Tag Archives: gravity

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 Dr Srinivasa Rao Gonuguntla | Posted in Science with Sense | Also tagged , , , , , , , | Comments (32)

Gravity and Bernoulli principle

March 22, 2014 – 12:31 am

Physicists are good at observing things and connecting them by some weird mathematics despite not knowing what actually happens beneath the ‘visible’ layer of things. And it is their eccentric mathematical intelligence which has made them reasonably successful both in predicting the Nature and in designing various gadgets of our modern society despite their totally false picture of the invisible world and their subnormal thinking about the universe as a whole.

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. Some argue that both the above laws just represent different facets of the same fundamental phenomenon and hence believe that either can be made use of to explain Bernoulli Effect. That just highlights their 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 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 the lesser the sideward pressure.

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 on 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
  2. it starts spinning (in the opposite direction to that of the ‘inducer’)
  3. and it gets dragged towards the second body

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

But from where does this spin come?

By Dr Srinivasa Rao Gonuguntla | Posted in Science with Sense | Also tagged , , , , , | Comments (0)