May 31, 2015 Up till now I have not understood too much of current physics, I don't know calculus or other advanced math, however I just read within the past two weeks a piece in the book set "The World of Physics" entitled "Physics and Reality" by Albert Einstein, that has surprised me in how it might provide a bridge to my hypothesis. One thing I have wanted to do is understand why current physics gets the math calculations for things right while being conceptually wrong, in my opinion. What I have just read begins to give me a clue as to why this is so, I believe. I think I was able to understand some of the piece, but was lost when one speaks of partially and full differential equations, although it is obvious that scientists put great value in these, and if I was younger would try too understand them. But as it is I just went though one of my bad bouts of exhaustion and work on this little bit with trepidation, although much interest also.
This piece started out with a number of contradictory statements I felt, but after that it was much clearer and well written. I will go over some points later, but first I want to jump to page 137 where he says this; "From this, it follows that the spacial coordinates X1, X2, X3, and the time X4, must be transformed according to the Lorentz transformation which is characterized by invariance of the expression
ds2 = dx12 + dx22 + dx3 2 - dx42
(if the unit of time chosen is such a manner that the speed of light c = 1)
Now this is actually a much simpler equation then it looks. It is, if I have it right, to express it simply in lay terms, figuring out the change in position of an object. But Einstein has, as expressed in the discussion on that page, considered time as a spatial quality (as a "distance"). An act that is primarily what makes his special theory of relativity, leaving time just another "dimension" in addition to the normal three dimensions of a normal coordinate system, that is the x,y, z axis's of simple geometry. He even states:
"By this procedure time lost its absolute character and was included with the "spatial" coordinates as of algebraically (nearly) similar character. The absolute character of time and particularly of simultaneity were destroyed, and the four dimensional description became introduced as the only adequate one."
Now I did the same thing, as expressed at the start of chapter 8. But I never considered that it invalidated the concept of time. Indeed I came to realized time can be expressed as a spatial quality also, it quite definitely comes down to just a ratio of velocities. But this by no means means time is not real or absolute, or happens, only that there is a intimate relation between velocity and time, motion over time, distance per time, as feet per second, without time there is no motion, other than instantaneous motion, but without motion time can still exist, or not, depending on God creating it, but cannot be measured. But, as expressed on page 92, since non-instantaneous motion does exist time must also, otherwise there is no rate of motion.
Now back to the above equation for another reason. In the paragraphs proceeding Mr. Einstein talks about the belief that the speed of light must be found to to be constant for any internal system, that is any physical system studied. In my hypothesis this is not so. My idea is of an ether with particles traveling at the speed of light. And light and electricity are not the same. My light particles have a combined linear and circular motion, and are essentially generated "off" these ether particles, so their linear speed is c. Electrons are particles with speeds, mostly linear velocities to start, that express a differential between the speed of the ether and themselves. As they dissipate this energy goes into any arrangement that happens, until equalized back into the ether. These particle speeds can be greater than and less than the speed of light. So this odd subtraction of the spatial coordinates of time, and many other considerations such as quantum numbers all deal with ratios pinned to the speed of light. That is why, though I have lost the idea more completely I wanted to express, standard physics gets the math right, but concepts wrong, because the numbers all revolve around these ratios, in my hypothesis and in standard physics. And they Jerry-man these ratios into whatever equations fit the experimental and observational facts, and it works mathematically even though they do not correctly know what concepts these represent, in my opinion.
In my idea also are things like rotational "delay" and random directional results, my electron particles, in interacting with purer ether particles most likely may form wave like dispersal fronts (though not energy states in themselves) that mimic wave like properties of current physics.
Another error, as see it, I could be wrong
Page 127, paragraph four, he gets into the simple notion that for a ensemble of two bodies "such alteration that can not possibly be considered as changes of position of the whole, notwithstanding the fact that this is the case for the each position one of the two constituents" He then goes on, if I got it right and as I summarize it, to deduce space is not real, as relative position of two bodies is all that is needed for math calculations.
No this is basic fallacy, and most important. This system of relative positions, and "frames of reference" is essentially physics, without which no experimental results could be interpreted. Newton, Hertz and I presume others spent a great deal of time just laying out their axioms for relative motion etc in their books. The fallacy is this, that somehow you can consider the relative position between two bodies without a third member to the ensemble. Of course you cannot, to consider the relative position you are measuring distance (theoretically), which is itself a type of space, and a type of ensemble. Such measure has a center point to it, which is motionless, and shows indeed that the two other bodies have moved, even if their relative position is unchanged.
Now I by no means have my my head around this but I sense the ideas of relative position must be understood more as a tool of measurement, it is not absolute reality. The real system is absolute, infinite in nature in terms of space and perhaps other factors. Any measurement can never take in enough factors as to find definite results of every system, only those systems that naturally lend themselves to isolated measure (approximate or not) are measurable. But to apply axioms of isolated system to the whole has perhaps formed postulates that are preventing understanding the fundamentals of physics, where indeed other logic and axioms are still capable of evoking results.
In my hypothesis, absolute motion is being stopped and reformed all the time, that is even the motion of the planets and galaxies is completely stopped at the primary level, but then reform, perhaps like Newton's system of fits and starts, which I know by name only. So I presume the math for that is different than for a system of relative motion inquires only.
The idea again of frames of reference, with no "preferred" frame of reference is a puzzle to me, all frames of reference are arbitrary are they not? So just choose any arbitrary one, at least theoretically?
Here are some more interesting statements by Mr Einstein that may lend themselves to resolution via my hypothesis.
Page 134 first paragraph. "One could never get a clear picture of the interior forces governing the ether, nor the forces acting between the ether and the "ponderable" matter. The foundation of this theory remained, therefore, eternally in the dark."
Page 134, second paragraph. "To these difficulties there had to be added the polar character of these kinds of matter, that did not fit the scheme of classical mechanics.
Page 137 last paragraph. " This theory is compatible with the equations of Maxwell; but, it is incompatible with the basis for classical mechanics. It is true that the equations of motion of the material point can be modified (and with them the expressions for momentum and kinetic energy of the material point) in such a manner as to satisfy the theory; but, the concept of force of interaction, and with it the concept of potential energy of a system, lose their basis, because these concepts rest upon the idea of absolute instantaneous. The field, as determined by differential equations, takes the place of the force."
April 2018 Conservation Laws
I'm surprised I never thought of this before. So straightforward a rebuff of current theory.
What seems to be underplayed in current theory's is motion. Motion is central and primary factor in my hypothesis, but in others it is secondary to force and energy, which in in my hypothesis results from motion.
Considering motion, if a baseball falling to the earth. Does not a moving ball have energy, but it was also imparted energy from the force of gravity, which does not diminish as the ball moves, and vice versa, so conservation laws are broken. If the force or energy came from the point in space that the ball's motion began, then that field of energy, is it diminished? And that point is nothing, so the cause is nothing but the point in space. And if that point has that energy then what is to distinguish it from other points in space, but if all points have energy as such we have a continuum, and continuums are dangerous things, for if we have energy everywhere, and no where it is not, what is to distinguish one impulse from the next, and what is to keep the ball from obtaining terrific speeds, what is to ever slow the ball down?
Reading a little I see current physics resorts to the idea of potential energy to solve this dilemma. But this, in my opinion, is so much double-speak. One could circumvent any logical argument by throwing in a similar concept/clause. So, if the ball is on the top of a hill it is said to have potential energy, if rolling down the hill the potential energy is changed to kinetic energy, so whowla the conservation of energy is satisfied. This is nonsense. The problem now is doubly bad. The force of gravity would be acting on the ball at the top of the hill just as much as when it is moving. At the top of the hill the force goes though the ball into the earth and is dissipated as heat or/and repulsive electrostatic energy. The problem REMAINS THE SAME, that is the force of gravity is always acting, therefore always inducing energy of one sort in the ball, which is always dissipating to other types of energy, like heat. So, does this mean energy has been conserved, because it is dissipating into other forms? OF COURSE NOT, it means just the opposite it means energy is always being created and added to the system by the standard of current physics. THERE IS NO CONSERVATION OF ENERGY IN THIS SENEARIO.
Now in my hypothesis the problem is solved. I have found motion is always conserved, but energy is being constantly created and destroyed by the acceleration/deceleration of Nucleons and the associated dynamics. Gravity is not a force on the elementary level, but is
inherit motion flow, and any energy it creates in bodies is recycled though this process of energy being constantly created and destroyed.
I think I got it, perhaps
Reading about rest mass on Wikipedia, they relate E=mc2 to a similar equation with the mass moving. having something to do with Lorentz. So it seems the reference frame of observer to mass, if in same frame of reference, means mass is a rest, and has a certain value. If moving its mass changes!! But here it is for my hypothesis, I have a reference frame, not related to the observer as commonly considered but to the particle itself, which is then an ABSOLUTE FRAME OF REST, so it becomes clearer to see what is going on. I am working from the bottom up, where as standard physics is working from the top down. For one thing one needs to understand energy. A particle moving at the speed of light has ZERO energy. Energy is a deviation from unison motion of the ether in the universe. The ether probably moves at the speed of light. That means a particle AT ABSOLUTE REST HAS energy, a particle moving > the speed of light has energy. Please see my chapter on energy. Mass is a constant, never changes at any speed. Light has zero mass and zero energy at absolute rest mass because at rest mass it does not exist. It is created from masses in motion.
Nucleons undergo constant acceleration and deceleration. The faster they go the sooner they hit other particles They can go faster than light but would be very difficult to achieve and very short lived. That process is what creates electrons, which are very misunderstood, if my hypothesis is correct. Please see the chapter on electrons. Electrons are already moving much faster than the speed of light when you look at them in the absolute reference frame. In standard reference frame their energy at rest mass is actually motion faster than the speed of light, but short lived. The strength of the electron waxes and wanes. And some electrons are moving slower than the speed of light, they absorb to each other so to speak and destroy the electron.
Let me say a little more, as my idea is currently, if one accelerated a N to c, and it all broke apart, it would have no energy, just a lot of magnetic effects. But if it did not break apart it would have the potential to produce 273 x the energy of one electron, so to speak., a very powerful electron. If one took a N at rest "mass" and broke it up, there would be 273 x the one e- of energy. It would have potential energy of 1 unbroken up. After the first PP from PP flow accelerates it, it would have three potential/actual energies, one of Zero, if it lost all its motion back to a PP and one of 273/274c created by a slow electron that accelerated the N. And if consider N having E and not just the electrons, its energy would be 273c (I am using c for momentum of one PP at c, and also roughly saying that is same as one e-, using the terms interchangeably)(the above numbers might be different depending on the mechanics of how a N is accelerated which I have not worked out yet in detail).
PLEASE SEE THE NEW SECTION ON HEAT IN CHAPTER 6 FOR AN INTERESTING POSSIBILITY ON TIME/SPACE DILATION
STUFF. ALSO NEW; THE END (REDISH-BROWN SECTION) OF CHAPTER 7-LIGHT FOR A POSIBLE EXPLANATION FOR THE INVARIANCE OF LIGHT.
Connecting with Modern Physics Part II
I've tried, with no success, numerous times to relate some of the equations of physics to my hypothesis, in particular to the wavelength of my light particle. here are some of the equations I used.
photon = h x frequency 1/wave
length = RH/h x c x (1/Nj2 -1/Nj2)
E = mc2 p=m x v wavelength = h/m x v and other like equations
But with no success as my units do not transcribe to regular units. I have units related to the length of my rod, like for length one rod width. For time as described in Chapter 8, etc. So if a rod was traveling at c, it would sweep a certain area, (see Appendix D) if the same rod was rotating at c, it should sweep the same area, therefore from my light particle a frequency per second should be calculable for the same. But then one has to relate it to the energy in the photon, and my "energy" is rate of motion, or mass x velocity, and how does that relate to the "energy" of a physics photon? If one could match the Balmer or other series exactly as I tried to in the chapter on light then one might be able to figure a transposing of units, perhaps.
UPDATE FEBRUARY 22, 2017
My System of Units
Time equals the linear distance a P traveling at c as related to a P rotating at c from its endpoint and completing one revolution. Named Linear Distance Time (ldt)
area swept = π r2 Radius of area swept = 137 (rod lengths) or π x 1372 = 58934.66
Distance a rod going linear for same area swept (height x length) would be
(Equation 9-1) 58934.66/137 = 430.18 rdw (rod widths)
With also a fq of 1/ldt so
Mass = mass rod Time(ldt) = 430.18 rdw at velocity = c velocity = rdw/ldt
for fq (frequency) = c /wavelength 1/ldt = 430.18 rdw/ 1 ldt x 430.18 rdw therefore
c = 430.18 rdw/ldt is equivalent to 3.0 x108 meters/second
More Musing/Possible Translation of Units
So did some more musing along
the lines mentioned in chapter 6, in February 2017 and may have come
up with something. fq - frequency
E = mc2 and E = h x fq
if fq = 0 and mass = 0 the math is not appropriate, but if
fq is diminished toward zero and mass diminished toward zero then c2 = h which is false. Mass is the variable therefore greater mass = greater fq as such. But by my hypothesis mass (for light) does not = 0 in E=mc2, but E=0 if E=mc as mc is p (momentum) of P's in PP flow. Instead mass is a real constant (so to speak) and if h x fq = mc2 and diminish fq toward ----> 0 and make one c likewise a variable diminished toward -----> 0. Cancel these two out and have h = mc or kg x meters/sec = kg x meters/sec on right meters/sec = c so if solve for mass on right as mass of one rod kg x meters/sec divided by c = mass (rod)
mass = 6.626 x 10 -34 kg x m /sec divided by 3.0x 108 m/sec
mass(rod) = 6.626 x 10-34 kg
/3.0 x 108
(Equation 9-2) mass (rod) =
2.2086 x 10-42 kg [this will be shown to be incorrect and then
h contains both the mass of one rod and the speed of light as values (kg x m/sec) and also a extra m. when paired again to equal E = h x fq the m/sec could represent a velocity, and the second c in E = mc2 not c but a variable velocity, and it is the mass that is constant.
So by my hypothesis the wavelength or frequency of light ought to be directly related to a 1c PP or 2c PP etc, and ordered fraction thereof. But Rydberg Constant is not the value of c, though it is used to calculate wavelengths. Well one is dealing with wave theory in standard physics. This is not wave theory, so a translation needs to be made from wave theory physics to my hypothesis, and likewise if my hypothesis is correct the equations of standard physics should still hold by in large, but need to be, as above, re-interpreted according to my ideas, and that must fit.
What might be said is that periodicity is shown by using the rotation of the 3P case. Though it doesn't really produce a wave I think. It does have periodicity, at each 180 degrees. And in terms of the math a virtual periodicity at 360 degrees which is what fits. I say virtual because the calculation of rotation from a endpoint and a midpoint rotation gives different periodicity in terms of rod alignment, but the velocity per time is the same, and is naturally calculated from a endpoint rotation point when comparing to linear motion.
So the transition is this; the wavelength at the speed of light (c) is best related to the periodic interval of time/area swept by one rotation of a rod from endpoint when that rod has a rotational velocity equal to c. This then is the factor that makes the Rydberg constant different from c. We will then assume the Rydberg constant equals that value, and is calculated below in rod-widths as unit of length.
Rydberg constant = 9.116 x 10-8 meter. is equivalent to 430.18 rdw (eq. 9-1 ) therefore
Equation 9-3 1 rdw = 2.118 x 10-10 meters
Planks Constant (h)
So as mentioned in the paragraph before the last section h might contain both the mass of one rod and the speed of light as values (kg x m/sec) and also a extra m. when paired again to equal E = h x fq the m/sec could represent a velocity, and the second c in E = mc2 not c but a variable velocity, and it is the mass that is constant.
If I now calculate this velocity using a common wavelength, such as the one of 434 nm in the Balmar series, using the mass value in h as per eq. 9-2, the results is a velocity of 6.91 x 10 to the 14th per second. This value is way to high to be anywhere near the speed of 1c given a PP in my hypo. But if one considers that there needs to be a value for wavelength in h that is some constant, and the fluctuation of fq creates a velocity. This then is deducted from the value of mass on h calculated in eq. 9-2.
Now as most physics equations here revolve around the speed of light, so if we consider then this wavelength value in h x fq = c, and consider the above calculation and reasoning for the Rydberg constant, it makes the most sense that it is this value also that is in h, which would bring the value of most common light down to a factor of 10 from c in the exchange of speeds of the nucleons in my hypothesis.
So h contains now The Rydberg Constant, the speed of light, and the mass of one rod.
To recalculate that mass from eq. 9-2
rod] 2.2086 x 10
constant] 9.116 x 10
meters = 2.423 x 10
Kg / meters
This is okay here to divide meters from kg nad just drop the meters, because we are looking to adjust the raw numbers from h and then place the assigned meaning to each. The second part of the Bohr equation using the Rydberg Constant (the n1 to powers minus n2 to powers) represents divisions of the primary speeds of PP of the Nucleons, see chapter 7 light). The Rydberg Constant itself here represents the primary quanta of velocity (as a wavelength) to be divided or multiplied, that is 1c over the 1c value of the PP flow.
2.423 x 10 -35 kg (mass one rod) x c
(speed of light) x 9.116 x 10 -8 meters (Rydberg
Constant-representing wavelength generated by rod rotating with a
velocity of c)
To double check multiply that all out and you do have Planck's Constant of 6.626 x 10 -34 .
and to summarize
One rod (Primary Particle) has then a
mass of 2.423 x 10-35 kg
width of 2.118 x 10-10 meters
length of 2.9024 x 10-8 meters
Therefore one Nucleon has a mass of approximately one rod x 276 or 6.687 x 10 -33 kg
There is conservation of Mass, and of Velocity, Energy is more iffy as it depends on factors that I am not sure may fluctuate or not.