometimes reproducable but sometimes not. But this is same in all experiments that involves small effects. That is why Hafele took 4 clocks on board. Sometimes the effect is reproduced, sometimes not, even in SR!

Like

• A_Concerned_Student  On June 23, 2018 at 9:16 pm

As for the first few experiments you mention, they did in fact give strong MOTIVATION for looking for an aether-dragging theory. However, any such theory that followed ran into its own issues, either contradicting its own assumptions or being disproved by experiment. As such, these theories were continually adjusted until they were eventually given up when relativity explained these experiments with less complex assumptions and a higher degree of accuracy. The Young’s double slit actually has no relevance to relativity and is instead handled by QM so I will disregard this one despite how an aether theory may play into it.

As for your question of the invariance of electron speed. This is a gross misunderstanding of the concept as very clearly electron speeds are not always the same. Electrons take very different speeds all the time and we see this daily. Therefore your comment regarding this is irrelevant to the topic at hand. Also the purpose of taking 4 clocks on board was for accuracy. Unlike as you claim that the effect is sometimes reproduced, in Hafele’s experiment all 4 clocks showed the effect, albeit not to the same exact extent each time. Thus the effect was reproduced each time, but not the exact same in each clock (minor differences).

Like

• King  On June 23, 2018 at 4:25 pm

RENORMALIZATION

‘student’ said that ‘renormalization’ is a problem not with the theory but with how we do calculations in it. True, but without the calculations the theory cannot predict anything! If there is a problem in how we predict (through calculation), then there is a problem in the aleged ‘confirmations’.

This is the case!! Through ‘renormalization’, a mathphysicist ‘exchanges the hats and pulls out the rabbit’!! If we are testing a theory which allgedly claim if A is true, then B is true, we gotta first be sure that indead B follows logically from A. We are not allow to say that ‘if there is a Santa, then there will be an eclipse today’. Such is the problem! the ‘non regularized theory’ is theory X. The ‘regularized theory’ is theory Y!

We are told that the lagrangian, which was deduced using tenets of relativity (eg lorentz invariance) actualy was infinity , ie meaningless!! It is replaced by a ‘regularized’ one, which isn’t relativistic!

Like

• King  On June 23, 2018 at 4:51 pm

‘A concerned student’

As a quick example to illustrate the problem with ‘regularization’, consider how they ‘predict’ the Casimir effect. Now, if there is energy in ’empty space’, QM demands that it be quantized. Relativity, on the other hand, demands that there is no smallest wavelength! So we have to sum infinite frequencies. So it isn’t a problem with ‘how we calculate’. It is the theories that demand so!!

If we introduce the ‘smallest cuttoff wavelength’, that theory won’t be relativistic in that I can ask: ‘relative to whon is that length’. Like fools, they go ahead anyway and introduce such concepts as ‘planck’s length’.

The quantum mechanistic equation (as taught by Planck) should add energies as hf+2hf+3hf+…but this is infinity! So they ‘regularize’ by multiplying each term by a continuous function. But then in what sence is energy still quantized? Or rather, why should we insist that the theory is using a constant such as h at all?

Like

• A_Concerned_Student  On June 23, 2018 at 10:03 pm

King,

I admit I know little regarding regularization aside from that it is the process of adding additional information to assist in answering a ill-posed question. However your description of why the theories are the issue is again a misunderstanding. Let me show this by emphasizing that QM does not require that energy is quantized. Energy is only quantized when it is bound to something such as an electron in a bound orbit or a photon with a specific frequency. As such any energy is allowed in empty space so your issue with how relativity and QM relate in this example is non-existent. I also would like to point out that planck length is the theorized length at which we would need a working theory of quantum gravity to make predictions, as such it has nothing to do with relativity in this sense. The smallest cut-off wavelength would be relative to whomever is applying the cut-off as it is they that are looking into its effects. Applying a cut-off of any kind is used to see what effects what you are looking at has in this range, as such it must be relative to you as you are imposing the constraint of the cut-off. Ultimately regularization is not a problem in reconciling the two theories, but you have been lead to conclude it is by a misunderstanding of what QM and relativity actually entail.

Like

• King  On June 23, 2018 at 5:11 pm

But the problem with lagrangian is even worse. I hereby clarify.

The lagrangian defines the ‘laws’ in the theory. So we arive at the lagrangian using the tenets such as ‘conservation of energy’ (gauge invariance), Lorentz invariance etc.

The snake oil peddler of modern phyc goes ahead and introduces a gauge invariant and a lorentz invariant lagrangian and calls it, for instance, QED. So we have, he says, a theory which adheres to relativity etc.

So far so good. But now lets ‘predict’. Lo! He now says the parameters appearing in the lagrangian were infinity! (an infinit lagrangian can be any theory, ‘turned to infinity’, from Newt to santa). He introduces a ‘renormalized langrangian’ which doesn’t give a shit about the former invariances! He now says this is the definition of the theory!! He predict using this new theory and claims that this confirms relativity and QM!!

Like

• A_Concerned_Student  On June 23, 2018 at 10:13 pm

This comment you have made here is a real mess but I will try and address it the best I can. Firstly, a Lagrangian does not define any laws in a theory but merely is used to determine what a system will do in a given problem and how it will evolve over time. This Lagrangian may come from arguments of gauge or Lorentz invariance or may be derived by other means (conservation of energy, momentum, etc.). The renormalized Lagrangian will be introduced if the theory that it is being applied to is non-linear as that is where renormalization generally comes into play. Renormalization, I emphasize, is a tool. If we have issue with certain problems yielding difficulties, we can sometimes use renormalization to make sense of it. Nowhere, does this renormalized Lagrangian define any theory but once again just determines how a system will evolve over time, and a renormalization of a Lagrangian will still maintain any invariances the original had but it is rather the constraint of the cut-off that is chosen that will break these invariances since you are limiting what behaviors you are interested in.

Like

• King  On June 24, 2018 at 10:08 am

A Concerned Student

You said that QM doesn’t demand that energy be always quantized. This is true, but you did not understand my argument cause it was too breif. In this particular case of Casimir effect, where we are dealing with STANDING WAVES in a cavity, it does require that we quantize energy. My argument does not claim that in QM, energy is ALWAYS quantized. So in some way, you did a straw man’s attack.

So Let me explain the issue more. When we are constracting a quantum field theory, i.e ‘doing second quantization’, we consider standing waves (i.e quantum harmonic oscillators). In a classic theory, the AMPLITUDE of the energy of the standing waves varies continuously. All we do is drop this ‘continuous applitudes’ and replace them with creation and anihillation operators. These operators creats / anihilates energy in quanta, i.e in interger multiples of hf. So in QFT, the relevant case in Casimir, energy absolutely need to be quantized!

Like

• King  On June 24, 2018 at 10:28 am

A concerned student

Let me even explain it further so you may see that you are mistaken! When forming a quantum field theory, like I said, we replace the classic, continuos amplitude with a quantum, ‘creation and anihilation operators’ which adds/ removes energy in quanta. Relativity, on the other hand, demands that we add waves of all frequencies!

If, like you say, QM simply doesn’t demand that we quantize energy, then you should easily see that the problem with infinities would never arise at all! All we will have to do is choose the amplitudes of the standing waves such that they diminish continuosly with increasing frequency, as a INNITIAL/ BOUNDARY CONDITION of the theory. In other words, classic theory allows us to simply pick an appropriate, convergent, fourier series of the solutions. That is why infinity issues don’t arise in CM. Ergo, the demand for quantization of energies is the cause for infinities issues. Solving it by denying the former is contradictory!

So a ariving at hamiltoni

Like

• A_Concerned_Student  On June 25, 2018 at 9:29 am

King,

I see now what you are going after in your argument. Yes in the case of the Casimir effect specifically, the amplitudes of the standing waves must be quantized, and for my confusion I apologize. But also in the specific case of the Casimir effect, while the sum of these amplitudes does tend to infinity which seems problematic as it leads to an infinite vacuum energy between the plates, it is the difference in energies which manifests as the Casimir effect. Thus the infinites inside and outside the plates cancel out in the theory yielding the effect. An unsatisfying statement without the actual mathematics to back it up surely, but ultimately it is what is accepted and the best I can do in this setting.

Like

• King  On June 24, 2018 at 11:04 am

Student,

You take reg/renorm issue lightly cause you din’t understand my point! It isn’t even so much about quantization of energy. The main point in my argument would still apply even if energy needed not be quantized in the issue (but it does). Here it goes:

1.)If we are predicting (making claim B )from theory A, the statement B must be a purely logical consiquence of statement A. In other words, if claim A (the theory and boundary/innitial conditions) is a mathematical statement, we must arive at a claim B ONLY by a purely mathematical proceedure that doesn’t add in stuffs from nowhere into the equations.

2.)Regularization does add in stuffs to the equations in the mid way (which weren’t included in the postulates of the theory). For example ‘fractional dimensions’. ‘fictitious heavy mass’, in the case of casimir, we introduce an exponential fact which isn’t a solution of any equation.
2.)Therefore a prediction B, arrived at by regularization is NOT a logical consequence of theory A.

Like

• A_Concerned_Student  On June 25, 2018 at 9:40 am

As for this comment, I agree. Regularization is adding in already known information obtained by other means that were not supposed in the initial theory/problem and as such any predictions made by a theory which has been regularized may not be logically sound. I say that it may not because this depends on the specific cases. Much of the time regularization is a tool to solve a problem that is not well stated or to prevent overfitting data. As such it is applied after a theory has already made it’s predictions and as such will not effect the logical status of any causal relationship between the theory and its predictions. Sometimes it may however effect the logical status, if the information added is not correct or changes the initial theory in some way such as supposing fractional dimensions changes the initial assumption of GR that spacetime is 4-dimensional (an example I just made-up). If this does occur then yes a prediction is not a logical consequence of the theory and if you can find an example of this then by all means tear it apart, I’m sure it does happen as some researchers can be quite sloppy with making assumptions and later breaking them unknowingly.

Like

• King  On June 24, 2018 at 11:31 am

LAGRANGIAN

The ‘student’ says that a lagrangian doesn’t define any laws of the theory but merely say how the system evolve with time!!

This is amusing! He is confusing LAGRANGIAN with HAMILTONIAN! (But the student isn’t that bad anyway, he can learn.;))

Lagrangian is the laws of a theory expressed in different mathematical formalism. Specifically we define the Laws by optimizing the lagrangian, or by the principle of least action. Einstein-Hilbert Action IS Einstein’s Field equation! GR fails as a quantum field because this Lagrangian isn’t renormalizable. In other words mere failure of the lagrangian of GR means failure of GR, because GR is COMPLETLY defined by its lagrangian! How can you fail to know this???

Like

• A_Concerned_Student  On June 25, 2018 at 9:53 am

King,

I have not confused the Lagrangian with the Hamiltonian. In fact they both describe the time evolution of a system and are directly related by the fact that they are Legendre transforms of one another. While the Hamiltonian is a more direct way of obtaining the time evolution, the Lagrangian is equally as capable and provides more insight into the symmetries of the system at hand. Also please note that the Lagrangian is actually used along with the principle of least action and it is the action that is optimized to obtain the time evolution of the system. Once again, the Lagrangian does not define any laws of the system, but is merely used to obtain the time evolution of the system and gain some insight into the symmetries involved. The Lagrangian is central to GR in that it is used to obtain time evolutions of systems as in any other mechanics it is used in, not to define the mechanics. This is not a misconception by myself as you say but rather one by yourself. You seem to have confused the theories themselves with a recurring central calculation tool in those theories.

Like

• King  On June 24, 2018 at 12:10 pm

So now that you understand that lagrangian IS the theory, let me now hope that the student will now get concerned with the trouble with mainstream! If you are a true scientist, you must be critical to everyone, not just to those ‘outside mainstream’. In true search for knowledge, there is no provision that we pat the back of mainstream and critisize everyone else! If anyone can go wrong, why not mainstream??

The ‘student’ say ‘the invariances of the original lagrangian still apply’ halo! The original lagrangian is now infinity! What sense does it make to say that an infinite lagrangian is invariant? An infinit number is anything!

The lagrangian defines a theory, and in QFT, the original, invariant lagrangian is declared ‘unphysical’, bare one. So of course if the lorentz invariant lagrangian is ‘unphysical’ the Lorentz invariant theory flashes down the toilet, hence relativity goes the way of ‘aether’,! What is physical is the EFFECTIVE lagrangian which can be more reasonably seen as to describe AETHER!!

Like

• A_Concerned_Student  On June 25, 2018 at 10:14 am

I agree wholeheartedly that science must be critical of everyone. Please do not mistake my defense of the more mainstream theories as bias, I am simply trying to give reasons for why they do as they do and show that these are valid reasons. Nowhere do I say that mainstream is correct and everyone else is wrong. I originally came to this comments section because I found flaws with Dr.G’s theory and wanted to address them. Had this been a GR topic and I found issue with it I would have done the same. Criticism of everyone is a cornerstone of progress in science and as such should be applied to the mainstream and non-mainstream alike.

In regards to your issue with an infinite Lagrangian. The key takeaway here is that, while the Lagrangian may have units of energy, it has NO PHYSICAL INTERPRETATION. There is no object/quantity in the universe which is a Lagrangian, like there is one that is energy or momentum. It cannot be observed as it is not a physical object/quantity. As such there is no issue with it being infinite as it is only observable which need by finite. The Lagrangian in QFT depends on the erngy scale of the theory and can however be used to determine the masses of particles, couplings, etc. As such it is once again a tool. The effective Lagrangian also has no physical significance of any kind. It is just a specific type of renormalized Lagrangian which also depends on the cutoff as well as the energy scale like the bare Lagrangian. Once again, neither the bare nor the effective Lagrangian hold any physical significance at all. They are tools to determine parameters of the system in QFT.

Like

• King  On June 24, 2018 at 12:35 pm

PlANCK’S LENGTH

The ‘student’ says that the Planck’s Length will be relative to whomever is applying the cuttoff.

This is funny! The Planck’s length is given by lp=(hG/c^3)^(1/2). The right hand side are UNIVERSAL CONSTANTS, not relativistic values! Neither h, G nor c depends on frame of rifference because they define various ‘laws of physics’ which, according to relativity, must be the same in all frames. Ergo expressing a ‘length’ this way means that this length doesn’t depend on ‘whomever’. It is a CONSTANT!

The student don’t quickly get this cause he dismises the relevance of electron waves in aether issue! Its relevant because if there are other waves travelling less than c, then we might as well use measurements of this speeds to determin an appropriate aether rather than use light waves.

Relativist knows this and he opts to solve this by demanding that electrons move in all manner of velocities (hence all manner of debroglie wavelengths)

Like

• A_Concerned_Student  On June 25, 2018 at 10:20 am

Correct again King, Planck’s length is defined in terms of universal constants. Since length is relative however, not everyone will measure the same length if they are in different reference frames. I may measure 2 meters and you may only measure 1. Thus, while Planck’s length is defined in terms of universal constants, I may measure Planck’s length in my frame and you could measure the same distance as 2 Planck’s lengths. Thus frame does matter. Not because the constants change in different reference frames (the number will always be the same when you calculate it), but instead because length is relative and two people may measure the same object as having different lengths.

Like

• King  On June 24, 2018 at 1:11 pm

Now let me show the ‘student’ how ‘relativistic length’ variance with frames is realized in a quantum field theory. It is simply that a certain wavelength varies depending on who is measuring. It is the case that whenever a wavelength ‘contract’ relativistically, a wavelength that was longer by the same factor will be ‘seen’ to replace the contracted one and so the ‘vacuum’ remain as it were. If this wasn’t the case, the contracted wavelength would indicate who is moving. I.e one would measure ‘ABSOLUTE MOTION’ through the vacuum by measuring debronglie wavelength of the wave he is moving throug, reintroducing aether!

But you should be able to see that if the set of harmonic waves in vacuum is FINIT (such as when we introduc a cuttoff), then ’empty space’ woun’t look symmetrical to all observers. It is this demand that waves should be infinite that yields infinities in QFT. So renormalization is NOT ‘just a math proceedure’. It involves introduction of unjustifiable tenets!!

Like

• A_Concerned_Student  On June 25, 2018 at 10:28 am

Having briefly considered this comment I tentatively agree. Your argument seems to be sound for why the number of harmonics must be infinite as otherwise it seems as though you could use this to determine who is moving. However this isn’t an issue in QFT. Summing an infinite number of wave amplitudes does not necessarily yield an infinite value as long as the amplitudes decay sufficiently (as you pointed out in an earlier comment). Furthermore, you’re argument for why there must be infinite harmonics was purely logical, it never used renormalization and still achieved infinite harmonics (which still isn’t an issue). So I find it difficult to see how you claim renormalization introduces unjustifiable tenets (I believe infinite harmonics was this tenet) when you derived this tenet solely with logic and never used renormalization.

Like

• King  On June 24, 2018 at 1:27 pm

EINSTEIN VS ALLAIS

The ‘student’ says that the reason the 1919 experiment created a sensation than the 1954 one was because the former was an attempt to check what theory was correct, which was known prior that experiment. So he blames JOURNALISTS, not SCIENTISTS. But SCIENTIFIC JOURNALISM is done by scientists.

But it doesn’t change my point, which was that scientists were especting to falsify Newt and in Allais case, they weren’t especting to falsify anything. The mere fact that it was popular prio to 1919 mean that scientists had already entertained the idea of replacing Newt. Of course they were not ‘just eager to falsify GR’ like ‘student’ claimed. If they were, they would not entertained invention of alternatives from within mainstream. Gr was just like SUSY now or String theory, i.e a mainstream theory. Non mainstream theories are aproached in a dismisive attitude. They can, for instance us only ONE experiment like in MM!

Like

• A_Concerned_Student  On June 25, 2018 at 10:43 am

I’m sorry if it came across as though I blame journalism for Allais’ dismissal. I do believe they have a strong role in what science gets to much of society but it is not ultimately their fault. Scientific journalism is far from done by scientists however. Buzzfeed for example is full of articles sensationalizing recent science, as are many other newspapers and news sites around the world and I guarantee you that these are not all (or even mostly) written by scientists.

Back to the main topic though, and here I say that they weren’t expecting to falsify Newton. They knew that only one of either Newton or Einstein (or neither) could be correct and it just so happened that Newton turned out to be shown wrong. Even afterward many scientists continued to dismiss Einstein and looked for alternative classical theories to relativity (and some continue to this day). Many modified Newtonian theories exist nowadays which build off Newton and try to maintain the classical view of nature but these are not the mainstream view obviously. There is nothing wrong with being a mainstream or non-mainstream theory in general, provided that you can experimentally determine things. If experiment shows that you are wrong, then you’re wrong. If it shows that you’re right, you can keep being a theory and go onto the next batch of tests. If you’re non-mainstream there may or may not be a dismissive attitude towards your theory, but this doesn’t matter if you’re right! If so then no experiment will show that you’re wrong and you will continue to gain popularity as you continually be right! But if you’re wrong then the theorists working on the theory need to either adjust it or possibly give it up. While the popularity of your theory may determine how many perceive the theory, ultimately it is how effective the theory is that determines who is right. Not whether it’s liked initially.

Like

• King  On June 24, 2018 at 1:41 pm

HAFELE EXPERIMENT

The ‘student’ claim that all the clocks reproduced the effect. But some pple say some didn’t! And this highlight some problems with ‘student’. He was neither there with Hafele nor was he there with Allais. In both cases, he relies on CLAIMS. However, he choses to say that the mainstream claim is always correct. But mainstream’s integrity is part of what we are questioning here. Ergo, a blind apeal to this authority is moot.

Allais and others claimed that the effect is reproducable. The mainstream say Hafele effect is reproducable. If we are true scientists, we should suspend the issue until we device our on experiment and arrive at our own conclusion irespective of concensus! that is what true science is. There is no provision that a body as ‘mainstream’ must accept it. Infact there is no ‘mainstream’ at all in the definition of ‘science’ We use our own eyes!

Like

• A_Concerned_Student  On June 25, 2018 at 10:49 am

King you are correct once again! I rely on claims in my argument because of your reliance on claims. You claimed that Hafele’s clocks weren’t all the same and you weren’t there. Now you appeal to the claims of other people who weren’t there that they weren’t the same. So, since you may appeal to claims, so do I. I appealed to the claim made by the experimenter (who WAS there) and those with him who verified that he was not lying that they were the same. Now ultimately this is still an appeal to claims, and isn’t conclusive, but since we aren’t capable of meeting up together and performing the experiment (as if I or you did it alone the other would say that you could just be claiming it did one or the other) this is the best either of us can do. And if that’s not good enough then the debate is moot itself. Sure we must not blindly accept what anyone says, but in this debate we have to appeal to something, and ultimately the appeal to someone who was there seems like stronger evidence than the claims of others who weren’t. But that is up to personal opinion…

Like

• King  On June 24, 2018 at 2:23 pm

EARLIER AETHER EXPERIMENTS:

The ‘student’ claims that all earlier ‘aether drag’ theories faced problems. No! MM was the only experiment that paused serious problems with aether cause all the other experiments were reasonably consistent with a partialy draged either. So my point stand: scientists USED ONLY ONE experiment to dismiss the whole aether theory, not many experiments like ‘student’ claims.

The ‘student’ dismisses the relevance of Young’s Slit Experiment in providing evidence for aether!!! Of course he assumes SR in this, which makes the silly claim that waves can propagate without a medium. However, we are questioning SR here, we are not assuming it. That argument is like saying that Lorentz could explain Lorentz transforms without SR, therefore SR is irrelevant to aether issue.

Like

• A_Concerned_Student  On June 25, 2018 at 11:10 am

MM was an experiment which posed issues for partial aether dragging yes but many of the theories involving aether dragging (partial or full) faced issues with self-consistency. They would make assumptions and then break them later to solve some other problem. Now, not all of them may have been like this, but it did happen with some for sure. Complete dragging had many experiments which showed issue with the theory (stellar aberration, Fizeau experiment, etc.), but for partial aether dragging there was also the Trouton-Noble experiment as well as partial aether dragging’s issue of aether and matter having different relative velocities for different colors of light. So it was not just one experiment but rather several issues.

I dismissed the double slit experiment as evidence for the aether yes, but not because of SR. I disregarded it specifically because it doesn’t have anything to do with SR, which we were debating at the time, but rather is handled by QM. I felt it was off-topic so i disregarded it. Nowhere did I claim that SR was the reason for doing so and so I apologize if it came across that way. Also SR does not claim that waves can propagate without a medium, in fact classical EM claims this (and gives compelling evidence as to how) which came about before relativity was proposed. As for if the double slit is EVIDENCE for the aether, no it is not. Theories exist where the double slit can be explained by an “aether” yes but that is not evidence for one. I can explain gravity in terms of chicken eggs but that does not mean that is evidence for chicken eggs causing gravity! Please do pardon my exaggeration as it is used to prove a point, not to belittle your side of the argument. While an aether COULD explain the double slit, that does not make the double slit evidence for an aether. That seems like some circular logic to me personally. I actually am quite a fan of Bohm’s pilot wave theory which could be compatible with a medium similar to an aether but that does not provide evidence for one sadly.

Also I would like to add that if my comments come across at all offensive or dismissive that this is not the intention. It is very hard to convey tone over writing and I do think that you, King, are a quite well informed individual on the topics we are discussing. As such I thank you for taking the time to write these posts and hope you continue.

Like

• A_Concerned_Student  On June 25, 2018 at 11:24 am

Also, I feel it necessary to clarify my intentions of my very first comment where I briefly defended the mainstream theories. I feel this deserved its own reply to the original as it appears to have been interpreted as though I feel that the mainstream theories are always right and should be blindly followed, which is far from the case. My intention behind defending relativity and QM were simply to provide some sense of background as to why they are the currently accepted theories. If there were serious flaws with them that couldn’t be fixed, or even if a better alternative were available, they wouldn’t have become the mainstream theories. Had a better theory come along at some point which better agreed with experiment and made better predictions, they would have been replaced since the ultimate goal of science is to describe nature as accurately as we can. The scientific community wouldn’t deny their ultimate goal simply because they are accustomed to the current theories.

``````            If other theories were better, they'd be the mainstream ones.
``````

That was my intention. That was the intended takeaway from my first defense. They may not be perfect, and they may be replaced one day by a better theory but they are the best we have at the moment. That is all I wanted to add.

Like

• King  On June 25, 2018 at 6:29 pm

A concerned student

Thanks for those good replies. You seem to be now understanding much of what I say. We may not agree but that isn’t an issue, as long as we can UNDERSTAND each other.:) However, there are still few issue you haven’t gotten!

LAGRANGIAN
Lagrangian does define the laws of physics!! This should be the biggest lesson you will learn from me.:) if you will ever want to contribute to mathematical phyc, all you will ever need is brainstorm an appropriate lagrangian. Please mark my words! If you want to unify both GR and QFT, just write the correct lagrangian.

You said that minimizing the action gives the dynamics of the system!! This is not true! If you minimize the lagrangian for an oscillating spring what you get is the equation:

md^2x/dt^2=-kx

The left hand side is Newt’s law while the right is Hook’s law. So minimizing the lagrangian gives not the DYNAMICS but the LAWS governing the dynamics!!

Like

• King  On June 25, 2018 at 6:50 pm

‘student’
Likewise if you minimize an appropriate action (integral of lagrangian with time), you get Schrödinger equation (i.e the ‘law’ governing quantum mechanics). If you minimize EM action, you get Maxwell’s equations. If you minimize Einstein-Hilbert Action, you get Einstein’s Field equations. So the lagrangian does not give how a system evolves it spits the so called laws that governs the evolution. As you may know, to get the exact dynamics, we need additional information apart from the laws termed innitial and/or boundary conditions.

Since upon minimizing the action, we obtain the laws, we just cannot throw in any lagrangian (including infinite ones) claiming that ‘lagrangian isn’t observable after all’. If the laws of phyc must be Lorentz invariant, so must their lagrangians for the lagrangians are just a different mathematical way of stating those laws.

Like

• A_Concerned_Student  On June 25, 2018 at 10:36 pm

I now see the issue you are having concerning Lagrangians. You argue that the Lagrangian defines the laws of the system and in some sense I can see why you’d believe that. The Lagrangian is determined not by divine intervention or by being creative and picking one that works nicely as you seem to believe, but rather it has a rigorous mathematical definition. It is the difference between potential and kinetic energies of a system which defines a Lagrangian, from there minimizing the action results in the EQUATION OF MOTION of the system. An example of which is the spring equation you gave previously, and this equation of motion determines what state the system will be in at a given time. As such it completely describes the time evolution of a system and requires no inputs of the laws of a system. In a sense minimizing the action does result in “spitting out” some “laws” of the system such as conservation of momentum, but I do not believe these to be true laws (an example of which being Newton’s laws) so much as they are quantities which don’t change in a particular example. They are not always conserved in every system and are as such not a true law, I believe. These conservation laws do define what the system will do as they are a part of the time evolution of a system. In the example of the mass on a spring, while momentum may be conserved when the spring in oscillating back and forth, if you were to make the spring spin around it’s anchor point then momentum would not be conserved. As such this conservation “law” is not always true even for the same system. Thus the equation you stated earlier is only true in a specific case and as such I do not call it a law but rather just refer to it as an equation of motion or a time evolution.

Like

• King  On June 25, 2018 at 7:18 pm

CASIMIR EFFECT

It is more serious, my friend, it is more serious!! Now, we know one thing QM, via Heisenberg’s UP demands that there is a minimum amount of energy termed zero point energy given by E=hf/2. So if there is energy in ‘vacuum’, it must adhere to this.

We also know from math that if we have in infinit series, s=a0+a1+a2+,…,+an, for the series to converge, an must tend to zero as n tends to infinity. In other words if we are summing infinite series of energies then there mustn’t be a limit as to how small the energy can get! So it is quite easy to seen that the Heisenberg’s UP has a potential of yielding unsurmountable problems if it gives minimum energy that is greater than zero and yet we must sum infinite of them!

Now f ranges over all the harmonics so that total zero point energy must be E=1/2(hf+2hf+3hf+,…), which is infinity!! But solving this is, not just a matter of subtracting infinity from infinity. That is a meaningless math. And what, in the first place, is ‘negative energy’?

Like

• King  On June 25, 2018 at 7:42 pm

So since infinity-infinity=bullshit, they need to subtract two huge amount of energies, but not infinit amounts. The only way they have is to modify the series by multiplying each term by a factor that that makes the energies diminish smoothly as frequency increases and call this ‘regularization’. But this self defeats the Heisenberg’s UP!! Such a way of adding energies smoothly so that there isn’t any limmit as to how small they can get is a CLASSIC theory, not a quantum theory!! so indead ‘regularization’ is an exchange of huts and then pulling out the rabbit!

But I am sure that drgsrinivas is smilling if he get this math. There is a very simply way out if we think that there is a medium in vacuum and the waves are ACTUAL WAVES rather than these mathematical non entities of QM. Aether provides a natural cuttoff at the size of the individual aetheric molecules, which drgsrinivas calls them ‘photons’.

Like

• King  On June 25, 2018 at 8:23 pm

INFINITIES DUE TO HARMONICS IN QFT

The ‘student’ says that ‘infinities isn’t an issue as long as the harmonics sufficiently diminishes’. Like I have shown, it doesn’t diminish in QM because the lowest energy is never allowed to get to zero but to hf or something like that. The main idea of QFT was to remove the amplitude of a classic harmonic waves and to replace it with a creation/anihillation operator which adds/remove energy in quanta. In math, though, for an infinit series to converge (not to yield infinities), there should be no limit as to how small an amplitude can get. So QFT must have problems with infinities when we demand that we add harmonics of all frequencies as required by SR!

Yes, l can deduce this infinities logically. ‘Renormalization’ does not introduce infinities. It attempts to get rid of them. But this proceedure introduces unjustifiable tenets during regularization in that they modify the equation that had been earlier on shown to be Lorentz invariant etc.

Like

• A_Concerned_Student  On June 25, 2018 at 10:36 pm

In response to your remaining issue with vacuum energy, I see where you are misinterpreting my argument. The key issue is that it is not the energies of the harmonics that we are summing, but the amplitudes of the harmonics. The amplitude of the standing waves represents how much of a contribution that energy level has in the total energy. While the energies do start at hf/2 and continue upwards towards infinity, the amplitudes start at some fixed number (say around 50% of the total) and decrease rather quickly. While the vacuum energy level may have a strong contribution (the 50% again), the second energy level of 3hf/2 may only have a contribution of 30% and the remaining energy levels will continue to have less prevalence in the total. Thus adding the amplitudes does not tend to infinity but rather a fixed number. So while there may be infinite energy levels, the amount of energy present may not necessarily be infinite. My wording previously may have been confusing and have lead to this misconception.

Like

• King  On June 25, 2018 at 8:37 pm

PLANCK’S LENGTH

My original question was ‘relative to whom is planck’s length’. I did not ask about lengths in general. Since we have a length that is defined using UNIVERSAL CONSTANTS, such a length can’t be frame dependent, violating SR! I know the try to say ‘laws of phyc break down at planck’s length’, or ‘there is no length smaller than lp’. But these are just silly ad-ocs that could be easily solved by thinking in terms of aether in which cuttoff frequency isn’t an issue!

Like

• A_Concerned_Student  On June 25, 2018 at 10:43 pm

Once again, the number that you calculate that is the Planck length is not frame dependent. It’s a fixed number. So we do not have a length which is defined using universal constants, we have a number which is defined with them and can be APPLIED to a length. However, since length IS frame dependent, while I may measure a piece of wood as being a Planck length long, you may measure the wood as being 62 Planck lengths long. Thus, while the number is not frame dependent, what me measure objects as being is frame dependent, that’s where the relativity of the Planck length comes in. And once again, it’s not that there isn’t a smaller length than the Planck length, there is, it’s just that we need a working theory of quantum gravity to make any predictions about what happens at these lengths.

Like

• King  On June 25, 2018 at 8:55 pm

YOUNG SLIT EXPERIMENT AS EVIDENCE FOR AETHER

The student says that just because aether can be used to explain the experiment doesn’t mean the experiment constitute an evidence for aether. But if we use this logic, we can similarly dismiss all the so called evidences for all the mainstream! When we say hafele clock ticking is evidence for SR, we simply mean that the phenomenon can be explained by SR, nothing more!

The reason why we must regard young’s experiment as to have been evidence for aether is that the aether advocates at then (including young) had predicted so. If we reason having in mind modern view, this will be like saying that if in future, someone finds another explanation for hafele effect, then the effect is never an evidence for SR. What student is saying is that just cause someone can concoct another so called explanation for double slit experiment then the effect isn’t evidence for aether! However, same logic doesnt apply when someone offers an alternative explanation to mainstream theoris

Like

• A_Concerned_Student  On June 25, 2018 at 10:47 pm

I am sorry for the misconception here. I was mistaken in saying that this does not constitute evidence for the aether. I got wound up in my head at the time of posting and made a poor statement. If the aether theory can explain the double slit experiment, then fine, that does lend credence to the aether theory. I was mistaken and apologize.

Like

• King  On June 26, 2018 at 12:55 pm

A concerned student,

When quantizing Dirac Field to form a quantum field theory we do so just like in quantizing Electromagnetic field. In the latter, the square modulus of the amplitude of the waves is directly propotional to energy. It is exactly the same in the former! In Casimir effect, we are mainly summing quantized, EM waves. In solving QED equations, we are also summing the electron waves. So the situation is perfectly similar in both cases: the point is that if we are summing infinite waves of frequencies nf, then we are automatically also summing up infinite amounts of energies of the form nhf, for the hamiltonians of the systems is given as the square moduluses of the amplitudes of the waves.

Infact, in QED, what brings about the infinity issue is the hamiltonian, which is expressed as:

H=cqyAy*,

where y is electron wave equation. It is the summing of y that brings infinities. So it isn’t correct to say we are summing amplitudes but not energies!

Like

• A_Concerned_Student  On June 26, 2018 at 8:15 pm

While I see your point, technically it is the amplitudes being summed and not energies. The energies are the end result of the summing but they are not being summed, so I stand by this statement. And once again, summing these does yield infinities, this has been said many times, but it is considered a feature of the math not the physics. This is one of the main arguments for renormalization as while the energy calculated by summing these are infinite as the math states, only differences in energy can be physically observed.

Like

• King  On June 26, 2018 at 1:28 pm

A concerned student,

You say that the equation: md^2x/dt^2=-kx is an equation of motion of the system??? It can’t be because the equation doesn’t specify anything. According to theory, it is as true to say md^x/dt^2=-kx when the spring is at rest as it is to say so when it is swinging in its full force!

The equation of motion is given by x=Acos(wt)+Bsin(wt). i.e the equation of motion is given by the SOLUTION of the above differential equation. The differential eq itself is the LAW of the spring! Without knowing A and B, we have no clue of how the system moves, so we can’t an equation like that ‘an equation of motion’. Differential eqs never describe system’s dynamics. They describe their constrains (laws). It is exactly same when we are deriving Einstein’s field eqs, Schrödinger eqs etc. It is these differential eqs that Einstein demands them to be Lorentz invariant in the first postulate of SR.

Like

• A_Concerned_Student  On June 26, 2018 at 8:23 pm

The differential equation is often referred to as an equation of motion as in many cases they cannot be exactly solved analytically and must be done so numerically. The differential equation contains just as much (if not more in cases) information on how the system evolves over time as the solution to it. Just as you said it is true to say the differential equation holds at rest as at full stretch which is ultimately the purpose of an equation of motion. It must be true and describe a system at any point in time, which the differential equation does.

Again I am forced to reiterate that this does not constitute the laws of the a system. The equation of motion is simply how we model the system and attempt to describe what it will do at each point in time. The laws of the system are what we use to find an equation of motion such as conservation of energy or mass. Also I must point out that nowhere in the 2 postulates of SR does Lorentz invariance come about. It is a feature of SR, but it is derived as a consequence of these two postulates.

Like

• King  On June 26, 2018 at 2:18 pm

PLANCK’S LENGTH

You ‘student’ is still not answering my question well. Ok, let me put it this way:

You say that you can measure a length and find that it is equal to Planck’s length (lp). Then when another person measures it, he finds that it equals 62lp. Then you say that to describe things at lenghts less than lp, we require new phyc. But then what is less than lp for you is far more than lp for that perso who sees your lp as 62 lp. So the exact same events that you are describing it with new phyc at lengths less than lp will be described by ordinary phyc for the person seeing your lp as 62lp! This contradicts the first postulate of SR which asserts that all laws of phyc are same as seen in all inertial frames of riferances!

Thing is that ‘cuttoffs’ (planck’s length included), like I showed you earlier, aren’t compartible with SR cause thus ‘vacuum’ fails to appear symmetrical for all observers! However, it is fully compattible with an aether theory!!

Like

• A_Concerned_Student  On June 26, 2018 at 8:32 pm

King,

A very good point! However, not a contradiction to what I claimed. The Planck length (lp) is the supposed length at which our theories of physics break down. Therefore, if I see something as less than the lp and you as more and we describe it differently as you point out, this contradiction is due to our theories breaking down at the lp as predicted! The laws of physics no longer appear the same to everyone because they have broken down at the lp!

Now, I have been refuting your attacks on SR, QFT and so on for a while now. Now you claim an aether theory is compatible with “vacuum asymmetries” (not quite sure what you’re getting at there exactly) so I ask you to explain why you think it is a better theory in general. Why you feel that the aether is the correct next step forward in science instead of relativity and quantum. I already poked a hole in Dr.G’s aether theory of gravity and would like to see if your own holds up to modern theories or if you are simply claiming it is compatible without evidence (hopefully not).

Like

• King  On June 27, 2018 at 1:56 pm

Guys,
The argument that md^2x/dt^2=-kx is a law is pretty straight foward
F=md^2x/dt^2 (Newt’s) is a law that says how an ‘mass’ accelerates.
F=-kx is a law (Hook’s) that says how a spring is streatched.
So md^2x/dt^2=-kx is just a law that says how a mass attatched to a spring moves.

It is not an equation of motion because it just says how the ‘mass’ ACCELERATES. From simple calculus, we know that a differential eq does not contain as much info as its solution. This is because the solutions have ARBITRARY CONSTANTS. In phyc, we obtain the info pertaining to the arbitrary constants by OBSERVING the innitial &/ boundary conditions. Therefore the solutions have more information than the differential equation.

You can understand it this way: the differential eq is like saying ‘I live in America’. The solution is like saying ‘I live in Los Angeles’. The latter inform someone more pertaining to where you live!

Like

• A_Concerned_Student  On June 27, 2018 at 9:23 pm

If you would like to refer to this equation as a law by all means. All I am saying is that I prefer not to as that seems confusing as the actual laws would be conservation of momentum and energy and so on. However, this differential equation (DE) directly implies the solution with its arbitrary constants. Unlike your example of living in LA and America, this is more akin to saying “I live in LA” which implies “I live in America”. The DE always leads to the same solution, (ie living in LA implies you live in America) but the solution does not imply it came from that DE (living in America does not mean you live in LA). The only reason a solution would have more information than the DE would be after imposing the initial/boundary conditions. Therefore it is these conditions that add the information, it is not a feature of the solution to the DE itself. As such it is perfectly acceptable to refer to the DE as an equation of motion as it always leads to the same arbitrary solution which can then have the initial/boundary conditions applied to it. The benefit to leaving it as the DE is that additional terms can be more easily added to account for new phenomena such as additional forces or friction which will lead to a new family of solutions.

Like

• King  On June 27, 2018 at 2:54 pm

A concerned student

So you now admitt that summing the infinite number of harmonics yield infinities, good! But you say it is considered a feature of math and not phyc! What sense does this make?? If I sum 1+2+3…, then I obtain infinity as a feature of math. But if I sum hf+2hf+3hf…, I get infinity as a feature of the theory that says what hf means! ‘energy’, ‘planck’s constants’, ‘frequencies’, ‘amplitudes’ etc are features of PHYC not MATH. Math deal solely with pure numbers!

Like

• A_Concerned_Student  On June 27, 2018 at 9:27 pm

I find this comment contradictory. You say that summing numbers leads to infinities is a feature of the math, but summing hf+2hf+… is a feature of the physics? In the latter case we are just repeating the same sum as before but instead we are using 1(energy unit)+2(energy units)+… The sum is still 1+2+3+.. but we have specified that these are units of energy now, thus it is still the math that results in the infinities, not the units of the quantities we are summing. Thus by your own admission, the math leads to the infinities.

Like

• King  On June 27, 2018 at 3:33 pm

A concerned student

What you are aluding to is a simple thermodynamic fact: if you are inside an ocean that is at thermodynamic equilibrium, then you can’t observe the total energy of the ocean FROM WITHIN THE OCEAN. You can only observe the difference between the total energy at two points in the ocean for thus the energy gradient creats entropic force. Same thing might be happening in, say Casimir Effect.

The point that I am stating is that ‘energy difference’ doesn’t make sense if we are subtracting infinity-infinity. This is a basic math fact that the theorists agree on. To make a sensible subtraction, they are forced to subtract a finit number from another finit number. But doing this involves throwing away the theories that had predicted infinity-infinity, i.e QM and SR! This is what I am trying to show you!

It even isn’t true to say that total energy isn’t observable. GR states that energy/mass warp spacetime. If energy in Vacuum=infinity, then spacetime should be warped into nonexistent dot!

Like

• A_Concerned_Student  On June 27, 2018 at 9:33 pm

Yes that is exactly what I was referring to. However, since in this case we are referring to the universe instead of an ocean, and since we can never leave the universe (as it encompasses everything in existence), then we can only observe the differences in energy anywhere and not the total. And yes, infinity minus infinity does not make sense mathematically. It is only by renormalization that this issue is avoided in QFT. I do not say that infinity minus infinity doesn’t occur in QFT, only that after renormalization that it does not. And total energy is not observable in all cases with the EXCEPTION of gravity (GR). Since gravity is not encompassed by any quantum theory and is purely classical at this point we can not apply this same condition to it. As such, gravity is the exception to this statement that total energy isn’t observable. This may change in the future or it may not.

Like

• King  On June 27, 2018 at 4:18 pm

LAWS OF PHYC BREAKING DOWN AT lp

The student seems to have gotten my point.:) But he isn’t repeating well! lp is tiny so it isn’t a major problem to SR, isn’t it? We need only a slight modification of QFT, isn’t it?

But their is a catch!! The relativist doesn’t get a cegar still! In SR, length is RELATIVE and what appears as lp for one observer should appear like a galaxy to another! So if laws of phyc breaks down at lp for observer P, then there are some observers such as observer Q who will be able to tell that he is moving at v without riferance to any frame by simply observing the point, lq, wherein the laws of phyc begines to break, in his own frame!! I.e v=c{1-(lp/lq)^2}^(1/2). This is cause lp is given by UNIVERSAL CONSTANTS. This contradicts the first postulate of SR which states that one should not tell that he is moving from measurements done solely within his frame!! Here, we can regard frame P as a PREFERED FRAME.

Like

• A_Concerned_Student  On June 27, 2018 at 9:37 pm

King,

I believe I already responded to this point in my last batch of comments. SR gets contradicted in this case regarding the lp because that’s what the lp is! It is the point where our current theories break down. So even though someone can discern who is moving and who is at rest when near the lp this is not an issue that wasn’t already predicted. We know our theories don’t work at these small scales, so when they don’t why is that an issue? We believe we need a working theory of quantum gravity to reconcile what happens at these scales, as I pointed out previously.

Like

• A_Concerned_Student  On June 27, 2018 at 9:47 pm

Also, you never responded to my question as to why you feel a theory incorporating an aether should be the main theory of physics nowadays. While you may have forgotten to I find this unlikely as you haven’t failed to respond to anything I’ve posted yet. So I hope that you are simply preparing a well thought out response as to why you feel this is the better of the many theories out there.

Like

• Galacar  On June 27, 2018 at 10:28 pm

“The Planck length (lp)”

Hmmm. maybe the minimal size of the ‘pixel’ in our computer generated ‘reality’

we are living in?

Interesting times, to say the least!

Namaste!

Galacar.

Like

• King  On June 28, 2018 at 11:53 am

md^x/dt^2=-kx

Student,
This equation implies a set of equations such as:

1.)x=Acos(wt)
2.)x=Bcos(wt)
3.)x=Ccos(wt)
4.)etc

These set of eqs can be called the symmetries, or degrees of freedoms of the system. Eqs 1,2,3…describes not how a specific spring is moving. Rather, it describes infinite ways in which the spring can move. So the DE does not describe how the system moves. It merely describes how the moving system is CONSTRAINED, i.e it describes the FREQUENCY of the system but not the AMPLITUDE of the system. You can see that wt is commot to all the eqs 1,2,3,…So wt is akin to ‘America’ while A,B,C,…is akin to ‘Los angeles’, ‘Chicago’ etc

In mathphyc, any eq that describes the CONSTRAINTS of the system rather than the actual state of the system is always called a ‘law’. This is important cause exactly such eqs is what SR was aluding to in first the postulate.

Like

• A_Concerned_Student  On June 29, 2018 at 9:31 am

If feel it is a stretch to call x=Acos(wt) a symmetry as it describes an oscillatory motion in time, but I see the point you are trying to get at and can accept that the DE can be thought of as a constraint. Thus the DE leads to a family of solution with the same properties and constraints but with different specific constants such as amplitude. That seems reasonable enough to me.

Like

• King  On June 28, 2018 at 1:01 pm

Difference between 1+2+3 and hf+2hf+3hf

Math does not specify what it is that we are summing. Math only say ‘infinite NUMBER’. When we say ‘infinit ENERGY’, we are nolonger talking about math. We are now talking about phyc. Therefore hf+2hf+3hf,… is not a math statement. It is a (meaningless) phyc claim. Performing an infinite sum of a physical quantity and then claiming ‘it is a feature of math but not phyc’ makes no sense! ‘energy’ is not a feature of math. It is a feature of phyc. If we could shove anything to math, then all the phyc eqs will be feature of math but not phyc, for in all cases, we perform addition, multiplications etc. When we as -ihdy/dt=(h^2/2m)d^2y/dx^2+vy,(Schrödinger eq) we are also adding units of energy. So why are we not saying Schrödinger eq is also a feature of math but not phyc? Why does it become a ‘feature of math’ when our eqs make no sense?

Like

• A_Concerned_Student  On June 29, 2018 at 9:24 am

It is not that the equations make no sense (as you say). What I claim is that if we were to call hf the number 1 as in 1 unit of energy, then summing these energies would yield the same infinity that we get by summing hf, 2hf, etc. Thus I say that it is a feature of math because it is the sum 1+2+3+… that yields the infinities, not the fact that it is energies that we are summing. Had it been pure math with no units of energy, we would have still arrived at infinity.

Like

• King  On June 28, 2018 at 1:49 pm

‘Student’
So you agree that infinity-infinity make no math sense. But this is how the infinity is gotten rid of:
1.)We perform an infinit sum of harmonics and note that it sums to infinity.
2.)we introduce another infinity (renormalization) so we may attempt to get a finit number by subtracting infinity-infinity
3.)But since infinity-infinity make no sense, we regularize the sum, ie we introduce another number equation, which is finit-finit, which now make sense.

It is particularly the third process that I have troubles with. I insist that QFT predict infinity-infinity. This other finit-finit eq is a different ‘hat’ from which our canning ‘pseudo-magician’ is ‘pulling out the rabbit’ having realized that the infinity-infinity ‘hat’ has no ‘rabbit’! The second proceedure, on the other hand, is a very troublesome ad oc!

Like

• A_Concerned_Student  On June 29, 2018 at 9:41 am

King,

Your issue with regularization and renormalization is not new. Many top researchers in QFT had similar issues with it, most notably DIrac! As they can sometimes violate the underlying physics in the theory, or adds in additional information that is not known such as un-physical particles this issue is not new. This is a current issue even today as a search for a realistic regularization is always underway. But, it is here that I restate what I had said at the very beginning. That the purpose of any theory is to make predictions of what is going to happen. And it is for this reason that renormalization and regularization are used. They allow researchers and theorists to make predictions about interactions in QFT and see if this fits with experiment, As such it is a useful tool in QFT for that reason alone. While it may be counter-intuitive to the purpose of the theory at times, it is a strong tool in making predictions of the theory. Your skepticism is well placed in this area however.

Like

• King  On June 28, 2018 at 3:24 pm

Planck’s Length

Why is it an issue when the laws of phyc break down at these small lengths? Simple! In SR, ‘small’ is ambiguos. But let me see if this illustration help. Consider how they explain the ‘length contraction’ in the case of muons crossing the earth’s atmosphere. The muon manages to reach the earth cause in its frame, the atmosphere is very thin! So by simply moving sufficiently fast,(call it velocity v0), an ‘observer’ can find the entire earth’s atmosphere to be less that lp, so he needs new phyc to describe the events we see here! This contradicts the first postuale of special relativity as applied to phyc working at the length equal to the thickness of our atmosphere! The laws of phyc, in the length scale of our atmosphere, is nolonger same as seen in all inertial frames!!

Like

• A_Concerned_Student  On June 29, 2018 at 9:46 am

Once again King, your contradiction falls under the same argument I made above. If the muon sees the atmosphere as less than the Planck length, then we expect a contradiction since our theories do not work at these scales as that is what the Planck length defines. For any further comments where you make another example of a contradiction of SR using the Planck length, I feel it necessary to just leave a “RA” (“Refer Above”) as we are just repeating the same two comments over and over.

Like

• King  On June 28, 2018 at 3:54 pm

Student,
Another thing is that you seem to unwittingly think that the the first postulate of SR is a ‘law of physics’ which itself should break down at lp!! This postulate isn’t a law of phyc. It musn’t break down even if laws of phyc break down cause it is statement about the laws of phyc but is itself not a law of phyc!

AETHER

As you said, the aether hypothesis was rejected by application of Occum’s Razor (OR). Even according to Occum himself, OR was never meant to be used to determine which of the two theories is correct (relativists us OR almost for this purpose!). The theory rejected via OR should be constantly reexermined upon new discoveries.

To put it breifly, aether theories don’t have the first postulate but can predict everything SR can! That laws of phyc appear same is only INCIDENTAL and as such, this ‘rule’ can break without ‘breaking the aether theory’.

Like

• A_Concerned_Student  On June 29, 2018 at 10:02 am

I do not believe that the first postulate of SR should break down at the Planck length. I believe that it is the math that SR uses that breaks down at these scales. We cannot calculate what happens at these scales using the current SR theory not because the postulate breaks down but because all of SR’s predictive power comes from the math it is built around and is currently not equipped to handle scaled where quantum effects of gravity are believed to become important.

Again, I do not say that the aether theory is wrong. I had said that the aether was not required in our theories of the time and by application of OR we should not have it. While it may exist, we have no reason to use it currently, so we won’t. That was the reasoning I presented.

The true issue I have with this last comment though is your claim that an aether theory can predict everything that SR can, and I aim to challenge this. I will start with a seemingly simple prediction that relativity makes. How does an aether theory, for instance, deal with the case of the muons produced in our atmosphere reaching the surface as you brought up earlier? More generally, how would an aether theory handle the (well documented and tested) observation that particles half-lives are longer (by the amounts predicted by relativity) when moving at higher speeds than when stationary?

Like

• drgsrinivas  On July 7, 2018 at 6:30 pm

I can see at least one person on this planet who can speak and communicate the truth to the physicists in their own language. Hats off King! 🙏

As physicists have abandoned commonsense, however much I speak, it probably makes little sense to them. I think people like King could rescue at least some physicists who are on the verge of the ‘science black hole’. But once fallen into that black hole, I don’t think anyone could rescue them! 😀

Dear student, you haven’t made any holes in my ether model. I am sorry but the conclusions you draw out of your box experiment are rather silly.

To start from the basics, pressure is force acting upon unit surface area. So pressure is nothing but force. Next, the pressure exerted by any fluid/gas is the result of the motion of the individual particles. Because of the random motion, particles move in multiple directions. Particles that move in the upward direction would exert upward pressure and those that are moving downward would exert downward pressure. So a body of fluid can exert pressure (i.e. force) in multiple directions. What is the big problem here?

If my right hand applies force towards the north and left hand applies force towards the south, does that stop force being a vector because I am applying force in two directions. The point is that a system can exert force in multiple directions. Similarly a system can exert pressure in multiple directions.

Your vector length argument is even more silly. You are basically confusing between pressure and pressure gradient. While pressure is measured at one point (surface), pressure gradient indicates the pressure difference between two point surfaces. When you keep the pressure sensor near the centre, it would measure more pressure because more particles hit the sensor and as you move farther from the centre, it would record less and less pressure because of fewer particle impacts. With a pressure sensor, we can define and map out the pressures at every point in every direction. Obviously the pressure gradient would vary between different points.

Further more, you seem to argue that because you can’t specify a definite length (magnitude), pressure can’t be a vector. Do you think inability to define a magnitude makes something a scalar? Do you think scalars don’t have definite magnitude?

I could actually rewrite the whole of my above gravity model in terms of force vectors and without uttering the word ‘pressure’! But I doubt if that opens the eyes of the science believers.

Dear student, I will address your other concerns in a little while.

Like

• A_Concerned_Student  On July 8, 2018 at 10:29 pm

Dr.G,

``````I think the issues we are having here are merely a misunderstanding. I do not believe the inability to define a magnitude makes something a scalar. I used that example to show that if we assume pressure is a vector (the assumption), which has a definite magnitude and a direction by definition, that we conclude in the example that there is no definite magnitude thereby achieving a contradiction. Since we assumed something and resulted in a conclusion, then the assumption must be false, and pressure must not be a vector. The argument for pressure being a scalar of definite strength does not yield these conclusions. This is all I was trying to show.

As for your other arguments toward pressure, the main issue I see is with a main assumption of the kinetic theory of gasses where pressure is generally defined as force per unit area. The theory assumes that there are sufficiently high densities (and number of gas particles) in any region such that the particles have very frequent collisions with one another. This results in any one particle not moving very far between collisions. As such in any small region chosen the pressure will act in all directions equally (assuming random motion) leaving no specific direction of preference for the pressure and thus is treated as a scalar at any given position. Yes the individual particles of gas would cause forces, but these forces are counteracted by other particles moving in opposite directions (as the motions are assumed random) thus creating no net accelerations only a scalar pressure on the body. I reiterate that pressure differences (gradients) cause accelerations, not pressures themselves as a vector form of pressure would suggest.

Assuming that pressure were a vector, and since pressure is force per unit area, all pressures should result in accelerations in their respective directions. This is not the case however. A very simple example comes as looking at a diver at the bottom of the ocean. Anyone would agree that the diver is under immense pressure and the diver themselves would definitely notice the pressure on them. However, the diver does not begin accelerating towards the ocean floor, or the surface, nor left,right,forwards, or backwards. Since the conclusion is inescapable that if pressure were a vector that it would cause accelerations, and since we do not see immense pressures causing accelerations, it must not be true that pressures are vectors.
``````

Like

• drgsrinivas  On August 24, 2018 at 3:52 pm

“Assuming that pressure were a vector, and since pressure is force per unit area, all pressures should result in accelerations in their respective directions. This is not the case however. A very simple example comes as looking at a diver at the bottom of the ocean. Anyone would agree that the diver is under immense pressure and the diver themselves would definitely notice the pressure on them. However, the diver does not begin accelerating towards the ocean floor, or the surface, nor left,right,forwards, or backwards. Since the conclusion is inescapable that if pressure were a vector that it would cause accelerations, and since we do not see immense pressures causing accelerations, it must not be true that pressures are vectors.”

So pity Richard. I didn’t expect this from a science major.

It is true that when a force (or pressure) acts upon a body, the body would accelerate in the direction of the force. But what when an equal force (pressure) acts upon the same body in the opposite direction. The body would obviously remain stationary. It is the sum of all the forces and the resultant net force vector which decides whether a body moves and in what direction. The fact that a body remains stationary and doesn’t get accelerated despite lot of forces acting upon it doesn’t mean that force isn’t a vector.

I don’t get why people have so much difficulty in viewing pressure as a vector when the definition itself says pressure is force. Thanks to our science education! But any way, you can forget about that part because I can present the ether model of gravity without uttering the word ‘pressure’.

As explained in the above post, just make a ball spin inside a pond. You would see nearby suspended objects getting dragged towards the ball. That should help you grasp the ether model of gravity. I will leave it to your imagination to explain why and how that happens! No spoon feeding any more.

Like

• King  On July 10, 2018 at 6:48 pm

Student,
So you now agree that if a moving particle sees our atmosphere as to be less than lp, then there is a contradiction with SR in that we are describing a scenario merely differing by inertial frames we are perceiving it in with different phyc!

But that was my point when I introduced this issue and you, at first, denied that it has anything to do with SR, claiming that lp is only a length scale wherein we need a quantum theory of gravity!! It is only after I took lots of my time to show you that it contradicts SR, did you now switch gears and say ‘it is espected cause OUR THEORIES break down at lp’. In other words, you now include SR in the ‘our theories’ basket which don’t work at lp!

Unfortunately for your, SR is not ‘our theories’ in this case. SR is a theory that says how ‘our theories’ should look from different frames and it should not break at any length as length, according to it, is frame dependent!

Like

• A_Concerned_Student  On July 11, 2018 at 5:04 pm

King,

From the outset I said that SR does not work at these small scales and that we would need a quantum theory of gravity to describe what would happen. This has been my argument the entire time, and nowhere did I divert from it. But SR is one of our theories and as such should break down at the lp. This is because it is built upon classical mechanics and does not consider any quantum effects. As such once we get to the scales at which quantum mechanics (or quantum gravity) should become important that SR does not work. This is because SR does not account for any of these effects or any new phenomena that exists at these scales that we are unaware of.

Like

• King  On July 10, 2018 at 7:10 pm

AETHER TO EXPLAIN MUON
Student,
You answered yourself this, and I have no time to explain the details. You said aether theory is rejected in favour of SR via OCCAM’S RAZOR. This is the way we us OR:

If two/more theories can EQUALY explain all the phenomena, then the simplest one of them should be chosen.

So if you agree that aether theory was rejected because of OR, you should be agreeing that it too can explain what SR can. Otherwise, you are tacitly joining your fellow SR beleivers who have made the fallacy of thinking of OR as a criteria of telling which one of the theories correctly describes nature!

Like

• richard johnston  On July 11, 2018 at 5:44 pm

A clever redirect King, bu we have been going back and forth for weeks with me on the defensive but now that I pose you a question you suddenly don’t have time? Sounds like a weak attempt to avoid the question. But I will let it go as I have found a semi-satisfactory answer elsewhere. Basically, the aether theories response to explaining this (and other) phenomena like it, is to assume length contraction and time dilation! A weak solution I understand, to assume an entirely new phenomena to fix your theory instead of having the phenomena be derived by your theory from it’s postulates. But this happens all the time in science so I will not dwell on it nor hold it against an aether theory. With these additional assumptions (which are admittedly ad hoc), the aether theory could make any prediction SR does. But I wonder (and honestly do not know) how an aether theory accounts for gravitational effects as handled by GR? Again, that I do not know.

Like

• King  On July 13, 2018 at 9:56 am

Student,
So you conclude that aether theories just ‘assumes’ that there is a length contraction etc instead of deriving it from postulates. You conclude this even though you never know what kinda aether theory I have in my mind!

The postulates of an aether theory involves atomic models that attempts to RATIONALY explain the forces of nature. (like in Drg case, the hypothesis that atoms spin so as to cause gravity via Bernaulis Effects. But I am not saying it is this bernauli’s gravity that I am gonna us). It turns out that when we make a model that explains electromagnetism well, the relativistic effects follows directly from how the atoms must behave so they may cause the observed EM effects!! So it is far from being ‘just an ad oc’! It is deduced from the atomic structure of aether, meant to explain EM, not an ad oc to explain length contraction itself, as such, it is a powerfull explanation!

Like

• richard johnston  On July 14, 2018 at 3:14 am

My apologies King, i was referring to one of the most acconplished specific aether theories that I know of (namely Lorentz’s) where he did in fact just throw in length contraction to make it work. I admit not all theories will do this and again apologize for my vagueness.

Like

• King  On July 13, 2018 at 10:47 am

PLANCK’S LENGTH
Student,

No you did not say that
SR does not work at length scale less than lp where we need quantum gravity… You said, and I quote:

‘planck’s length is the theorised length at which we would need a working theory of quntum gravity to make predictions as such, it has nothing to do with SR in this sense’

Please go back and remind yourself!.;)

By ‘nothing to do with SR’, It seems to mean planck’s length says nothing in regard to validity/invalidity of SR, wherelse ‘lp is length scale at which SR breaks down’ is certainly a consideration of lp such that lp has ‘something to do with SR’. This ‘something’ is SR breaking down at lp.

Furthermore, reading your original quote, one can’t tell wether, according to you, this new quantum gravity is compartible with SR or not. Lastly, what then was the point of your objections to my arguments about regularization yet they are just other ways of saying ‘we are dropping the original QFT’ (which must work at some scales)

Like

• richard johnston  On July 14, 2018 at 3:17 am

King, again I made a error in clarity by saying the planck length had nothing to do with SR. I did intend it as you stated afterwards that SR breaks down at these lengths and therefore does have to do with it. This new quantum gravity would be compatible with SR, as it would reduce to SR in the limiting case of negligable gravity and large scales.

Like

• King  On July 13, 2018 at 11:30 am

Guys, now before I embark on the course I would have taken if our ‘student’ was straight, let me show how ‘lost’ our student is.

1.)There is a length scale such as lp below which QFT must break down.
2.)The solutions of QFT must be summed over all wavelengths to ensure that vacuum state obeys SR (taking the continum limit)

You can see that point 2 again implies that we must sum the solutions of QFT even at length scales where it is aleged to break down there (continuum limit must include wavelengths less than lp)!!

To avoid this absurdity, we ‘regularize’ our theory. This mean we drop our original theory and replace it with another one that takes into consideration the ‘fact’ that QFT shouldn’t work below lp. In the case of Casimir effect, like I said, we multiply the terms of the sum by an exponential factor such that it begines to rapidly dampens the waves of wavelengths below some length scale. So reg is not ‘just math’. It is more accurately, AD OC!

Like

• King  On July 13, 2018 at 12:25 pm

So you can see that we are taking the continum limit to ensure that our theory is compartible with SR (mathematically we say ‘to make our theory Lorentz invariant). We are NOT taking the continuum limit (CL) to ensure that our theory describes phenomena happening below lp. Ergo, when we fail to take the CL (because of lp), our theory is simply not Lorentz Invariant (as seen in all length scales). It is not just that ‘our theory breaks down at lp’, and I will further elaborate below.

When we say that ‘our theory breaks down at a certain length scale’ we mean that only the experiments done at those length scales will reveal the short commings of our theory. However, in the case of SR, if it breaks down below lp, we can tell that SR is wrong by performing an experiment even at the length scale of our atmosphere! In a different wording, for a theory to be compartible with SR, it is the Lorentz invariant theory that must break down at length scales, not the Lorentz invariance itself.

Like

• King  On July 13, 2018 at 12:53 pm

Now let me illustrate in the most absurd way. The ‘student’, agrees that a speeding particle can observe the thickness of our atmosphere as to be less than lp. Good! But here is a coffee time. To such a particle, we can check that the predictions of SR fails by the measurements of a muon-like particle in the length scale of our atmosphere! So if SR breaks down in some lengths scale, it breaks down in all of them!

Specifically, we can check that we are in a prefered riferance by considering a particle moving at v. If the phyc describing it breaks down at some length d, and it is the same d in all directions, then we are in a prifered frame. Any other frame moving relative to this frame must have it’s d lesser in the direction it is moving through!! This breaks Lorentz’s Symmetry for a particle whizzing across length d, and not only lp!! (Notice that we cannot explain this failure by supposing that the particle sees d as lp as this assumes that the theory, which we are trying to test, is already correct!).

Like

• King  On July 13, 2018 at 1:48 pm

Lastly, even if SR did infact break down ONLY for a particle whizzing across lp, we still cannot pretend that SR is still correct because ‘lp is very small’. This mainstream reasoning is like saying that since we can explain many biological phenomena by assuming that microscopic organisms don’t exist (since being soo tiny as to need microscops to observe, their effects are often negligable), we can still entertain a theory that deny existence of microbs even if we have discovered them, provided we say ‘our theory is only correct at certain length scales’.

The silliness of the above reasoning becomes apparent when we consider the jarring claims like that the living things surreptitiously pop out from non living things! The verdict is that even if lp is ‘small’ from the point of view of human, it isn’t ‘small’ for nature to hid its secrets so that it eludes us into forming stupid theories that seem correct as seen from limmited scales just like the theory of ‘living things poping out from mud’ seems correct.

Like

• richard johnston  On July 14, 2018 at 3:30 am

King, I see your point regarding the CL, and again agree. By assuming a cut-off we are not using our original theory but rather an approximation of it. This approximation is iseful in getting an intuition or estimate of what will happen in an experiment and will likely violate the principles we built the model from but again is useful. However, in the case of QFT it os important to point out that QFT is a CONTINUOUS theory and we use discrete scales to make the calculations easier, then once we take the CL we actually regaib the original complete theory. Im not sure I follow your argument for how we can determine a preferred frame in the case of a muon in our atmosphere. Could you please expand on that idea so that I may attempt to understand your point?

Like

• richard johnston  On July 14, 2018 at 2:57 pm

This argument is one of the very core reasons as to why regularization is used in modern theoretical physics nowadays. The argument being that we can’t observe what happens at really small lengths (below lp) or really high energies so therefore we choose to cut out frequencies in these ranges as we believe there to be “new physics” which are needed to account for them. This way we can test how accurate our theory is IN THE SCALE that they are intended to be used in, while acknowledging where they no longer apply and since we can’t observe these regions yet, this leaves room for advancement once we can and can actually get some experimental evidence to support any new theory. In this way, regularization is similar to acknowledging that we don’t know what happens at these scales and can’t find out yet, but we can on other scales so we will focus on what we can predict/test until such a time that we can test the other scales. I understand why you wouldn’t like that reasoning but it is very practical.

Like

• King  On July 16, 2018 at 1:25 pm

COMPATIBILITY,
richard,
Yes, in math phyc, they use ‘compatibility’ that way. ‘Theory X is compatible with theory Y if theory X reproduces theory Y when we take some limit’. But this isn’t what most pple understand by ‘compatibility’. Let me illustrate it using relativistic ‘length contraction’. We write:

x=x'{1-(v/c)^2}^(1/2)

When we put v=0, we find that x=x’, which is the ‘Newtonian phyc’. So we see that in this sense, SR is compatible with Newt’s phyc! But you should note that we should rather put it this way:

1.)Newtonian phyc claim that time is absolute.
2.)SR claims that time is relative
3.)Ergo these theories are not compatible!

This is very different from saying:

1.)Newt phyc claims that time dillation=1
2.)SR claims that time dillation=B
3.)Ergo these theories are compatible with each other in that B=1 when v=0

In the second statements, these are not what the theories claim it happens. These are what the theories claim IS THE EXTEND OF WHAT HAPPENS.

Like

• King  On July 16, 2018 at 2:09 pm

In other words Newt and Ein are not disagreeing on the EXTENT in which a phenomenon happens. They are disagreeing on the issue of whether a phenomenon happens at all! In other words, many of us understand the phyc world as to be amenable to a black and white type description that cannot be properly expressed mathematicaly. Sometimes we can drop the issue of MAGNITUDES alltogether and talk of whether or not a stick contracted (as a yes or no issue).

We understand the consept ‘inexistent’ as to be completely different from the consept of ‘small’. It is equaly daunting to claim that a particle of planck’s length size poped into existence as it is to say that a whole galaxy did, even if the former ‘creation ex-nihilo’ is ‘compatible’ with ex-nihilo-nihil’ in that both the event of ‘creation’ and ‘no creation’ aren’t observable in our scale.

Like

• King  On July 16, 2018 at 2:34 pm

Having said the above, I hope that someone will understand my following statement: the fact that two theories are ‘compatible’ with each other, in that what they predict aren’t much contradictory at some scale, doesn’t mean that the picture of the universe that these theories depict are compatible. A good example is SR being compatible with Galilien Transform whe v is near zero. It is, however, the pic of the universe, not the MAGNITUDE of the predicted effects that many pple are concerned when they question these theories that makes ‘weird’ claims. It is not the t=t’B that makes pple shout aaaah! When they hear of SR. it is the claim that ‘time’ can ‘dillate’ at all. Ergo, the compatibility with t=t’ at v=0 is irelevant to the issue.

So if a ‘counterintuitive’ theory at a smaller scale can be ‘compatible’ with an ‘intuitive’ theory at larger scale, what stops another ‘intuitive’ theory being compatible with the ‘counterintuitive’ one at even smaller scales?

Like

• King  On July 16, 2018 at 3:04 pm

If nothing, then how can we swear that we have verified that our world is ‘weird’ because a theory that is said to break down at smaller scales says so and has been confirmed at a bigger scale? For instance, if we know not what happens at lengths less than lp, might there be particles of sizes less than lp that incesantly and randomly bombards a quantum particle, making its position and momentum unpredictable? This will be an example of a commonsensical theory that correctly describes the length scales less than lp but which is ‘compatible’ with the sensless one! It is just like the common sensical theory of germs at the scale of microscopes is compatible with the non-sensical theory of ‘life popping out from mud’ in that germs aren’t observable in our scale.

So other than insisting that ‘our world is weird’, isn’t it more honest to say we just don’t know? Then add that math phyc can’t help us unlock the true secrets of our universe for they demand impossibly precise measurements?

Like

• richard johnston  On July 17, 2018 at 8:21 pm

Some really good points King! All of what you say is completely valid and I agree wholeheartedly. Nothing stops the weirdness of QM from being compatible with an intuitive theory at smaller scales but as of yet we have no intuitive theory which can do this. The lack of observations at these scales also leads modern science to say exactly that, “we don’t know”. But at least for the scales we observe our universe appears “weird”, but this could be reconciled or continually become weirder as we look smaller. Compatibility is extremely important as you say, as it “reconciles” theories with opposing viewpoints. As in the Newton/Einstein example they disagree on whether time dilates. Einstein says yes, Newton says no. But seeing as all of Newtons theories were developed using low speed experiments with less sensitive equipmemt, they are unable to meaaure the extremely small changes that relativity predicts. So in the case where the velocity is much much less than the speed of light where these effects are negligably small, Einstein’s relativity reproduces Newtonian mechanics but when the speed is comparable to the soeed of light, Newton does not reproduce relativity. Thus while they disagree, one can reproduce the other and we can attribute the correction to the fact that Newtonian experiments were insensitive to these small effects.

The problem with basing a theory around intuitive reasoning (as members of this site are often to do) is precisely this reasoning. Our intuition is built around our everyday scales (Newtonian) and are thus insensitive to smaller effects outside our perception. So while intuition is good at predicting what should happen on normal scales, it is not applicable to other scales as it has no experience with them and thus no bearing. I believe it was Feynman who said “The universe is under no obligation to make sense to you” which I feel is very fitting. The universe has no need to appeal to our intuition and could be very unintuitive and does appear to be so as we see it currently.

Like

• King  On July 20, 2018 at 1:55 pm

Richard,
good! I see we realy don’t have much querell, if you agree that a theory that ‘isn’t compartible with common sense’ at a bigger scale can be ‘compatible with common sense’ at and even smaller scale. However, some relativists don’t maintain the scientific stand that if we find experiments ‘compatible with commonsese’ we should change our world view. They seem to think that ‘proving’ theory at one scale mean we have proven the kinda universe it depict.

INTUITION

That ‘the pple here rely on intuition’ is the standard, ilogical argument offered by relativists/quantum mechanists whenever they see anyone challenging their theories. This is ilogical and unscientific because ‘intuition’ is subjective. We can’t get into pple’s minds to verify what it is that they are ‘relying’ on. You only know your own intuition. And what does this gotta do with phyc? It seems to concern psychology/ epistemology etc.

Like

• King  On July 20, 2018 at 2:22 pm

I don’t agree that pple question modern phyc theories because they have never seen such a thing in day to day life. Like some die hard skeptic of SR has said, he can experience things like ‘a speeding vehicle apearing to receed at the same velocity no matter how he is chasing it’ by merely taking a glass of beer or puffing some weed!

The bottomline is that it is never the universe nor any experiment that is ‘counterintuitive’ or that ‘doesn’t make sense’. It is solely the EXPLANATIONS they offer that are! ‘Intuition’ does not affirm nor deny any observation for we have no A PRIORI idea of how the world must APPEAR. There is no a priori reason as to why a speeding muon must decay the same way as an otherwise similar, stationary muon for these are two things under different conditions. Ergo intuition frames no ‘prediction’ whatsoever in this! Ergo, saying that muon decay confirms that universe is ‘counterintuitive’ is silly!

Like

• richard johnston  On July 21, 2018 at 10:46 am

My reason for commenting that our intuition is a reason that many people have issue with theories like SR and QM is because they make predictions that we don’t see in our everyday lives. I make this appeal not to defend my own theory, but to try and explain why some people might reject these theories. For instance, time dilation is a common thing that people take issue with in SR and very often their first argument involves how they have never seen experienced time slowing down/speeding up. But then again, they’ve also never gone at a speed even close to the speed of light, so how could they experience any noticeable time dilation as SR predicts? I don’t say that SR is right or wrong, only that some people reject it due to this fact. And I agree that it is unscientific as there is no way to quantify why someone fully rejects something, but that does not mean that it isn’t a good reason that some people may reject it. As for whether the universe or some experiment can be counter-intuitive, they can be! Counter-intuitive literally means counter to what intuition predicts. Therefore, if my intuition predicts one thing and an experiment shows something else, then that result is counter-intuitive. Intuition definitely does not affirm nor deny any observation, but it is one of the first things people use when trying to predict what will happen and that is why I mention it.

Like

• King  On July 20, 2018 at 2:55 pm

THE CORRECT REASON PPLE QUESTION MODERN PHYC

It is LOGICS, not INTUITION that is the problem with modern phyc THEORIES (not the experiments they correctly predict). The easiest to deal with is SR. The following statements are logics

1.)if A=B, and B=C, then A=C
2.)if A is larger than B, and C is larger than A, then C cannot be as larger than A as it is larger than B.

It is the second, simple logic that the second postulate of SR violet. It goest this way:

1.)speed of light is larger than speed of B. speed of B is larger than the speed of A. So light speed can’t be as larger than B as it is larger than A.

The crucial point is that as we try to make a math model of speed, like in any quantity, this model must capture the notion of MAGNITUDE well. If measuring speed by rods and clocks and taking ratios leads to violation of the above logic, then such definition of ‘speed’ simply doesn’t capture ‘speed’ as a MAGNITUDE like any other magnitude.

Like

• richard johnston  On July 21, 2018 at 11:16 am

This is a very good logical statement, however, it is not really applicable in the case we are talking about. Basically, any theory involving vectors can not include this logical statement as it does not fit with the idea of magnitude. The reason it does not apply is because this statement only relates scalar numbers, not their magnitudes. Consider the scalar case where 2.) holds. Let A=3, B=10, and C=20. Clearly C>A, C>B, and B>A then C-BA, C>B and B>A, but in this case we actually have B<A! Therefore, this assumption can not be used in ANY vector theory, not just SR. So the fact the SR violates this logical statement isn’t an issue, THE ENTIRETY OF PHYSICS VIOLATES IT! It is worth noting that if you take the magnitudes of scalar numbers (absolute value) then this logical statement is still violated, so your argument for this statement being a measure of how well magnitude is defined is flawed. Really what this statement aims to show is that the order of numbers is well-defined.

Like

• richard johnston  On July 24, 2018 at 2:50 am

So a portion of my comment above got erased for some reason and it makes no sense to read now so I will rewrite it here (with some edits) beginning from “Let A=3,…”)

Let A=3, B=10, and C=20. If we write your logical statement 2.) using math then it becomes: If C>A, C>B, and B>A then C-B<C-A. In fact, we can prove this to be true even without using the assumptions that C>A and C>B but the C is important with respect to relativity so we will keep it. So using the numbers for A,B,C above we can see that it is true that C>A (20>3), C>B (20>10) and B>A (10>3) which then implies that C-B<C-A (20-10<20-3 or 10<17) and it is clearly true. To show this again let’s let A=-5, B=2 and C=5. C-B=3 and C-A=10 and thus C-B<C-A so it even works when negative numbers are involved!

Now, here’s where this logic doesn’t work. We have shown (really just seen but it can be very easily proved) it to hold for both positive and negative numbers but does it work for magnitudes? For those of you who are unfamiliar, when we talk of magnitudes with respect to scalar numbers or vectors we don’t care care about the direction of the vector or the sign of the scalar, only how “long” it is. So for a number like 3, the magnitude is just 3, but for -3 the magnitude is also 3! So we drop the sign for scalar numbers and that’s the magnitude. For vectors we drop any sign as well and just use Pythagorean theorem to find the vector’s length and that’s the magnitude. So let’s try our second example again but with magnitudes.

Let A=-5, B=2 and C=5. Now, the magnitude of -5 is 5, magnitude of 2 is 2, and magnitude of 5 is 5. So really we now have A=5, B=2 and C=5, therefore C-B=3 and C-A=0 and we see that C-B>C-A which is not what we want! In fact, by taking the magnitudes of our numbers we actually violate our assumption that B>A! We assumed that B>A but actually had B<A when we use magnitudes! So this shows that this logical statement doesn’t hold for magnitudes, only regular numbers (sign and all).

Now since any theory involving vectors uses the concept of magnitude inherently, this means that this logical statement can’t be used in any such theory! So it isn’t just SR that violates 2.), in fact ALL OF PHYSICS VIOLATES IT!!! From the above it is clear that this logical statement does not actually show that magnitude is well-defined, since the introduction of magnitudes breaks it after all. Really what this logic aims to show is that the order of numbers is well-defined.

Like

• A_Concerned_Student  On July 21, 2018 at 11:51 am

Side Note: An equivalent way that you could formulate logical statement 2.) would be to say: If A is to the left of B on a number line, and B is to the left of C on a number line, then A cannot be closer to C on the number line than B is.

From this formulation of 2.) it is clear that this statement does not apply to physics in general. This is because (one of many reasons) physics denotes many quantities as vectors which are not confined to the number line and whose magnitudes are strictly positive numbers.

Like

• King  On July 20, 2018 at 3:31 pm

My point gotta be easy to grasp. We defined speed as v=x/t and not as t/x because we wanted our math value for v to capture the ‘magnitude of v’ well, i.e the faster object must be assigned larger numbers and vice versa. So obviously, we defined v using a commonsensical consideration that larger speeds in the univers should be mapped into larger numbers in the paper. Ergo, speed cannot possibly defy common sense! If ‘t’ did not ‘tick’, then v=infinity and we realized that this defied the commonsensical notion of ‘magnitude for speed’. So no one was stupid enough to make a clock which does not tick (so at least an extreem example illustrates that a priori understanding of speed as a 1 dimensional magitude defines the correct clock and never the vice-versa)!

Next, we saw that an eratically ticking clock can’t capture the notion of ‘speed’ well. Were it not so, ‘accurate clocks’ could have been invented in stonnage! All these we did using COMMON SENSE!

Like

• King  On July 20, 2018 at 3:44 pm

So then how should we describe a claim that measurents of a speed has shown that ‘universe doesn’t make sense’? Alright, you have guessed it! If I may be very polite, it is stupid!!

It is never ‘universe’ that dictates that v=x/t nor does it asks us to swear by ‘accurate’ atomic clocks in Paris as to measure ‘passage of time’. These are human concoctions and requirements, not ‘the universe’. Only the nincompoops like Feynman can foolishly follow human made concepts like ‘speeds =x/t’ and say that that is ‘the universe’.

Like

• King  On July 20, 2018 at 4:17 pm

Lastly, let me stress again that the universe is NOT ‘counterintuitive’.

1.)a muon ariving at the earth surfice from the sky is NOT counterintuitive. It is just a muon!
2.)particles forming inteference patterns on a screen is NOT counterintuitive. They are just a parten of dots on a screen.
3.)a flown clock ticking slowlier than a stationary one is NOT counterintuitive (my clock also tick slowlier when I threw it into the dust pin)

Not a single experiment ever apear ‘counterintuitive’ when we just take a look at it. Rather it is when a human tries to force these observations into a simple, math description (which can be voted for in a science club) does he wind up with counterintuitive theories. However, if we shut up and just experience the universe, there is nothing counterintuitive. It is just what it is!

Like

• richard johnston  On July 21, 2018 at 11:25 am

Everything else here that you have said is very much correct, if a little misworded. Measurements of any kind do not show that the universe doesn’t make sense, only that the universe does not make sense to us. This is more of a statement of our own lack of knowledge than any attribution of weirdness to the universe. One has to consider that whenever we say something is “weird” or “stupid” or anything else that this is in reference to ourselves. We say “weird” relative to what we believe is normal. We like to think particles having a specific position is normal, so QM’s prediction of no absolute position of particles is “weird” relative to what we think is normal. If in your last post you had replaced the word “counter-intuitive” with “unnatural” then I would agree wholeheartedly! Everything in nature does exactly what it’s supposed to do and always has done, it is our intuition and our understanding which makes things counter-intuitive. We expect one thing to happen but see another, so we call it “weird” and counter-intuitive (as is the correct word to call it). But it is far from unnatural. As you said, it is just what it is!

Like

• richard johnston  On July 24, 2018 at 2:27 am

Galacar, I do not say that intuition isn’t important, it certainly is important in getting a quick idea of what we think should happen in any scenario. The key thing here is that it gives an idea of what WE THINK SHOULD happen. However, it is not great at giving exact details of what will happen and can very often be incorrect, but it is still useful. What I am trying to say is, while intuition is important, it should not be the basis for explaining everything that happens in the universe. More importantly, we should not disregard a theory or experimental finding simply because it does not agree with our intuition.

The links that you pointed me to however don’t seem to disprove my statements at all. In fact, I dare say that they aren’t even related to my statements on intuition. The first link leads to an article stating that intuitive people have made some good predictions relating to bipolar disorder and could be useful in other medical research. Sounds good to me, but it doesn’t say anything about basing a theory on intuition only that intuition can be useful in some medical settings. Thereby, it is not related to my claims, and it definitely does not disprove them in any shape or form. The second link leads to your own comment elsewhere detailing the story of some psychics who claim to have observed atoms at what they saw. Once again, how does this relate to basing theories on intuition? It says nothing on this topic and can therefore not disprove my claims.

While your contributions to the discussion are appreciated, I do ask that you be careful with not saying that you have disproved things when you have not. Disprove means to show that a statement or theory is false, and the evidence you provided did not do that. It could be seen as evidence not to believe my statement, but it does not show my statement to be false.

Best Regards!

Like

• King  On July 24, 2018 at 3:08 pm

Richard,
Like you now stated it clearly in ‘side note’, you replaced my argument with another totaly different one and then attacked your own straw man!

There is a difference between saying that A lies to the left of B in the numberline and saying that B is LARGER than A, or at least in how I used the word ‘larger than’. When I said ‘larger than’, I mean ‘its magnitude is larger than’.

Since my A, B, and C already rifered to MAGNITUDES, non of A, B, and C rifers to negative numbers. So I was not rifering to a case where A,B and C are positions along a number line so that taking their magnitudes can result in swapping which of them is larger. I am talking about numbers that represent magnitudes already. So the logic absolutely apply to magnitudes as well when stated this way:

If B is larger than A in MAGNITUDE, and C is larger than B in MAGNITUDE then C-A is larger than C-B in magnitude.

Like

• King  On July 24, 2018 at 3:30 pm

Next, we see that this logic must apply in the case of the magnitudes of speeds. We begine with speed A being zero, i.e ‘stationary’ frame. Then speed B=v (speed of the ‘moving’ frame) is greater than A. finaly, c is both greater than A and greater than B as well!

So clearly, v is NOT negative to c as both are moving in the same direction! So the case when a ‘negative number’ swaps its sign is inexistent here. So it is a STRAW MAN invented by richard!

Apart from that, my main argument is that it is LOGIC, not INTUITION that we have a problem with SR. Even if my argument wasn’t valid, the more correct objection would be ‘you are relying on inapplicable PREMISES ‘ and not ‘you are relying on INTUITION’. But that is still not right! I am using a different DEFINITION of speed that captures the notion I have better than taking ratios of what rods and clocks indicates!

Like

• King  On July 24, 2018 at 3:47 pm

So clearly, SR violates the basic logic that applies to all magnitudes! It advocates that speed of light is greater than the speed of frame A (stationary frame), speed of frame B (frame moving at v) is greater than the speed of frame A, speed of light is greater than the speed of B, but the speed of light is as greater than B as it is greater than A!!

What I have done to expose the absurdity we are aluding to is to jettison the issue off all irelevancies (observers, clocks, rulers, switch back and fort between riferance frames etc). These are fake ‘cloths’ covered to SR. take them off and we see its nakedness!

Clocks and rulers offer us their TESTIMONIES with regard to what they ‘think’ is the speed of snail. But how this magnitude relates to others, like in all magnitudes is a matter of LOGIC, not MEASUREMENTS.

Like

• King  On July 24, 2018 at 4:19 pm

INTUITION

‘Intuition predicts…’

Whose intuition does that? The ‘intuition’ in the funny farm?

Intuition of sane pple is open to WHATEVER the universe might reveal. Then after that, it merely try to MAKE SENSE of it (of which I noted this is the intuition of Drgsrinivas.;)! Intuition is just like logic. They don’t predict anything. We DON’T say whether or not a muon produced above the atmosphere will reach the earth surface. We say, IF it reaches the surface, WHY does it do that, IF it fails, WHY doesn’t it do that. Sane intuition works AFTER, not BEFORE observation.

How stupid it is to say that we insist muon never reach the earth surface!!! Einstein’s nincompoops put this in our mouths so when they find muons, this confirms their religious stand that ‘universe is cuonterintuitive’. Every sane person knows that atmosphere isn’t empty. To expect ‘moving’ to be same as ‘not moving’ is insane!

Liked by 1 person

• King  On July 24, 2018 at 4:38 pm

Lets consider MM experiment, for instance. While relativists would like you to beleive that all ‘intuitive’ pple didn’t expect null results, this is far from truth! There were DEBATES, and this is the reason why the experiment had to be done.

The classic physicist, WHALTER RITZ, for instance, beleived that the results should be NULL even though he was fully aware of Fizeau results, starlight aberation, etc and his inability to explain them all! However, he did not buy into SR either!

His intuition was good. When we don’t understand a phenomena, it is just that, we DON’T understand! Relativists teaches us that we should raise up our hands and declare ‘the universe is counterintuitive’ and close up any more attempts to understand. In other words, they tell us just what RELIGIONS have been telling us for 10000 years: our god does in ways that no man can understand!

Like

• King  On July 24, 2018 at 6:36 pm

Now, having talked of of those ‘logic’ vs ‘intuition’ of ‘speeds’, lets now come to a crucial issue: does logic or intuition tells us that when we MEASURE the speed of light, we must always find it to vary based on riferance frame cause both logic and intuition dictates that it must vary? It is realy neadless to say ‘naughta’ to reasonable pple! However, relativist requires pages to understand this!!

Common sense tell use that if I use a pendulum that swing once a day to define ‘second’, this pendulum clock can indicate that a snail is moving at the speed of light! So if a clock slows down, what is actualy moving slowlier can seem to move very fast as measure by that clock! Logic/commonsense then say this doesn’t mean that the object is ACTUALY moving fast.

In other words common sense does not deny that ANY of what SR predicts can actualy be observed. It merely deny SRs idea that we take these measured values LITERALY and ‘too seriously’. Unsurpringly then, physicists ( Lorentz) had predicted before SR

Like

• King  On July 24, 2018 at 7:01 pm

But my notion of ‘speed’ jetisones the clocks, riferance frames, observers and the rulers all together! If I remove these off the mouth of a relativist, he loses his major loop hole: that the issue is very complex! He can’t keep jumping, ‘it is clock’, ‘it is time’, ‘it is observer’, ‘it is non-euclidean’, ‘it is frame of riferance’..hopelessly confusing themselves and other idiots over a very simple issue!

Clocks are 100% useless when we want to say merely what is ‘FASTER THAN’, ‘MOVING AS FAST AS’ or ‘MOVING SLOWLIER THAN’. So why a relativist bring a confusing clock to such an issue? We don’t need a clock, for instance, to tell that in order for a cheetah to catch a gazel, it must move FASTER THAN a gazelle. Ergo we have an example of a good/scientificaly acurate notion of speed without riferance to a clock! However, a clock can indicate that a cheetah, which has got up a gazelle was moving slowlier than the gazelle! This mean we through the clock to museums! They have zero relevance to ‘universe’!

Like

• Satyam  On July 27, 2018 at 4:21 pm

Student,
When “counter-intuitive” was first proclaimed by physicists they meant that what they said was true and that what the “common” people thought was not true. The physicists then knew nothing about intuition and they still don’t know anything about it as you show us. You call yourself a student but this is no excuse because in order to become a “real”physicist you have to comply with the rules of your teachers. Now you are saying that things are counter-intuitive because you don’t understand them, so first the laymen were ignorant and now you say you and your teachers are ignorant. In both cases however there is no scientific knowledge of what intuition is. But the physicists still insist that they know what is going on even when they admit they know nothing and this is the real problem, they just pretend to know. This is what fake science does, it covers all bases and makes a mess of everything.

Like

• drgsrinivas  On August 24, 2018 at 5:04 pm

Relativity and Quantum prophets are always obsessive of making distinction between intuition, commonsense and rational thinking as that helps them to sell their absurd theories. First the science pastors brainwash their students and make them believe that commonsense and intuition only come in the way of knowing the Science. The faithful students so give up their commonsense and intuition in their eagerness to learn ‘Science’. The science prophets then sell their absurd theories to the faithful students. The students having given up their commonsense, readily accept all the absurd things and keep reciting them. Those students who thoroughly recite those absurd theories become science prophets and the preaching and ‘religious conversion’ continues in the name of education.

But let me tell you that it is ultimately Logic that underlies all of those processes (including maths). The only difference is that while someone goes by intuition or commonsense, one’s mind does the logical deduction process subconsciously, taking into account of the ‘data in hand’ or the immediately available information (something like RAM). In the so called rational thinking or critical thinking, one does the same logical deduction process rather consciously. In the conscious process, one will not just go by the ‘data in hand’ but tries to look for and take into account of the deeper and broader issues before arriving at a conclusion. So one may conclude that conscious rational thinking is superior to commonsense or intuition. While there can no argument about that, there are some very important points to bear in mind.

The depth and breadth of information processing done subconsciously by some individual could be greater than all that involved in the conscious rational analysis by some other individual. That is, great minds could arrive at the truth just by intuition while the ignorant people may not reach that despite their best conscious thinking and performing costly experiments and consuming all the funds in the state.

So intuition doesn’t mean some totally random, haphazard or irrational thinking. Rather it is a subconscious logical deduction process. Intelligent minds could know the truth instinctively while the less intelligent minds may not know the truth even after years of scientific research, experimentation and grounding. In fact, less intelligent minds who lack commonsense would only get mislead by the experimental data.
https://sciencevstruth.com/2017/10/19/experiments-and-science/

Like

• CDUB  On July 7, 2019 at 2:27 pm

This might qualify as a good idea if you could provide a more quantitative approach.

Like

• Hector Estepan  On June 28, 2020 at 5:01 pm

Interesting and delightful thoughts. New to your site and just found out about it. Here is my take on it. The major problem is mathematics, and specifically Euclid’s point definition “that which has no part”. Every mathematical equation uses Euclid’s point definition. The only conclusion is the universe is made out of nothing! It is of some concern because we are surrounded by real things!
To get around this problem why not start with a real Mathematical point such as a sphere of radius r and having a constant speed, zero mass, and zero charge. I guess it can be called a photon, but that is another story. The movement of such a point outlines a continuous mathematical function, and if the speed is constant, the point creates a uniform continuous mathematical universe. This is the stage.
We can then look at the mathematical function’s domain minus to positive infinity, thus making this mathematical point incapable of being created or destroyed, therefore if the photon is to be the mathematical point, the photon concept has to change. Good luck with that!

Because the point is real, it has to have the three dimensional Cartesian vector
in the x,y, z directions. In fact, all real objects have to have these three orthogonal vectors, and if it does not have these three vectors, then the object does not exist.

A volume in motion can be designated as V/t, but since all volumes have the vector then the velocity of the volume in motion is the vector/t, hence if the volume is moving in the positive x direction the velocity vector is just the x-component/t. Now here comes an interesting part. The x component in this sphere varies from zero to 2r, and each x component has to move with the constant speed v, which equals x/t. Concentrate on that relationship v=x/t, or x=vt. what does it say for a moving sphere? it clearly states that within, and on that moving sphere, time varies as x varies! It means that every time measurement we make on a moving object reflects nothing about the time in that moving object. Hence an object in motion having different lengths in the direction of motion, has different times in the direction of motion! So much for the constancy of time, but more importantly our external measurements tell us nothing about what is going on inside the moving object. Whatever interpretation we make is bound to be wrong. So much for experimental evidence.

There is some doubt about the Earth’s spin at the equator and at the poles.
The Earth spins with a speed at the equator, and the speed at the poles is zero. We utilize this speed gradient to hurl objects into space, but there is something wrong with this logic, because the Earth’s equator is not breaking off from the Earth’s poles, therefore the spin speed at the poles is equal to the spin speed at the equator, and yes the circumference at the equator is 2(pi)(diameter) and that at the poles is zero, but time at the equator is t and at the poles is zero! Once again it is time that is varying with the varying radius. Think about what this is doing to our concept of space time. Think about what this is doing to our concept of gravity.

There is obviously more if anyone is interested

Like

• ilgaar  On May 26, 2022 at 4:21 pm

You are on the right track. Except that the actual cause of gravity is the consumption of Ether by matter. Everything that has mass consumes Ether.

You should not forget that Ether is composed of Ethons which are massless and inertialess particles that are consumed by matter, why?

Because matter needs energy to keep its state and mass, and that comes from the Ether surrounding it. Potential energy is a good clue for this, which shows us there is no such thing as free lunch, energy is necessary to preserve the state of matter, and it comes from consuming Ether.

Earth having a huge amount of mass constantly is consuming Ether. This results in a constant flow of Ehtons at velocity of 9.8 m/s towards the Ether hungry Earth, anything close enough will be sucked in and fall on Erath.

This enormous consumption of Ethons creates a whirlpool effect around the earth which causes certain orbits to form that with in them a body of mass such as moon will travel without requiring any work and without falling on Earth.

Like

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.