Tag Archives: energy

Photon Ether: Many Mysteries, One Answer

March 29, 2014 – 8:29 am

Reinstating Ether into our understanding of Nature explains two great mysteries in this universe without resorting to the stupid propositions of quantum mechanics and relativity. One is that it provides logical explanation for the results of double slit experiment i.e. how particles produce interference patterns and appear to travel in multiple slits simultaneously. Next is that it explains why there is something called gravity. In fact, it provides so simple and logical explanation for these two phenomena that they both can be argued as proof of existence of Ether.

Ether theory provides a logical explanation for:

  1. Double slit Experiment
  2. The phenomenon of Gravity
  3. Explains EM waves and electromagnetism in crystal clear terms
  4. Mass and Inertia
  5. Explains red shift and cosmic background radiation and dispenses with the absurd theory of big bang
  6. Explains all those observations that are claimed as proof of relativity and QM

The ‘Photonic’ Ether Model

I propose that our entire universe is permeated by a fluid substance or medium called the Ether. Everything else in this universe remains suspended in this ocean of Ether just like how various things exist in an ocean of water. And just like how water is made up of water ‘particles’, I propose that this Ether is made up of photon particles. Electromagnetic waves are nothing but waves travelling in the Ether medium. Just like how a local disturbance in a pond of water gets dissipated throughout the pond as water waves, disturbances in Ether medium travel as electromagnetic waves throughout the Universe. As is the case with water particles, the particles of the Ether medium simply oscillate locally and do not get permanently displaced while transmitting the EM waves.

Mass and Energy: Our great physicists preach that mass and energy are equivalent. They believe that mass can get converted into energy and energy into mass. And they believe that mass and energy just represent different forms of the same thing. I am sure every one of us is familiar with the equation E=MC2 which is hailed as the greatest triumph of modern science. But unfortunately this greatest equation has got its roots in the most absurd theory in science namely the theory of relativity. That itself makes the above mass/energy equivalence formula equally absurd. Having already discussed why relativity is the weirdest theory put forward by mankind, we don’t have to break our heads about the weird mathematics that lead to the above weird equation.

But it is worth mentioning the following: While energy is a vector, mass is a scalar quantity (of course not many physicists would realise that). This obviously prohibits conversion of one quantity into another. Say for example 1gm of mass upon ‘burning’ yields ‘X’ joules of energy. But in what direction and with reference to whom this energy is produced? Is it towards a stationary observer standing by the side of the mass or away from him, or towards the north or towards the south? One may argue that the energy gets released in all directions equally so as to avoid specifying the direction. But that makes the situation even worse – we end up in a situation where our mass gets vanished but the total energy in the system doesn’t increase.

The most fundamental form of energy that we know comes in the form of electromagnetic radiation and we have seen above that photons, the particles of EM radiation, are not mass less. So when our mass gets converted into photons, it doesn’t get destroyed in true sense but simply gets broken down into the tiniest particles of mass. If we manage to add the masses of all these particles produced, that will surely add up to the original mass. The law of conservation of mass and the law of conservation of energy must be seen as two different laws, each holding true independently i.e. mass and energy get conserved separately without one compensating for the other.

Having said that, energy always manifests itself as motion of physical objects i.e. energy has no independent existence without mass as far as we understand Nature. But what actually is mass? We know very well that mass is something that gives inertia to an object i.e. the tendency to remain at rest and oppose motion. So while energy is the one that moves an object, mass is the one that gives inertia to the object and resists any motion. Thus mass and energy are responsible for opposite forces in Nature. But why is it that mass has inertia or how do we explain this property of mass? Why isn’t that objects just move? What stops them from doing so? In other words, why do objects need energy to move? Why do more massive objects need more energy to move? These questions may sound silly but are so fundamental to understand Nature at a deeper level. We can explain many of these questions by drawing attention to the above Ether model.

Cosmic Ocean of Ether: As discussed before, we can propose that all material objects remain ‘held’ in place or remain suspended in a divine fluid medium pervading this whole Universe. One may call this as Ether or Higg’s field or simply universal medium. To move through this ‘cosmic ocean’ of Ether, an object has to overcome the ‘resistance’ offered by the same. This resistance is what we experience as inertia. Obviously objects or particles need energy to overcome this background resistance and to move through the space. The more massive an object is, the more will be the resistance, hence the more will be its inertia. The above model of cosmic ocean of Ether puts the Newton’s law of inertia of motion in jeopardy because an object that is set into motion doesn’t go on moving in the cosmic ocean for ever. Any moving object is ought to come to rest in the absence of further energy supply (unless the Ether itself is streaming under the influence of a more massive object moving in the vicinity- we will come to this soon). That means we have to abandon another great law in physics which we have recited for centuries. EtherJust like an object spinning inside a pond of still water also spins a ‘layer’ of water around it, massive bodies spinning in the cosmic ocean also spin a layer of Ether around them. And this spinning of water or Ether is not an all or none phenomenon: the layer of water that is just adjacent to the spinning body gets spun faster than the layer that is farther away from the body. This differential agitation or spinning of Ether in the cosmic ocean is what probably causes the gravitational attraction between the celestial bodies (Bernoulli principle). And, just like a boat sailing in a lake sends water waves ahead of it, celestial bodies moving in the cosmic ocean also send Ether waves or gravitational waves.

So reinstating Ether into our universe explains many things- inertia/mass, gravitational attraction, gravitational waves and the delusion of wave particle duality. We know that every disturbance in a pond, big or small, gets conducted to everywhere else in the pond in the form of water waves. Of course the waves get attenuated as they move farther and farther from the place of origin.  Similarly every disturbance in the Ether medium from anywhere in the universe gets transmitted to the entire universe in the form of electromagnetic waves or Ether waves. Similar to water waves, the EM waves get attenuated as they travel farther. And they get interfered with waves from other sources. So every bit of space possesses information from everywhere else in the universe i.e. every bit of space represents the entire universe. That explains the Hologram model of our universe put forward by some physicists.

But what constitutes this ‘cosmic ocean’ or Ether? As has been proposed earlier, it is possible that Ether is made up of photons (see chapter- explaining double slit experiment) but knowing or understanding what constitutes Ether doesn’t lead us to the last and final secret of Nature. The concept of Ether immediately rises two questions i.e. what constitutes a photon particle? And what lies in between the photon particles? Like physicists, one may imagine that photons are fundamental particles and the space in between them is empty. But as a logician, I find it difficult to believe so- how can any particle be considered indivisible? And how can there be space that has nothing in it? So by no means, we can consider Ether or photons as the most fundamental stuff in Nature. It may be that there is Ether and there is ultra-Ether in between the Ether particles and there is ultra-ultra-Ether and so on. Understanding each of them simply takes us to a deeper layer of reality but by no means gives us the complete picture about Nature – it is just like peeling another layer of an infinitely covered onion. So it is true to say that we can never understand the ultimate reality or reach the deepest layer by clinging to the material science. This is where the importance of ‘Spiritual science’ comes. Only spiritual and philosophical thinking can help us understand and experience the Nature through to the deepest layer of reality and help us achieve Enlightenment and realise the ultimate truth.

Go to Next Page

Go to Main Index

By drgsrinivas | Posted in Science with Sense | Also tagged , , , , , , , | Comments (31)

Force, Work and Energy

March 29, 2014 – 2:32 am

Unfortunately even classical mechanics is not without misconceptions and superstitions.

According to the classical physics, a force is any influence which tends to cause a change in the motion (or shape) of an object. In simpler terms, it is also described as something that causes acceleration (or deformation) of a body. Physicists put the same in mathematical terms as

F= ma (Force=mass x acceleration)

But what do they mean by ‘influence’? And what is the fundamental basis for the so called force?

Obviously a mathematical formula (F=ma) makes little sense unless we have a thorough understanding of the concept in clear terms without scope for vagueness or ambiguity.

I thought supplying energy to a body results in acceleration of the body. But then how is it different from a force because the latter is also said to result in acceleration of a body? Is there a real difference between force and energy? I always had difficulty in imagining force and energy as two different concepts during my school days. But of course being a blind ‘believer’ of science and great fan of physics, I was ‘intelligent’ enough to thoroughly (mis)understand them as two completely different things (like what any other ‘bright’ student of science would do).

Lets us see now how work is described in our physics books-

– When a force acts upon an object to cause a displacement of the object, it is said that work was done upon the object.

– A force is said to do work when it acts on a body, and there is a displacement of the point of application in the direction of the force.

– Work refers to an activity involving a force and movement in the direction of the force.

And in mathematical terms, work is represented as

W= F x D (Work = Force x Displacement)

From the above descriptions, we can imagine work as displacement of a body in the direction of force which implies that work is a vector quantity and points in the same direction as that of the force. And that makes sense too. For example a body moved for 1meter towards east is not the same as that body moved for 1meter towards the north. And when a force of 1Newton acts upon a body and moves it for 1 meter eastward, then the work done would be 1Nmeter eastward. But the quantity of work done is not the same in the northeast direction. So the amount of work done varies with direction in a similar proportion with force. And if work is a vector, then obviously energy becomes a vector too because work done is energy spent. And that goes against the most famous and chanted principle of mass-energy equivalence and destroys the entire imaginary world of modern physicists. To save themselves and their delusional theories, they would surely resort to vague explanations as they always do whenever their stupid theories are under threat.

But anyway, to the majority of the ordinary minds, the above derivations and definitions of force and work make very little sense. Of course, intelligent students of science will surely manage to understand them thoroughly. And if they are even more intelligent, they will also thoroughly ‘understand’ relativity and quantum theories. That makes me feel that intelligence in modern scientific society is a measure of distorted thinking or indicates the ability to ‘correctly’ understand false theories and thoroughly imagine non-existing things and phenomena.

As I have pointed out elsewhere, science and mathematics are ultimately built upon on bits of simple assumptions or axioms. So every concept in physics (and every mathematical formula) must be amenable to breaking down into tiny bits of simple assumptions. Hence as we dig deeper and look closer, we must find even complex appearing things become simple and straight forward and easily understandable even to the ordinary brains.

But this is not the case with most concepts in modern physics. As we go deeper and deeper, things become more and more weird and unintelligible and demand more and more ‘imaginative’ power. For example relativity starts with the preaching of constant speed of light. Then it goes on to propose time dilation/ length contraction, and then relativity of simultaneity and so on. At every step, a newer and weirder proposition is thrown upon us to explain or support or save a previous less strange proposition.

And unfortunately many such weird ‘preachings’ exist in classical physics too. (Otherwise why would physics, supposed to be built upon simple axioms and hence must be easily understood by ordinary minds, be felt as the most difficult subject by many students?)

To remove the confusion and to bring back law and order into the chaotic physics, I have decided to redefine things in simple and clear terms without resorting to vague statements and complex maths.

We can define work as movement of mass in space. That is, when we move a mass from one location to another, we can say work is done. So to quantify work, we have to obviously take into account both mass and distance – for example when 1kg of mass is moved over a distance of 1meter, we can consider that as 1kg.meter of work.

Work (W) = mass (m) x distance (d)

Of course, we need one more parameter to make this formula complete. That is the resistance of the environment or medium i.e. whether the movement occurs in water or air or Ether medium. (Remember that we no longer believe in the notion of absolute vacuum, every bit of space is filled with Ether). For example moving a 1kg mass for 1meter in water involves more work than moving the same in air or Ether. Also we need to do more work for moving 1kg mass uphill (against gravity) than to move the same mass downhill for the same distance.

So, Work (W) = mass (m) x distance (d) x resistance factor (r)

Energy is defined as the capacity to do Work. While work is the effect, energy is the cause of it. Often we can only measure a cause by looking at its effect. So, it is not surprising that both Energy (cause) and Work (effect) are expressed in same units and possess the same value. So work done is same as energy spent.

So Energy spent =Work done = mass.distance.resistance

(And Energy may also be defined as the capacity to do work. So a body’s energy may be expressed in terms of its capacity to do work i.e. in terms of the distance a body can move in a given environment)

Just to quantify how much work is done in an event, we don’t need the time parameter

Now compare the following two examples of work done in an environment or medium with resistance factor 1.

  1. 1kg mass moved for 1meter in 1 second
  2. 1kg mass moved for 1meter in 2 seconds

In both the cases, the quantity of work done is same i.e. 1kg.meter. But in the first example, the work is done faster. That introduces us to a new parameter i.e. rate of work done or energy spent per second.

Work done in 1 second = r.mass.distance/time=r.mass.velocity

The ability to do more work per second may be called as power.

So power = work/sec = mass x distance / time = mass x velocity (momentum in our classical understanding)

But what happens to the energy that is spent? We believe that energy can’t be destroyed or created. When work is done, energy simply gets transferred from a body to the environment or to some other body. For example when a bat hits a ball, energy gets transferred from the bat to the ball. And as the ball travels in the air medium, it loses energy to the air particles and creates air currents and air waves. Thus the energy of the ball gets dissipated throughout the environment. So as work is done by a body, it loses its energy to the environment.

This transfer of energy to a body in unit time is what we may call as force.

So force F = quantity of Energy transferred/ sec

(While work done per second is power, energy transferred per second is force. So like work and energy; power and force are one and the same)

A force is nothing but the rate of energy transfer from one body to another. And this energy transfer occurs only when there is a collision between material objects. There is no other magical way of transferring energy unlike what the physicists may preach. And there is only one force in Nature. Gravitational ‘attraction’ occurs because of Bernoulli Effect which can be explained by the differential ether dragging around the spinning celestial bodies.

From the above discussion, it is obvious that work is a vector quantity. So whenever we say a work is done we must specify the direction in which the work was done. That obviously makes energy also a vector. The energy of a body points in the direction of its motion.

But here is a question- What is the direction of the energy stored in food and fuels? A meal can make us walk in any direction. A car can move in any direction with the energy it gets from a litre of petrol? If energy is a vector, how can we explain this?

And then what about the so called potential energy? I will come to these things later.

Go to Main Index

By drgsrinivas | Posted in Science with Sense | Also tagged , , , | Comments (26)