Our present idea of space came from the Greek geometer, Euclid. Space is an infinity of nothing having the same characteristics at every point. Matter exists, taking a definite volume within this space, but having no other association with it.
The fact that forces act between objects in this emptiness of space immediately imposes a necessity. This infinite emptiness still exists, but it is distorted in the vicinity of objects. This idea constitutes the first patch in the present patchwork which we call physical science.
There exists in science the extremely odd idea that if a thing is given a name, the fact of having been given a name makes it clear. Newton had his troubles with the propagation of forces through nothing, but finally had to be satisfied with calling it action at a distance. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, he assumed that the action was instantaneous.
Einstein, in his less-than-infinite wisdom, put a patch on the existing patch. He knew very well that the Velocity of light was finite, therefore forces are propagated at the velocity of light, since no signal can exceed this value. Since time is now involved, the simple concept of space now became the space-time continuum. This was a tremendous advance in understanding since the presence of objects could now distort time as well as space.
If the reader detects a note of sarcasm in the above statement, it is only because it was meant to be so. Our present level of scientific knowledge is about that of the kindergarten dropout. Consider the fact that the aberration of light from celestial objects is well known. There is no corresponding evidence that such an aberration exists in the law of central forces by which a satellite system such as the sun and its planets is established.
There is a law in science which requires: "if it makes sense, throw it away and look for something else." The fact that planetary motion exhibits no aberration of force requires that any adjustment is instantaneous. This requires a localized space which must be determined by the central object of the system. Then we state: The space of an object is determined by the object itself, and extends beyond the geometric boundaries of the object.
The point to be made is that space has no existence in the sense that the Greek geometers would have us believe. Therefore their gift has acted as a "Trojan Horse" to throw the development of universal theory completely off the track. The same fact applies to the space- time continuum of Einstein. Since presently accepted ideas are not viable, we must seek an alternative.
The oddest of all the oddities concerning the human animal is his apparent lack of predisposition toward the truth. The statement: "in any argument, the loudest voice prevails," has nothing to indicate that truth is involved. It is useless to speculate what might have been. Leibniz was a rival of Newton, both in mathematics and in physics. He ridiculed Newton's concept of space with the statement: "There is no space where there is no matter."
The statement by Leibniz to the effect that matter and space are inseparably associated would be ridiculous except for one very minor point: It happens to be the truth. In fact it happens to be the only basis of physical creation. In the creation of matter as a positive entity, we have the equivalent negative entity which is called space.
Since the concept must be applied to each physical particle, we conclude that one half of the total object is a field effect. The space of the earth is composed of a relative infinity of spaces of individual particles at any radial distance from the mass center in such a way that the distributed field effect contains one half the total energy of the object itself. If experimental proof is required, it is necessary only to point to the fact that the law of central forces in planetary motion exhibits no aberration.
The present author at various times has characterized the modern scientist as walking around poking into dark corners looking for evidence to support his pre-conceived notion of truth when the only thing of significance is happening directly behind him. Let it be known that this characterization is in error. It is much more likely that the scientist is looking directly at the truth and bawling at the top of his lungs that it does not exist.
As an added case in point, in reference to the nature of space and matter, we consider the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment. This experiment was designed to measure the motion of the earth with respect to a fixed space. The null result was used by Lorentz who took the view that the fixed space existed, but the measurement of motion through it was masked by a contraction of the measuring unit imposed by the velocity.
As a matter of fact, the null result is to be expected. If the space of the earth is determined by the earth, and translates with the earth in its orbit, the experiment can show no motion with respect to space.
Let us not be too hasty in our conclusion. Another experiment by Michelson and Gale was performed and reported in 1925. Light was sent around a rectangle in the form of an evacuated pipe. The fact that the earth rotates on its axis causes a component of that rotation to apply to any surface plane except at the equator. It was found that a measurable difference was introduced when the direction of travel of the light around the loop was reversed.
Since we are not in the business of playing games with truth, we now can state as a consequence of the simultaneous requirements of the Michelson-Morley and Michelson-Gale experiments: As a matter of proper interpretation of experimental fact, the space of the earth translates with the earth as the earth rotates within in. This is true at least to second order effects.
The Foucalt pendulum is another simple device by means of which the rotation of the earth with respect to its own space can be demonstrated. This is simply a long pendulum that maintains a given plane of swing as the earth rotates beneath it.
At present we have found Newton in error at two points. His concept of space was in error and his concept of matter was in error. Since he had borrowed both of these from the Greeks, we may properly put the blame on them. Another very glaring error is apparent in his concept of the nature of inertia. The idea than an inertial force does no work in untenable. For this one the blame falls on no other but Newton himself.
Consider a mass object at rest. With our present knowledge we may say that the object has a certain amount of energy inherent in its creation. Now if a force is applied through some distance, work is done upon the object. This work manifests itself as kinetic energy added to the object in the process of putting it into motion. In this case the object has more energy than it had when it was at rest.
There can be no simpler concept than that described above. Also, there can be no concept more completely in error. If there is a force applied it must have had a source. If there is a source, the inertial force of the accelerated object reacted upon it. In this case we must consider the effect of the force of reaction on the source.
To make a short story longer, there is an interchange of energy of such a nature that the accelerated object has its internal energy reduced by the amount of kinetic energy that it gains. In this case the total energy of the object is conserved, but a redistribution of the total energy has occurred. In the case of impact radiation, the analysis is not quite so simple, but the essential fact is not changed. It is not necessarily true that an increase in velocity means an increase in energy Then we state: an increase in the velocity of an object does not automatically result in an increase in mass.
As an added bonus, we now have a reason and a meaning for the existence of inertia. It is a result of the existing energy configuration of an object. Any attempt to impose a change on the existing distribution of energy results in a reactive force to oppose the change.
The theory of relativity has only one inconsequential flaw. The only flaw that can be found in it is that it is completely in error if it were not for that minor flaw it would still be hogwash. The present author is not alone in this conclusion. We may quote Dr. Walther Rauschenberger in the book "One Hundred Authors Against Einstein." (Leipzig 1931)
"The acceptance of the theory of Relativity will go down in history as one of the most remarkable errors of the human mind."
Einstein's own words may serve to indicate that he finally got wise to his own limitations. In 1949 he wrote to his old friend Maurice Solovine, who had congratulated him on his seventieth birthday.
"Now you think that I am looking back at my work with calm satisfaction. But on a closer look, it is quite different. There is not a single concept of which I am convinced that it will stand firm and I am not sure that I was on the right track after all."
The presently accepted scientific method is: Jump to an erroneous conclusion and then spend the rest of your life trying to justify it. The work of Einstein is another classic example of the baby and the bath water. The work of Lorentz required the Velocity of light to be an absolute constant. This requirement was imposed by the concept of a fixed ether with celestial objects moving through it. Einstein made the error of accepting the Lorentz transformations but rejecting the fixed ether. This makes no sense since the transformations depend on the existence of space as a fixed medium.
Since the Lorentz transformations are in error by the fact that there exists no fixed space, the Einstein transformations are rendered invalid as a result of this fact. At this point the reader is entitled to one minor heart attack. What! No velocity variation in time! No contraction of an object in length? This man is out of his mind. Where are the men in the white coats? The time transformation has been experimentally demonstrated to be Valid too many times to remember.
An experiment can only provide a result. The interpretation of the meaning of that result depends exclusively on theory. The work of Planck indicated that energy is equal to a constant multiplied by frequency. The structure of the atomic clock depends on an internal frequency. If that clock is put into motion, this can be done only at the expense of a reduction in the internal energy. This results in a reduction of the internal frequency. Since the frequency is reduced, the period of the frequency is increased. Now we must ask the question: Does the reduction in the internal energy of matter have anything to do with time?
The point to be made is that the unmitigated arrogance of relativity theory permits no interpretation other than that provided by the theory itself. It follows that the theory of relativity is proved by the theory of relativity. We can distort time in the same sense by lengthening the pendulum of a Grandfather Clock. The conclusion is that the time distortion of relativity is a matter of misinterpretation rather than a fact.
As a matter of passing interest, we may relate internal energy to the stability of a particle such as the meson. We must consider that the internal energy is a measure of a condition of strain tending to disrupt the particles. Since the internal energy is reduced with velocity, there must be some velocity at which the internal strain becomes zero. If this occurs at the velocity of light, such a particle at this velocity would show no tendency to decay.
To get back to the baby and bathwater, Einstein spent the last thirty years of his career in an effort to generate a unified field theory incorporating electromagnetic and gravitational effects. He was not successful because he had thrown away the answer before he started the problem. Gravitational effects depend upon a variation in the velocity of light for their manifestation. Einstein was aware of the difficulty and made some attempts to modify his view concerning the constant velocity of light, but nothing in particular came out of his efforts. At present, the unified field theory has degenerated into a "Superfarce" (The spelling is correct) in which a "Superforce" (the spelling is again correct) split into a weak force, a strong force, an electromagnetic force, and a gravitational force. Again we are faced with the philosophy that a name is an explanation.
As a matter of fact there are as many forces as there are potentials to generate them. Thus we have a gravitational potential to generate a gravitational force or gradient. This is an inverse square force form. Any spinning mass object generates a spin potential. This is an inverse cube force form. Since all nuclear particles have spin, this is the stabilizing force in atomic nuclei. Also, it is manifest in the case of the orbit of mercury. It seems that present investigators are totally ignorant of the existence of the inverse cube spin force.
In addition to the two mass forces, we have the inverse square force of electrostatic charge. Isolated magnetic poles exhibit an equivalent inverse square force effect, but if we consider a fundamental particle such as an electron, we have a magnetic dipole force which falls off inversely as the fourth power of the radius vector.
To this point we have found various inverse square forces as well as an inverse cube force and an inverse fourth power magnetic dipole force. When we consider imposed distortions and the resulting reactions, there seems to be no end to the possibilities. It appears that the present unified field theory is not even the beginning of a beginning.
It is not fair to put the blame for relativity exclusively on Einstein. The roots of modern day relativity can be traced to Bishop George Berkeley, who in the early seventeen hundreds came out with the concept that reality existed only in the mind of the beholder. His concept of space as being determined by the "Fixed Stars" led to Einstein's space-time continuum. His argument that if the universe contained only one object centrifugal force could not exist, depended on the concept that in such an event no rotation could be defined. This concept is rendered false by the proof that the earth rotates within its own non-rotating space.
Another exponent of relativity was Ernst Mach. His analysis of the rotating water bucket is a classic example of rotational relativity. Consider a bucket more or less half filled with water. If this is suspended on a rope and rotated, the surface of the water gradually takes on the shape of a parabolid of revolution as the water is brought into motion and centrifugal force becomes active. According to Mach the effect would be the same if the bucket was at rest and the universe was rotated around it with the same angular velocity. How such a test could be performed was not explained.
The most unfortunate aspect of relativity is the Bandwagon Syndrome. The question is not whether it is right or wrong, but is it accepted? At the present time, the physicists view of creation appears to be that Einstein did it.
It is not necessarily true that when the Lord God got around to the point of creating the universe, he asked Dr. Einstein for permission and advice. The present author holds the stated view in spite of the fact that practically every scientist insists that the universe is Einsteinian, whatever that may mean. It is most likely that the following discourse did not happen.
God: "I beg your pardon, Dr. Einstein, Sir, but I feel an urge to do
a little creating. If you don't mind, I would like to create the universe."
Einstein: "E equals MC2."
God: "Well, yes, I'll use that if you insist, but I thought you said
it was only relative:'
Einstein: "The mass increases with velocity."
God: "if you say so, but mass hasn't been created yet."
Einstein: "The velocity of light is an absolute constant."
God: "But I thought you said everything was relative. How can the
Velocity of light be absolute?"
Einstein: "The velocity of light is absolutely relative or relatively
absolute or something."
God: "I guess I'd better wait until you work that one out before I
start creating anything."
The proper philosophy of the use of tools is in a sense that of impedance matching. We need to select a tool to fit the job at hand. It is not appropriate to use a pile driver to drive a carpet tack. Neither would a tack hammer be effective in driving a railroad spike.
Abstract philosophy is fine, but it neglects the human element. If a man is the size of a bantam rooster, but has the ego of a bull, he will invariably choose a tool to fit his ego rather than the job. As a result he wears himself to a frazzle swinging the tool, but not getting much done in the way of effective work.
The tools of science differ from those used to accomplish mechanical work, but the principles governing the choice of a tool to be used remains the same. In the application of mathematics to problems in science, the simplest mathematical system which is adequate for the job should be used.
The basic objection to relativity theory is the idea of each observer being associated with his own reference frame. Then we have as many reference frames as we have observers. This is nothing more than the Ptolemaic concept of the earth as the center of the universe in a new guise. Since it denies the existence of any objective viewpoint, it may be classed as a philosophy, but certainly not as a science. The complex mathematical tools used may act as a smoke screen. but the fact remains that the viewpoint was abandoned centuries ago.
Mathematics is a tool to be used in the description of reality. It has no reality of its own in any sense other than the fact that it is a product of the human mind. The four dimensional space invoked by Einstein has no geometric reality. We can use alternating current theory from the study of electricity as an example. The imaginary symbol is used there because the imaginary exponential function is related to the sine and cosine wave forms of simple harmonic motion. In the same way, the imaginary symbol can be used to describe the motion: of internal circulation in the creation of the particles of physics. I must be pointed out that these circulations are quite real and take place within the three real dimensions of space. The best known example of this fact is that of particle spin.
Any extension to higher dimensions must result in the same fact Any number of additional real dimensions may be grouped with the existing three. Any number of additional imaginary dimensions may be grouped with the existing imaginary. These additional ones can only modify the existing ones as minor distortions. There can be no modification of the fact that configurations of matter exist within the three known space dimensions with the added requirement of internal circulations of a cyclic nature.
Present day investigators invoke the existence of eleven dimensions. It is not to be doubted that in the future, other dimensions will be added. The conclusion is that the tool has become so complicated that it serves no purpose in doing useful work. It has become the reason for its own existence. All inputs are lost within the machine with nothing coming out. It is time to say, "Enough, already!" and get back to something sensible.
|
| (573) 470-5806 | spiritguidedhealer@gmail.com |
Home | Reiki Healing | Herbs | Articles |
SouthernPRIDE | Links
---> Nature's Healing Elixir <---