MStransky, Ivan, Everyone,

I started this thread to begin with the basics in order to try and make sense of Reality without using imagination, hyperbole, or rhetoric.

Of three things I am certain-

1. Nothing will come out of nothing
2. Nothing is a human conceived abstract concept
3. What humans mentally conjure as abstract concepts ... do not exist in or as reality.

If the above is true, because we cannot observe something does not mean it does not exist; however, if we cannot observe something, it is entirely possible for us to observe the effects caused by non-observable objects.

We cannot observe wind, but we can readily and easily observe the effects of wind, and we can measure the speed of wind. The question must be begged - For purpose of discussion the following simple symbolization is used....

X = a thing
O = no thing

Is it possible to cause something to manifest out O into X...?

If that is not possible the entire spectrum of Einsteinian theory now being taught ... is wrong.

J____

Hi J___,

Einstein's famous quote, of many, was "Experimentum summus judex", which translates into something like "experiment/experience is the ultimate judge", which means he too agreed reality takes precedence over theoretical abstracts.

Without facts, our theory no matter how elegant, are merely stories. In your example:

X = a thing
O = no thing

We can image theory as lodged somewhere between O <----> X, so pure theory unsupported by facts is just "O", whereas theory supported by data, whether experimental or observational, gets closer to "X", though whether or not it really ever reaches an X-certainty, a thing, is an open question.

However, there are cases where the "observational" facts are still far from X, in particularly if this observation is "relativistic", so that no one frame of reference dominates over another, and all observations are thus relative. This is a problem with Einstein's, which led to absurdities of observation which appear right, but may be totally wrong: cosmic doppler redshift, expanding universe, Big Bang origin, even Quantum theory where true observation is never assured but only probabilistic.

One object I had heard was "how can you think that what is observed is not what it is?" Well, how about illusionary observations? Just because we can observe it does not mean it is actually happening at the point of the observed, though it may "appear" that way for us. I suspect much of Relativity is just that, an observational theory without application to the observed. Hence, it is an illusion closer to O than to X.

Real physics should never leave us doubt as to what we are observing. Though our understanding of it may be in error, in doubt, the reality will in the end force us to get the true X. Can something X come out of O? Only in our heads. In reality, it never does, since reality operates only at X. It is for our minds to then match theory to fact, and gain a better understanding from these facts of what is real.

Is this what you had in mind?

Ivan

Ivan,

You nailed it precisely what I have in mind. So to begin we must attack the existing model, but before we can do that, everyone must understand the modern Standard Model now in vogue worldwide.

The modern Standard Model of the modern theories of Physics and Cosmology has four basic charges: electric charge, gravitational charge (mass), weak charge, and color charge. It also has four fundamental forces: electromagnetic, gravitational, weak, and strong.

The basic elementary particles have three generations of quarks and leptons. The first generation has two quark flavors (up u, down d) and two leptons (electron e-, electron neutrino ne). The three quark colors give eight particles and eight antiparticles. Left and right-handedness, relevant in weak force, doubles this number. But because the right-handed neutrino and left-handed antineutrino do not exist, the number of distinct particle states in the first generation is thirty. It, for three generations becomes ninety. There are thirteen bosons intermediary to four fundamental forces, namely graviton for gravitational force, photon for electromagnetic, three vector bosons (W+, W-, Zo) for weak nuclear and eight gluons for strong nuclear force.

An undefined number of Higgs bosons are postulated, which the bare elementary particles ordained by Relativity to be ‘mass-less’, must eat in order to gain mass.

There are innumerable photons with different mass-energies E = hn = hc/l composing extensive electromagnetic spectrum of varying wavelength l and frequency n, c being the velocity of light.

The number of all these elementary particles is well over one hundred, which is doubled in Super-symmetry theory by adding a 'super-partner' to every one of them. Thus, in a way, the Modern Standard Model has over two hundred elementary particles.

Relativity demands all these ‘non-composite and un-deformable fundamental particles’ to be size-less points so that a force can be transmitted to the whole of a particle instantly. Plus the thirteen intermediary bosons plus neutrinos & antineutrinos are to be not only without size, but also without mass so that they can move at light velocity c without gaining infinite kinetic energy.

However, an inseparable important part or a feature of the modern Standard Model is, what we call the … Einstein Model. It discards the real physical medium to propagate electromagnetic and gravitational waves in free space as "superfluous," and in its place introduces the 4-dimensional space-time continuum. This has also given rise to several popular and respected theories based on higher multidimensional space-time continua of 5, 10, 11 and on upwards to 32 dimensions.

The Einstein Model, and in fact the modern Standard Model has such a profound sway on modern Physics that no modern physicist would openly entertain, and no Physics Journal would publish, any idea, which is not consistent with it, and/or tries to revive the real, and provable space medium once known as aether. The reason for this mindset is a natural compulsion. The physicists of the present and past four or five generations have owned and lived with the Einsteinian Standard Model, and in fact owe their careers to it! Thus, disowning the existing Einsteinian Standard Model would mean disowning self…! But the coming generation(s) will not accept it. Strings or Superstrings in 10, and the M-theory in 11 dimensional nonexistent space-time is not the answer. Present-day leading scientists, whose opinions matter, hopefully, will begin to rise to the occasion and start to implement the needed realistic reforms in science as will be outlined here as time allows.

Quantum Theory deals in, what can be known about or observed, but not in what there actually is in the micro cosmos – universe. Relativity, likewise, is also based on several observed magnitudes of its governing parameters, but not on rational reasonable thought that can be translated into realistic formulations that represent reality as it is. Relativity is in fact irrational to the extent modifiers to make the theory workable (understandable or useable?) are ever changing whereas, many research physicists become lost.

Quantum Theory regards objective reality as a metaphysical speculation outside of Physics; hence, QM cannot, and does not recognize things as they really are.

Quantum Theory has contributed to the Modern Standard Model, two other important concepts of far reaching dubious implications and applications. First, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle introduces, admits and validates violations of the conservation of energy/mass and momentum within the limits set by the Heisenberg relations: DE.Dt ³ h/2p and Dp.Dx ³ h/2p. This also implies matter creation from, and disappearance into, nothing within the same limits. Secondly, QT splits intrinsic wave-quantum unity for radiation and moving particles of matter into wave-or-quantum dualities, which is not realistic.

The existence of a massless and dimensionless real entity is anti-intuitive, and in essence, totally absurd. Rational logic and common sense demands that all real particles have more-than-zero finite size, as well as mass. And the large number of non-composite particles in the modern Standard Model cannot satisfy parsimonious physics. In fact, the quark-lepton theory was formulated to bring order to and in the diversity of, but has because of it led to more than one hundred elementary particles, which proves the term “element” is now meaningless. As if this was not enough, Super-symmetry doubles this number by adding 'super-partners' to these more than 100 elementary particles; hence, the number of elements in the Modern Standard Model is simply far too large to be realistic, reasonable, and/or acceptable.

The String and Superstring Theories are Unrealistic

Both theories are wholly mathematical and unrealistic because they are based on a very unrealistic, and improbable 10-dimensional space-time continuum with six extra dimensions of space wrapped into it. These also recognize the non-existent Weak charge, Color charge, Weak force and Strong force, which are redundant since they do not exist. These are confusing because they use assorted strings instead of the regularly shaped and normal particles. The question "What composes the strings? Is never answered or even asked. Their claim of being the Theories of Every Thing is misleading because their scope of application is very narrow if or when compared to reality.

For further discussion study the following references

Peter Woit

Science News Online: Peter Weiss

"The Universe's Unseen Dimensions" by Nima Arkini-Hamed, Savas Dimopoulos, and Georgi Dvali.

Scientific American, August 2000, pages 62-69

"Almost in Awe, Physicists Ponder 'Ultimate' Theory" by George Johnson. The New York Times, September 22, 1998, page F1.

J____

J___, your description of the convoluted state of "elementary" particles brilliantly illustrates how physics has strayed far from the main branch of science into tiny capillaries of hidden forces, or imagined forces, right down to Einstein's "cosmological constant" to balance out gravity in the cosmos. It gets more convoluted yet, when "dark matter" and "dark energy" are introduced, so the ad hoc patchwork quilt of physics takes on truly creative patterns. Is this what Space.com's Dark Matter and Dark Energy: One and the Same?, senior science writer: Rob Roy Britt, talks about, as an almost unbelievable contortion of physics convolutions to make new forces fit, and perhaps yet newer "elementary" particles to be created, in the k-essence and exotic scalar forces, with more supersymmetries to follow? So out of this murky soup of the Big Bang, and its anti-reasonable physics of the Standard Model, which coincidentally has us living in some golden age where the universe is stable for us, but extremely chaotic both in its origin and likely in its ending, we are to believe that some mysterious dark matter cum energy are now running the universe's other 96 percent. And the mysteries of gravity have an on-again, off-again, peek-a-boo relationship with our cosmic dimension through strings and branes... This is all myth.

Britt does say there had been some attempts to find explanations for dark matter and energy: "In particular, there have been theories with modified gravity." Well, this may take them on a new track. However, given their record to date on their other "basic particles" and universal physics models, I would not be too optimistic quite yet... hmmm... variable gravity, eh? Nah.. still "too speculative". They'd better stick with what they've got... ha ha.
J

Thanks for the references above, will check them out and get back.

Ivan

Ivan,

Thanks for the link to the Britt article. Follows is a copy of an email directly to him.

Hello Roy Britt,

I was given the link to your article on Dark Matter - Dark Energy by a friend who is an amateur physicist, who just happens to agree with me ... Modern Physics is losing itself faster than it can solve problems that have been around for the past 100 years or so. So, I along with others have started to try and combat bad science, poorly defined physics, and glaring idiocies, which include ... virtual particles … what I consider to be the last straw of ignorance that can be perpetrated on a tax-paying public that continues to support such hypocrisies of thought, which is irrational at best, and indescribable at worst.

Modern physics is fast approaching a crossroads at which point a decision must be made to quit teaching bad science, quit teaching theory as if it were a hard proven physical law, and last but perhaps most important of all … quit trying to stymie progress of scientists who disagree with the present Standard Model, and the Einsteinian adaptations which in essence demands honest researchers leave their brains at the door when they go to work. The Einstein – Minkowski - Maxwell - fiasco has occupied the foremost scientific minds and institutions for going on nearly 100 years now, but that model does not match up to the reality that all living human beings experience daily.

I have a friend who was nominated for a Nobel Prize previously, has been recently newly nominated again … He was rewarded the Albert Schweitzer Prize, and has written a book that will revolutionize modern physics if only it were allowed by academia to be studied; however, not one peer review journal is remotely interested … why? Because he has in fact accomplished what no other physicist/scientist has ever done … he has unified what everyone considers … cannot be unified. He proves Superstring theory is hogwash, and backs it up with honest formulations. He proves Einstein/Minkowski Space-time is only a figment of imagination, and cannot deliver the reality we experience. He proves light is exactly what it is using formulations that can be validated by any decent laboratory. He proves that Einstein was wrong about the aether … and totally validates the experiments of Dayton Miller. He totally invalidates the Einstein paper that won Albert the Nobel Prize, and proves Einstein’s gravity theory is … garbage.

Instead of my continuing to bend your ear, I have written on a Bulletin Board Forum a critique of the Standard Model, and some of the problems facing modern physics. The link to that critique follows.

http://www.humancafe.com/discus/

When you get there – click on … The New PeoplesBook Forums

When that page opens, scroll down to … Making Sense Using Honest Physics

The post referenced is the third one made; however, the first two you might find interesting as the second post is the one that brought me to your article.

The last post is a copy of this email to you.

Thank you,

J____

Hi J___,

Thanks for the update. We must keep in mind that much of today's theoretical physics fits more into a metaphysical pardadigm than one of a testable science paradigm. The regret is when it enters scientific belief systems, for then it begins to mimic religion.

This was discussed at length, Bad Astronomy Bulletin Board, where "Lunatik" made some good points, "Science has become a 'religion'?": http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=14675&start=175

Also see Bad Astronomy's: "Gravity at atomic scale?..." they're beginning to ask some good questions. I've also seen them asking here about gravity variability, especially on the rim of the galaxy. Slowly, it enters our collective consciousness, though we may still be very far from a resolution with Honest Physics.

Or as the long running debate-cum-bet between Kip Thorne and Stephen Hawking illustrates, there is still much to be understood about the phenomena on gravity's pull when far from Earth's.

Ivan

Ivan,

Until modern cosmology and physics gets off the existing model, anomalies will continue to dominate studies, which is a sad state of affairs. There is no dark matter; neither can there be dark energy.

Concerning Hawking and his bet no doubt he loses…! I now fully comprehend how the black hole does function, and mostly the origination of a black hole is as everyone suspects … imploded star with highly compressed matter = very powerful entity, but in no way can such energy be contained to the extent nothing can or will escape. Granted, a black hole emits no radiation, and it will capture all incident radiation; however, a black hole does in fact prevent electromagnetic radiation because the surrounding aether in fact is depleted of the 1-spin particles, which propagate it. 1-spin photons are converted into 0-spin Z particles, are then captured by the black hole. Nevertheless, remnants of sparsely distributed 1-spin particles in the surrounding aether can allow the black hole to emit low energy (long wavelength) photons, which just might be Hawking' Radiation, but actual numbers do not specifically prove the fact with clarity.

After considerable thought, calculations, and simulated testing me thinks it just might be possible to detect gravity waves; however, here we must join the camp of Halton Arp in that it can only be detected in the form of increased Redshift due to such events which we commonly call Supernova Explosions. An exploding Supernova will emit strong gravity waves accompanied by local bursts of basic particle showers, which will raise the density and viscosity v the surrounding aether. That results in an observable increase in redshift Z of the light of wavelength ~ as emitted by the source.

Z = 6pi r v D ~ / h

In the equation D is the distance of the source, r the radius of photon energy quantum, and h is the Planck constant. This will indirectly detect the gravity waves emitted by the stellar source. The observation of the type Ia supernova, if interpreted such would not create any confusion among astronomers.

J____

Quantum Aether Dynamics

J___, here are a couple of quantum physics guys working on something to do with gravity and electromagnetic energy as two aspects of the same thing. In my Axiomatic, they are linked in inverse proportions per the equation. I am especially intrigued by your:

Z = 6pi r v D ~ / h

... though no sure how we know what is the real value of D, since this is a cosmic distance value. It too think we will discover 'gravity waves' in some form, though I see them mainly as a 'shadow wave' of electromagnetic waves, though I may be wrong on this. If the universe were built in the inverse, where gravity was the active force and electromagnetic energy was the passive, unlike now, then there would be gravity waves and very difficult to observe em waves. However, such as it is now, em dominates the activity, and gravity lurks in the background, sometimes quietly and sometimes violently.

Cheers, Ivan

Ivan,

The problem of numbers is - numbers are arbitrary, which is the case for all numbers; hence, every time we write an equation using numbers, we are making an arbitrary decision no matter if the decision is right or wrong. This explains why anomalies are so difficult to solve, and in the case of Redshift, every factor we are working with is an arbitrary factor; thus, every calculation we make is as only good as the actuality of the facts involved.

Remember, I have long avowed that numbers beyond 10 decimal points are worthless when it comes to reality as we understand it, and experience it. This deals with problems of measurement since the only tool we have to work with is numbers; therefore, there is no way that equations with numbers can describe or define reality ... numbers will get us only as close as the accuracy of measurements made, or estimated. That is why I have tried to develop a methodology to validate calculations – no, the system is not perfect, but it can tell me if an equation is viable, or invalid. Point being as follows………

1----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------100

Reality tells us there are an infinite number of points betwixt 1 and 100 as portrayed in the example above; however, it is not possible to mark those numbers of points, neither is it possible to measure increments between each point since the example proves the gap is infinite with an infinite number of points; hence, perpetually divisible – this is the reason number systems inevitably fail at some … Point < .

We are very close to proving that gravity is strictly a product of total neutron mass, and is without any charge, which makes it the attractor it is. If we are correct, Gravity Probe B is merely a curiosity that will prove Dayton Miller correct, and Einstein wrong. But can we interpolate the data provided by Gravity Probe B adequately enough validate what so many of us renegades now believe remains to be seen.

J____

SOME RANDOM THOUGHTS ON NEUTRONS, PROTONS, AND ELECTRONS.

It is not that I am anti Quantum Physics in describing the basic particles, except perhaps that the term 'basic' gets lost in the number of basic particles found, so that it becomes nearly meaningless. My mental model of using atom smashers to unlock the secrets of the atom is akin to my taking Michaelangelo's David and smashing it into thousands of small bits. Then in measuring the pieces, knowing the statue's total mass and the energy that went into smashing it, I calculate all the pieces according to certain specifications. Let's say I take all one centimeter pieces, and call them basic, then identify those that have surface curvature to them, and calling them spin, then taking larger or smaller pieces, calling them with up or down spin, further taking tiny pieces for flavors, and all other pieces for color; knowing all the energy used, I can then calculate what each piece represents and call it a 'basic' piece of the whole, then gluon it all back together again. Of course, the original David is now a ruin, but all the numbers balance. This to me is what happened to the atom, an exquisite piece of artistry made by our grand universe, and then dissected into 'basic' elements, which leaves the original, when glued all the pieces back together again, not looking so good.

I bring up this facetious point because there is one piece of the 'basic' particles that refuses to fit into this neat structure of quantum physics: the neutron. First of all, it has a half life, which means it is not entirely a stable particle on its own. Then it further defies by refusing to have charge. Though it is classified as a baryon, consisting of two down quarks and one up quark, it radiates gamma ray in its decay, or emits pions, so it is not in the same category as its close relative the positively charged and stable proton. That the neutron mimics the proton, at least in terms of mass, leaves me to think of it as a 'shadow' proton, one not quite made of the same stuff. I also think of the proton as made of positive charged ions flung out the axis of black-hole centers of galaxies, so that when it joins with a negatively charged electron of the space plasma, a whole atom results. But the energy that went into its making is a variable, so more or less it may affect how this atom will look. If too much energy is present, the atom forms a shadow proton, which is its neutron, though not energetic enough to have a positive charge; when this energy is less so, this same neutron will decay and dissolve back into the 'shadow' existence of zero-point space it came from; if no energy, then only a positive proton ion remains.

I say it came from zero-point space because I think this is a real place, where the very strong gravity, now called a strong force, interacts with electromagnetic energy, which modifies this strong force. The fact that it cancels almost immediately gives us the parameters of where it can exist, but then electromagnetic energy takes over, leaving us only a very small remainder. Now, if the strong force is equal to one, and its total obviation results in a force of zero, then the remainder force, such as measured in a proton to proton gravitational coupling constant, is what will in turn be converted into the atom's very small gravitational potential, when c^2 is applied, to what we know of here as Newton's G. So in this way, the whole atom is a unique structure of this gravitic-electro interaction, without necessitating all the other exotica formulated from dashed particles resulting from nuclear collisions into a soup of quantum energies, all with their own flavors, balanced out to remain true to energy conservation. This is where physics at the atomic level is today. I would rather see a more simplified, if parallel, model where there is a more pure interaction between gravity and electromagnetic energy, how it forms the atom, how this atom is modified by local star energy, or lack of it, and most important of all, how this interaction is responsible for the hybrid neutron that fills in when needed. It remains neutral of charge because it does not need it, to fill in its function of balancing the strong force with the energy received. Space is filled with potential gravitic energy, and various interactions carve from this energy the proton nucleus, retaining space positive charge, which attracts the energy of negative charges produced by stars, or space plasma, and that is how the atom comes into being. Its cousin the neutron is a necessity in this system when the energy is greater than can be absorved by the proton and electron combo, so that David remains a beautiful piece of artistic work totally in balanced with itself, and all the curves are preserved.

Ivan