Part IX: The Gravity of Dark Energy and Dark Matter!

If we are to be serious about gravity we must consider that Descartes was correct when he surmised that mass or matter is a vortex in the Ether. Since the Ether is neutral just like the Higgs field and mass distorts the space-time-time in its relative vicinity then we could see that gravity is simply a distortion of the Ether.

The only true way to determine whether the Ether really exists is to combine the two experiments of Michelson and Morley and Pound and Rebka  to see if there are interference fringes or temporal differences at the point where the two experiments coincide.  We know the M-M experiment will remain constant because it has remained so in every test to date, but the P-R experiment should show a variation as the Earth rotates on its axis or orbits the Sun. Oh wait, we already do this with the GPS system.

The Michelson-Morley experiment has always been parallel with or tangent to the Earth’s surface.  It was not until 1959 that Robert Pound and Glen Rebka, Jr. was testing the time dilation effect of general relativity using the Mossbauer Effect that a test perpendicular to Earth’s surface was performed.  It was very successful. 

I have said all this in a previous post call ETHER IT IS OR ETHER IT AIN'T!

If we consider the ether as the space-time-time fabric then the distortion of it by vortexes of matter would explain gravity. Ether is the temporal plane on which all of the universe exists. It is the interconnecting fabric that holds the universe together. What then is dark energy?

Consider this, if the universe is a complete system made up of millions and billions of smaller systems like planets, stars and galaxies then it would fall under the Hamiltonian definition of a complete and total system and its energy will be describe the Hamiltonian, "The total energy of any system is equal to the total potential energy pus the total kinetic energy of that system."
E_T= mc² + mv²/2;  This is the unified field/energy equation,where mc^2 is the total electromagnetic or potential energy and mv^2/2 is the total gravitational or kinetic energy.  In the GPS system it is called coordinate or motional time and gravitational or proper time or energy, if you prefer.

Now if gravity is an extension of the distortion of this Ether holding everything in place, centripetal force by definition, and the universe has the slightest amount of spin, almost negligible by our standards and almost undetectable then the dark energy is the centrifugal force pushing it apart. So we can conclude that gravity is the centripetal force holding the universe together and dark energy is the centripetal force pushing it apart. 

But what then of dark matter? As I stated in my post FASTER THAN LIGHT? things can move faster than and radiate energy at speeds greater than the speed of light, but just like the OPERA experiment in 2011 physicists seek to explain it away because it does not fit into their concepts of space-time. In the OPERA experiment they blamed it on a loose GPS wire and if they see it in the stars they blame it on gravitational lensing. All to keep it in the confines of their concepts. But what is the first thing a good experimenter does when he gets a result he doesn't expect?  He checks his equipment over and over again to make sure of its accuracy. They did not publish their findings until six months after the results were in. The loose wire that others found a blind man could have found from the pictures the showed online. It was a cover up to save face.

Just recently they found something in space that appeared to be moving at ten times the speed of light and once again they sought to explain it away with the gravitational lensing explanation. Ludicrous. Why can't they just accept the obvious and change their theories to fit the facts.

To answer Fermi's question about the aliens and where are they, why should they reveal themselves when we are only a local threat to ourselves and our solar system. They can study us like lab rats in a controlled environment here on Earth for years and years. Every now and then they can sedate us, tag us and watch us develop over the years and never have to reveal themselves to us. After all they are intergalactic travelers and we don't think we can exceed the speed of light. If they wanted they could hide very easily hide among us and we would never know it.

I have read more science fiction in theoretical physics than Hollywood can dream up.  We will continue with what the aliens know when I have more.

Part VIII: Chronology of Scientific Events That Lead Our Scientists Down the Wrong Path.

The chronology of events that started our scientists down the wrong path starts back even before Isaac Newton (1642-1727), all the way back to Tycho Brahe (1546-1601) and Johannes Kepler (1571-1630) and Rene Descartes (1596-1650).  This is not to say that the contributions these men made to science was in any way wrong, but some of the thinking and the logic went astray as it progressed down through the years.

 Tycho Brahe was the last astronomer to actually measure the motion of Mars without the use of a telescope, and he was very good.  He created his own instruments for measuring the motion of Mars over the years and his accurate measurements helped Johannes Kepler decipher the laws of planetary motion.

The laws of planetary motion discovered by Kepler are as follows;

1)                  The orbit of a planet is an ellipse with the sun at one of the two foci.

2)                  The line joining a planet and the sun sweeps out equal areas in equal times.

3)                  The square of the orbital period is equal to the cube of the semi-major axis.

These laws and Galileo’s (1546-1642) experiments were particularly helpful in Isaac Newton’s development of the laws of motion and gravitation.  However, it was Descartes who set the precedent of man separating himself from reality in his famous, Cogito ergo sum, I think, therefore, I am.  He believed that one was only aware of oneself and that the senses could deceive you, so all things must be deduced logically.  In this way man became an observer of nature and not a participant and it continues that way even today in modern science.

When Newton formulated his laws of motion and gravitation it was based on the premise as an observer of nature rather than a participant.    Newton was aware of this separation as he stated in his last sentence of the definition of inertia, “…Resistance is usually ascribed to bodies at rest, and impulse to those in motion; but motion and rest, as commonly conceived, are only relatively distinguished; nor are those bodies always truly at rest, which commonly are taken to be so.”  However, when Newton stated his laws he was unable to make this separation.  We will restate the laws here and show how and why this makes a difference.

The third law should have come first because the first and second laws are natural consequences of the third;

1)         Law 1- Every body perseveres in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a right line unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed thereon.

2)         Law 2-The alteration of motion is ever proportional to the motive force impressed; and is made in the direction of the right line in which that force is impressed.

3)         Law 3-To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction: or the mutual actions of two bodies upon each other are always equal and directed to contrary parts.

Now the reason I said the third law should have been first is by this simple formula

S+F_A = S-F_R

Or as the law is stated the total sum of positive action forces, +F_A, is equal to the total sum of negative reaction forces, -F_R, (or for every action there is an equal and opposing reaction.)

So, when we look at the first law we can see why this is a natural consequence of the third law by this formula;

S(+F_A) - S(-F_R) = 0.

This is the law of equilibrium.  When the total sum of forces acting on a body is equal to zero it is said to be in a state of equilibrium.  And the law is stated this way; when the total resultant, R, of forces acting upon a body is equal to zero, the body is said to be in a state of equilibrium and the formula for this is;

R = SF = 0.

The letters are in bold because forces have magnitude and direction and are considered to be vector forces, which are represented by bold letters.  But this could as easily be written in this fashion;

R = S(+F_A) - S(-F_R)= SF_T = 0.

The first law is the law of equilibrium as every college physics text book describes.  And as we look at the third law we also see how this is a natural consequence following the first law in this manner;

S(+F_A) - S(-F_R) ¹ 0 = ±ma.

Or simply stated the acceleration or deceleration is directly proportional to the “motive force impressed” and inversely proportional to the inertial resistance of the mass.  As long the force is impressed or continues and overcomes the inertial resistance of the mass, the mass will continue to accelerate or decelerate.  When the force ceases to be impressed or becomes equal to the inertial resistance the mass will once again maintain equilibrium, whether at relative rest with the observer or in uniform linear motion with respect to the observer. 

It would not be until Einstein (1879-1955) that we would realize that rest and uniform linear or right line motion are observer dependent motions, although it would seem Newton was aware of this.  If he could have stated his law of equilibrium or first law with relativity in mind, it would have been more along these lines;

Every body perseveres in its state of inertial equilibrium, whether at rest or of uniform motion in a right line with respect to the observer, unless compelled to change that state by forces impressed thereon.

This places both rest and uniform linear motion or uniform motion in a right line in its proper category of equilibrium and observer dependent motions.  This may not seem significant, but it is very significant when it comes to the theories of relativity.

Of course, the law of gravitation is Newton’s greatest insight he gleaned from Kepler’s laws of planetary motion.  In this law Newton expressed the inverse square law where the strength of the field reduces proportionally at the square of the distance between the two masses.  It is this inverse square law, also used by Charles-Augustin de Coulomb (1736-1806) when he expressed the law of attraction of charges, which kept us going down the wrong path.  It wasn’t until the latter part of the twentieth century that we would discover this law is common to all fields.  Note the similarity of the two formulas;

kqq’/r² … Gmm’/r².

It was the inverse square law which made physicists and Einstein assume that the law of charges and the law of gravitation were derived from the same force. However, when James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) unified the electric and magnetic fields with his four equations he did not use neutral mass as a component of the equations.  And later when J. J. Thomson (1856-1930) discovered what he called the theoretical electromagnetic radius of the electron physicists assumed it to be the material radius of the electron also.  It was not.  Just as the magnetic radius of a magnetic bar is not the material radius of the bar itself, the electromagnetic radius of the electron is not the material radius of the electron either although to this day scientists still believe it to be so.

There is one other experiment that has kept us going down the wrong path for over a century, the Michelson-Morley experiment which was supposed to measure Earth’s velocity through the ether. 

The ether was a concept that dates as far back as Descartes.  He believed that all planets and stars floated in something called ether.  Descartes even believed that all matter was a vortex in the ether and that space was an extension of matter.  Space existed between two points of matter and if there was no matter between which space could exist there was just a void.

When Newton formulated his laws of motion and gravitation he was able to explain the motions of the planets without the necessity of the vortexes, so he discarded Descartes’ vortex concept.  His laws could explain all the motions of the planets except for Mercury’s precession around the sun.  It took Einstein’s general theory of relativity to explain it, even though he fudged his equations to do it.

Albert Michelson (1852-1931) and Edward Morley (1838-1923) believed they could measure the velocity of the Earth through the ether with a device they invented called an interferometer.  It sent split beams of light down two legs, perpendicular to one another, of the interferometer and then brought them back together to measure any interference that may occur due to Earth’s motion through the ether.  They discovered none and therefore concluded there was no ether and that remains the conclusion to this day.  The experiment, however, was designed to fail because it only measured the beams of light parallel to the surface of the Earth and had two-way travel (any energy loss going one way would be gained coming back the same way.).  They never thought to measure the beams perpendicular and parallel to the Earth at the same time, with one-way travel, which would have determined whether the Earth was a vortex in the ether or not.  This was not done until 1960 with the Pound-Rebka experiment.

This was the common consensus of the physics community under which Einstein labored when he began working on his theories of relativity; there was no ether and mass is wholly electromagnetic. 

The title of his original paper on relativity, ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES, gives you insight that he believed just as the physics community of his day did, that all mass is electromagnetic in nature.  He continues this philosophy into his general theory as well as he states at the beginning of section 14, “We make a distinction between “gravitational field” and “matter” in this way, that we denote everything but the gravitational field as “matter.”  Our use of the word therefore includes not only matter in the ordinary sense, but the electromagnetic field as well.”  Matter is not wholly electromagnetic in nature as we have only recently discovered.

When Einstein established the upper limit of velocity at the speed of light he was referring to the speed at which an electromagnetic field could accelerate a charged particle.  James Clerk Maxwell had shown in his equations that the magnetic field and the electric field could only travel at the speed of light through a vacuum and that light was electromagnetic in nature.  Therefore, Einstein supposed that if all mass was electromagnetic in nature also it could only be accelerated to the speed of light.  In his 1905 paper he makes these remarks about ponderable masses, “…We remark that these results are also valid for ponderable material points, because a ponderable material point can be made into an electron (in our sense of the word) by the addition of an electric charge, no matter how small.”

He goes on to state in the next paragraph, “…If an electron moves …under the action of an electrostatic force…the energy withdrawn from the electrostatic field must be put down as equal to the energy of motion W of the electron….”  And he then goes on to formulate his equation W = mc²{[1/(1-v²/c²)]-1}.  But then he goes further to state, “…Velocities greater than light have—as in our previous results—no possibility of existence.

This expression for the kinetic energy must also, by virtue of the argument stated above, apply to ponderable masses as well.”

This argument would be valid if the electron was the only charged particle and all mass was electromagnetic in nature, but Einstein knew nothing of any other charged particles like the proton, because it wasn’t discovered until 1919.  By adding a proton to a ponderable mass that already has a negative electric charge one will nullify that charge and make the mass neutral and unable to be accelerated by an electromagnetic field.  (That is why neutrons, neutral particles discovered in the nucleus of atoms in 1931, are the functional particle in atomic bombs.  They are not deflected by an electromagnetic field.)

However, in his 1911 paper, ON THE INFLUENCE OF GRAVITATION ON THE PROPAGATION OF LIGHT, he makes a different argument for the way a neutral mass can gain energy that is not accelerated by an electromagnetic field.  Here is his argument…;

“1. The energy E, as measured in S₂, is emitted in the form of radiation in S₂, towards S₁, where, by the result just obtained, the energy E(1+gh/c²), as measured in S₁, is absorbed.

2.  A body W of mass M is lowered from S₂ to S₁, work Mgh being done in the process.

3. The energy E is transferred from S₁ to the body W while W is in S₁.  Let the gravitational mass M be thereby changed so that it acquires the value M’.

4.  Let W be again raised to S₂, work M’gh being done in the process.

5.  Let E be transferred from W back to S₂.

The effect of this cycle is simply that S₁ has undergone the increase of energy Egh/c², and that the quantity of energy M’gh- Mgh has been conveyed to the system in the form of work….

The increase in gravitational mass is thus equal to E/c², and therefore equal to the increase in inertia mass as given by the theory of relativity.”

            Hence mass can gain energy from the acceleration of a gravitational field also, and no one knows what the upper limit of acceleration of a gravitational field is?  It is obvious it can accelerate things faster than light or why else do we have “black holes?”

            Of course, Einstein was off by a factor of one-half in his equations in this 1911 paper.  When he figured out the perihelion orbit of Mercury in his 1915 paper he realized that Mercury needed an escape velocity to go from a lower orbit to a higher orbit, so he simply started with escape velocity rather than orbital velocity in his 1915 paper on the perihelion of Mercury.  This gave him the needed factor of two.  In his general theory in equation 49 he simply introduces a factor of a -2k and explains in a footnote that he will explain the introduction of this factor later.  And indeed, he does, it was simply to make his equations in the general theory work out properly.

I am surprised that no other physicist has taken note of this because in section 16 in the last paragraph he explains his reasoning; “…It must be admitted that this introduction of the energy-tensor of matter is not justified by the relativity postulate alone.  For this reason we have here deduced it from the requirement that the energy of the gravitational field shall act gravitatively in the same way as any other kind of energy.  But the strongest reason for the choice of these equations lies in their consequence, that the equations of conservation of momentum and energy, corresponding to equations (49) and (49a), hold good for the components of the total energy….”  The equation he fudged.

Although the general theory is a beautiful mathematical treatise it has faulty logic, but Einstein cannot be blamed for this.  He expressed the current philosophy of the day among physicists and the electron was the only known particle when this paper was published in 1916.  As I said before, the proton was not discovered until 1919 and the neutron in 1931, so at the time he was almost right.

Even today we continue along this wrong thinking. Physicists keep virulently studying their trees, each locked into his special unique study, trying to prove that his tree is the only one that matters, and they keep overlooking the forest.

The aliens have long since passed this ignorance and continue to watch us in amusement. They will not choose to reveal themselves until we have climbed out of this quagmire of thinking.

Part VI; Black Holes Full of Worm Holes?

            In 1916 when Einstein first published his General Theory of Relativity there was a Prussian Officer, Karl Schwarzschild, a former math teacher in Germany who immediately produced an equation that showed a mass could be so dense as to never let light escape a certain critical radius.  Today this radius is known as the Schwarzschild radius. 

            Einstein and the physics community at the time believed that this radius could never be reached because the forces in the atoms would never let this collapse happen.

In the 1950’s and 1960’s it once again found favor when quasars were discovered and today it is a currently accepted concept that most galaxies have a black hole at their center.

            However Black Holes are not logical with respect to the special theory of relativity.  Because Black Holes will not let anything traveling at the speed of light escape its critical radius, and because special relativity says nothing can exceed the speed of light, then a Black Hole should be exactly that, a Black Hole.  In other words, there should be no distortions outside the critical radius.  The only thing you should see is a black hole without relative distortions of the surrounding space-time continuum.  But that is how they discover them, by the gravitational distortion of the space-time fabric around the black hole. 

            Dr. Richard Feynman and other physicists say this is due to virtual gravitons that are not subject to the laws of special relativity, but virtual particles are simply virtually nothing.  They are a contrivance invented by physicists to explain the existence and transfer of energy in static fields they cannot explain any other way.  Instead of using the all permeating Ether, because it is not supposed to exist, they invent virtual particles as a method of static field transfer of energy.  Virtual photons and virtual gravitons are what are transferred between atomic particles and mass respectively to hold the particles or masses in orbit and transfer virtual energy from one to the other.

            If black holes exist, and scientists are pretty sure they do, they are a perfect explanation for any mass traveling faster than light.  Most black holes are neutral in nature because as the mass increases in density it overcomes any electromagnetic charge as the unified field equation demonstrates.  As an object falls into a black hole the light emanating from the object fades into red and then disappears, the very same thing that would happen when an object moving away from you at the velocity the light would do. We now know that the Higgs' field is what adds mass to the elementary particles, and it is a neutral field and permeates the entire universe. It could be that the bending and slowing of this field into a vortex of matter is what causes the Black Holes to form when the matter becomes extreme.

            Unfortunately, our physicists only assume one temporal dimension, but the aliens know, and I have shown you that there are two temporal dimensions.  But because scientists only use one time dimension, they assume the object falling into a black hole takes forever from the point of view of someone observing from outside the black hole.  But with two time dimensions the electromagnetic temporal dimension can blink out, diminish to an apparent singularity from the outsiders’ point of view, while the gravitational temporal dimension remains and can be measured as a change in mass and/or angular momentum.  In this way the object simply appears to have been swallowed up by a black hole or has simply attained the speed of light with respect to the outside observer.

            Now wormholes are another interesting contrivance of theoretical physicists but is an apt description of how the aliens travel through space.  If space contracts with the motion of objects, such as spaceships, moving through it then a wormhole is the perfect description of how space folds and the spaceship appears in another part of the galaxy traveling faster than light.  However, this takes enormous amounts of energy as the unified field equation shows, so the aliens have developed other ways to jump without using all their fuel.

            In scientific circles wormholes are called Einstein-Rosen Bridges after Albert Einstein and Nathan Rosen who suggested it.  But let us take an excerpt from the Wikipedia about wormholes that are called Schwarzschild wormholes; “The Einstein-Rosen Bridge was discovered by Albert Einstein and his colleague Nathan Rosen, who first published the result in 1935. However, in 1962 John A. Wheeler and Robert W. Fuller published a paper showing that this type of wormhole is unstable, and that it will pinch off too quickly for light (or any particle moving slower than light) that falls in from one exterior region to make it to the other exterior region.”

            There are two problems with Dr. Wheeler’s and Dr. Fuller’s logic.  They first assume nothing can go faster than light which is the standard accepted theory of today and secondly, they are dealing with only one temporal dimension.  The aliens know that all neutral mass can travel faster than light and travelling faster than light they can enter a wormhole from one side and emerge from the other somewhere else in space before it collapses again.  They have probed many of these features and use them quite extensively, allowing them to travel many light-years through space in only a few minutes with respect to the rest of space.  They know that while electromagnetic time has dilated extensively with them their gravitational time is uniform through the universe which allows them to travel throughout space-time-time and return home to see their families.

            This is the way we will do it one day in the future, but for now we must languish in this scientific quagmire until our physicists wake up. 

            In our next discussion we will talk about Schrodinger’s cat and multiple universes, not.

Part V: The Copenhagen (Mis)Interpretation!

Most of the public little cares what the Copenhagen Interpretation is about or how it affects their lives, if it even affects their lives.  But most of the theoretical physicists and the physicists of the world know about it whether they accept it or not.  What they do know is that little, if any, understands it, though the mathematics works well, and they have to accept that.

            The Copenhagen Interpretation is based upon six principles.  They are as follows, as per Wikipedia;

1.     A system is completely described by a wave function ψ, representing an observer's subjective knowledge of the system.

2.     The description of nature is essentially probabilistic, with the probability of an event related to the square of the amplitude of the wave function related to it.

3.     It is not possible to know the value of all the properties of the system at the same time; those properties that are not known with precision must be described by probabilities.

4.     Matter exhibits a wave–particle duality. An experiment can show the particle-like properties of matter, or the wave-like properties; in some experiments both of these complementary viewpoints must be invoked to explain the results, according to the complementarity principle of Niels Bohr.

5.     Measuring devices are essentially classical devices, and measure only classical properties such as position and momentum.

6.     The quantum mechanical description of large systems will closely approximate the classical description.

Einstein and Bohr argued these points many times.  Einstein believed in causality, cause and effect, and Bohr believed in probability, perhaps and maybe, depending upon the experience.  But the arguments were all based upon an oxymoronic principle called the uncertainty principle, one of the tenets stated above.  We will discuss them all.

I just read the book, “QUANTUM” by Manjit Kumar which was very interesting.  But the argument is about whether Quantum Mechanics or Wave Mechanics is the valid description of the atomic world.  Ultimately, as you see above, they had to settle for both descriptions as the standard theory.  Most physicists do not like it this way, but the math works out, so they accept it.  Unlike what it says above in Wikipedia, Quantum Mechanics was formulated by Werner Heisenberg and Niels Bohr and Wave Mechanics was formulated by Erwin Schrödinger.

Let us discuss the fundamental argument on which most of this resides and that is the uncertainty principle which I call the oxymoronic principle.  The concept in both classical and probability physics is that both position and momentum can be calculated to only a certain accuracy.  Heisenberg said that one cannot know the position or momentum of a particle to within the accuracy of h/2p, where h is Planck’s constant and p is the standard 3.14….

This is an oxymoronic argument.  Let us reword it another way; ‘you cannot know the state of rest, position, or the state of unrest, momentum, of a particle at the same time.’  Well, duh!  Why Einstein argued against this with Bohr for so many years is odd since his own theory of special relativity proved this very point which I pointed out in Part I; that rest and uniform linear translation are the same uniform motion, only different by the observer’s point of view.  In other words, position and momentum are opposite sides of the same coin.  Both are uniform motion and are only dependent on the observer’s reference frame with respect to the object being observed.  This is exactly what the Copenhagen Interpretation says about quantum mechanics; it is observer dependent, which is right, but also that reality does not exist without an observer, which is wrong.

Although Einstein wanted to believe in causality his own theories argued against it and Niels Bohr used this point against him in one of their greatest arguments ever.  Einstein argued that if you had a box that could only let one photon escape and a clock in the box was synchronized with another clock in the room, then if the box was weighed before the photon escaped and just after the photon escaped, then you could know both the time and energy precisely.  Bohr argued that, just as I pointed out in Part III that the gravitational field at the top of the room was slightly different from the field at the bottom of the room, so one could not precisely synchronize the clocks closer the h/2p, even if the box only moved by the weight of a photon, losing Einstein the argument.

In the Einstein-Bohr argument I am surprised that Einstein did not invoke his thought experiment that lead to the understanding of the gravitational field, and that is the man in the infinitely accelerated elevator far removed from any fields far out into space.  In this scenario the acceleration is uniform throughout the elevator and does not vary from top to bottom and one could truly get a precise measurement.  This was the last puzzle Bohr had written own his chalk board before he died.  I think he must have suspected this variation left him without an argument.

Einstein in most of these arguments was arguing against himself and his own theories.  If he and Bohr and most of the physicists of the day had not been bracketed by Einstein’s own successes, they could have possibly realized all they had to do was to add the gravitational field and the electromagnetic field as separate fields into the equations and everything would have worked properly.  Instead, they designed the concept of wave mechanics and probability into the theories, which in a limited manner helped explain some of the ambiguities, but it did not, as Einstein suspected, make the theory complete.

Bohr argued that all systems are described by a wave function and the collapse of this function whenever it is observed by an observer produces a wave or particle.  Einstein thought this was ludicrous and he was right.  It is either a particle or a wave, but how could it be both? One must remove the observer from the equations in order to have a unified field theory. 

Let us describe a scenario where this actually occurs and is observed by almost everyone.  In the old western movies or even some of the modern ones where a stagecoach is being chased by Indians or outlaws, when one looks at the wheels of the stagecoach the spokes appear as a wave going around and around the hub.  We know that the wheels do not have waves, but spokes that run from the hub to the rim that are going around and around. 

The reason we see waves is because the speed of the camera taking the picture is going one speed and the wheels are turning at another.  If the camera speed taking pictures is slightly faster than the wheels are turning the waves appear to move backwards, but if the camera speed is slightly slower than the speed at which the wheels are turning the wave appears to be moving forward.  In either case we know they are not waves, even though it looks that way.  In this scenario our camera is our measuring instrument and the spokes in the wheels are what we are measuring.  According to modern physicists and Bohr in order to see the spokes in the wheel with our camera we must collapse the wave function; stop the stagecoach!

Dose this mean that the waves suddenly turn into spokes or that the spokes were magically waves. No.  Imagine, if you will, an electron that runs up one side of the spoke from the hub to the rim and then down the other side of the spoke back to and around the hub and back again.  This is the orbit of the electron around the nucleus of an atom.  Now, also imagine that the radius of this orbit also rotates around the hub of the wheel at 1/137 times the speed of light.  In this scenario we would have a particle that, with our measuring instruments, would look like a cloudy wave moving around the nucleus of an atom.

This is not a strained or far fetched scenario.  It happens in our solar system.  The most notable planet that does this is Mercury.  I have been told that if the nucleus of an atom was the size of a baseball and the electron was the size of a BB the radius would be the size of a football field.  If we shrank the Sun down to the size of a baseball and Mercury down to the size of a BB, with its precession moving around the Sun at 1/137 times the speed of light it would look like a cloudy wave moving around the Sun from any stand point of someone observing from far out into space.

How then do we get a picture of the spokes of the wheels of the stagecoach without stopping the stagecoach?  Today we use, in our cameras, what is known as stop action.  That is the camera takes a picture so fast of the turning wheels that the spokes appear to be frozen in motion as if the wheel was at rest with the observer or the observer was moving around and around in sync with the wheels.

In classical physics momentum and position were thought to be easily calculated.  In fact, this is one of the reasons calculus was invented by Newton and Leibnitz, but the truth of the matter is that one can only calculate a position that a system is passing through when it is moving.  If a train is moving down a track one can calculate where along the line at any given point it will be passing through at any given moment, but that does not mean the train has a position at that point, only that it is passing through that point at that moment.  It only has position when it is sitting at a terminal and then it has no momentum.  You can have position or momentum, but you cannot have both at the same time.  These are an observer’s dependent determinations.

If the observer is riding on the train, then that train has position with respect to that observer and not with the observer standing along the tracks on the side.  With respect to the observer standing along side the tracks the train has momentum.  To have one you must give up the other, this is why the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is oxymoronic.  What it demonstrates is that no particles in space or time can be motionless or at absolute rest since this is an observer dependent participation.  It should be called the principle of minimal motion or principle of least action as found by Maupertuis and Euler. 

It also answers the ancient philosopher Zeno’s puzzle; if you keep taking half the distance to the wall can you ever reach the wall?  What Heisenberg’s minimal motion principle shows is that at some point in space and time a half step becomes a whole step and that is when you reach the wall.

There is a reason that Schrodinger’s wave equation works so well.  It is the Hamiltonian, or the unified field equation as stated previously in Part II, Faster Than Light.  In fact, the wave equation is often written as Hy = Ey, where H is the Hamiltonian of kinetic energy plus potential energy and E is the total energy and y is the wave function. 

However, the concept of a wave is misleading just as the wave in the stagecoach wheels are misleading.  Physicists assume because it is a wave there should be a continuous transition of energy from trough to crest or that it is a multitude of waves superimposed upon one another.  They forget to consider the transfer like a potentiometer.  The energy builds until it reaches a certain potential of transfer and then it jumps to its next level.  These levels can be jumped to simply by the influx of energy from a photon.  It simply goes from one level to the next without a smooth transfer, like a sprinter going from stop to full speed in a race.

Also, Schrodinger introduced the potential energy simply to complete the equation because it seemed the logical thing to do.  He was right.  But no one has considered where this potential energy should come from except that it should be there.  They assume that the potential energy is the energy of the particle when it is at relative rest, but this is untrue since the particle is never really at rest.  The potential energy comes from the gravitational potential attached to the minimal neutral mass of the particle.

Without using a lot of equations, I will try to explain it.  J. J. Thompson developed an equation that showed the theoretical electromagnetic radius to be equal to the electronic unit squared divided by the mass of the electron times the speed of light squared.  Now if you add to this equation the gravitational mass of the electron and the field it produces one is left with a gravitational radial equation that is half the size of the Schwarzschild radius, first proposed by Karl Schwarzschild after the publication of Einstein’s General Relativity, plus the electronic radius.  This gravitational radius is so small as to be almost virtually insignificant, but it is not. 

In this equation one must use the Lorentzian mass in motion.  This is a relativity mass that increases in mass with increase velocity.  The reason is that it uses the concept of a mass particle that fluctuates in mass with varying velocities and since we already know that the electron is never at true rest we can use this equation.  It also shows the particle nature of the mass rather than the wave concept of the mass.

When we do this, we find that as the neutral mass increases either with relative velocity or because of an increase of the particle mass the electronic influence decreases and the gravitational influence increases.  We also find, using the binomial theorem on both sides, that if we divide out the electronic term we are left with a gravitational potential of the gravitational constant times the particle mass divided by the electronic radius that increases by itself plus itself times the fine structure constant squared.  (Most of the public doesn’t know or care what the fine structure constant is, but most physicists will.  It has also been known as the coupling constant and in this case, it couples gravitation and electromagnetism.)

If we multiply this whole equation by the kinetic energy of a photon, collect like terms, multiply through by the speed of light squared and convert the terms into the proper format we will finish with precisely the same form as the Balmer formula for frequency spectrums.  This demonstrates that the potential energy of Schrodinger’s wave equation is derived from the gravitational potential of the particle mass.

If we approach the concept of probabilities with respect to Max Born’s equation, we must understand that Dr. Steven Weinberg made a pertinent observation.  Paraphrasing, he simply stated that in the observer observing the collapse of the wave function the observer is also a wave function.  The question then becomes; what is the probability of the observed event and the observer both being at this position in time and space to observe one another?

Let us take the train scenario to help explain.  We have two observers with clocks that have been synchronized by video cameras.  One is standing beside the tracks and the other is riding on the train moving along the tracks at a steady rate.  By calculations both observers can know when they will be passing each other so that they each have another camera set to snap a picture at a precise time set on the clocks to capture a picture of the other observer.  Both calculations will be the same with respect to each observer because both are at relative rest with respect to their environment.

Both pictures will show that both clocks are slowed at relatively the same rate.  This is not a wave collapse of superimposed waves but rather wave reinforcement.  When an observer observes an event, it does not collapse the wave function of the event but rather reinforces the reality of the event.  What this means is that both events, independent of their own time coordinate, must share a temporal dimension where both events occur at a point in time and space that is common to both.  This point in time and space is independent and external to both events.  In this way both events become a single event occurring at this point and time in this common space.  It also means that both events can occur without the observance of the other.

The Born rule states that, if we are given a wave function y(x,y,z,t) for a single structureless particle in position space, this reduces to saying that the probability density function p(x,y,z) for a measurement of the position at time t₀ will be given by p(x,y,z) = y[(x,y,z,t₀)]^2.The simple error in this equation is the time coordinate.  It should be written in a fashion which considers the common time with respect to both events, not just the time with respect to the observer.  We could write it simply in this fashion by saying the function has a probability density function for a measurement of the space with a common time, t_C, given by p(x,y,z)=Y [x,y,z,t₁,t₂]². (the brackets mean absolute value)

Although Einstein argued against his own theories, without knowing it, he was essentially right; quantum mechanics is an incomplete theory. Separating the mechanics of electrodynamics from the mechanics of gravity and adding them together is the only way to achieve unity. We have to leave behind the upper limiting velocity of light, which is an electromagnetic phenomenon, and realize that charged particles and neutral particles, while similar, are different. Just because E=mc², it does not mean that a particle loses its relative rest potential energy, mc², because it has kinetic energy, mv²/2, as well, since we now know that rest and uniform linear translation are observant dependent scenarios.

Next, we will discuss how black holes and wormholes are inventions that do not fit with the concepts of special relativity at all.

    

Part IV: Ether it is or Ether it ain’t!?

            One of the great puzzles as to why our physicists set their foot on the wrong road to reason is situated in the history of theoretical physics versus experimental physics.  In theoretical physics you can make all kind of mistakes and simply change your mind, your theory and your philosophy and it doesn’t matter that much, but in experimental physics one must have a solid logic upon which to base the experiment because it has lasting effects.  This is the case in the history of the Ether.

            When Newton formulated his theory of light he used corpuscles, latter called quanta by Einstein, as the mode of delivery.  It was Thomas Young, known as phenomenon Young by his constituents and colleagues because he was a true genius, that advocated the concept of light traveling in waves and proved it through experiments.  (He was a true genius because he excelled in every endeavor he attempted; physician, physicist, linguist, Egyptologist, etc.)   This concept of light traveling in waves then set the stage for the next century of experimentalists trying to prove that there was something out there that had to wave.  Like waves traveling through water, which Young demonstrated in his experiment had great similarity to light waves, there must be something in which all planets and stars floated that transferred light from place to place and they called it Ether.

            This lead to nearly a century of trying to solve the Ether problem.  In 1878 Albert Michelson and Edward Morley, who were obsessed with measuring the speed of light, took up the challenge.  Assuming that the Earth like the stars and other planets floated in the Ether, they could find the speed of the Earth through the Ether by using an optical device they developed especially for the event.  It was called an interferometer.  The concept was by using mirrors they would split a beam of light and send one beam down one leg that was perpendicular to the other leg and a beam down the other leg and then bring them back together to see if they would interfere with one another.  The idea being that, since they had already measured the speed of light and found it to be constant, the beam would be foreshortened traveling into the Ether and elongated traveling away from the Ether.  They found no appreciable difference.  Because they could find no interference the assumption was made that the Ether did not exist and in 1905 when Einstein published his paper, ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES, he put the death nail into the Ether concept when he called it “superfluous.”

            After the M-M experiment failed to find any interference fringes two great physicists tried to rescue the Ether theory by suggesting that the measuring instruments Michelson and Morley used contracted in the direction of the motion which rendered the null findings.  These two physicists were George Fitzgerald and Hendryk Lorentz.  They derived the now famous contraction equation of 1/ (1-v²/c²) which Einstein later used in his theory of special relativity.  He, of course, claimed he had no knowledge of this equation from Fitzgerald and Lorentz.

            Even after the publication of the original theory of relativity, H. A. Lorentz held since Einstein’s equation and his were the same it did not disprove that the Ether existed and continued to believe in it existence until he died.  And, in fact, there has never been any real proof that the Ether does not exist, but more evidence that it does.

            How can this be?  The fact is the fundamental logic on which the M- M experiment was based was flawed.  The experiment tested whether the Earth floated in the Ether as was the common consensus at the time.  This however assumed that the Earth and the Ether were separate phenomenon, like an airplane flying through the air or a boat traveling through the water.  We know this because the M-M experiment was always done parallel to the surface of the Earth just like an air speed indicator on an airplane or a knots indicator on a boat, and it is still done that way today.  It never approached the concept of Rene Descartes’ idea that all mass was a vortex in space, similar to a tornado in the air or a maelstrom in the water.  If it had it would have tested the split beam not only parallel to the surface to the Earth but also perpendicular as well.

            The main reason no one accepted Descartes’ vortex concept was because Newton did not believe in it.  In his PRINCIPIA DE MATHEMATICA, Newton was able to explain all the orbital motions of the planets in our solar system with his gravitational equation; and, therefore, he thought the vortex concept unnecessary.  He could explain all the orbital motions except one.  Newton’s equation could not explain the precession of Mercury’s orbit around the Sun, but it took Einstein a while to figure that out.

            There are two reasons Newton did not support Descartes’ concept of vortexes in space.  One was because as we stated above he thought it unnecessary and secondly because Newton’s concept of space was, “…without regard to anything external, remains always similar and immovable.”  Although Einstein was more in agreement with Newton, the general theory actually is more in support of Descartes’ concept.  Einstein saw mass as curving space and time in its local vicinity, in other words causing a kind of vortex wherever mass was present.

            It is unfortunate that the M-M experiment has been touted as the greatest failed experiment in history and still remains the experiment that disproved the existence of the Ether, because it did not.  What it did do is set the speed of light as the standard of measure for all speeds in the universe.  It failed because of two reasons.  First, as we have said it was based upon an incomplete premise and it never fully explored the possibility of light travel perpendicular to the Earth’s surface and secondly it had two way travel.  Supposedly they tried to account for this but never considered the fact that the energy gain in one direction would be loss on the return direction or vise versa.

  

            If one has read THE UNIVERSE IN A NUTSHELL by Stephen Hawking one can understand why physicists still labor under this misconception.  On page 7 he has a depiction of the M-M experiment in pictures.  It is not the depiction of the M-M experiment, but rather a depiction of the Pound-Rebka Experiment of 1959.  In his depiction he has the arrows centered above the Earth on the Earth’s axis perpendicular to one another, but if one sinks the apex of these arrows to the center of the Earth then the test is perpendicular to the surface of the Earth.  The M-M experiment has always been parallel with or tangent to the Earth’s surface.  It was not until 1959 that Robert Pound and Glen Rebka, Jr. was testing the time dilation effect of general relativity using the Mossbauer Effect that a test perpendicular to Earth’s surface was performed.  It proved to be very successful.

            The only true way to determine whether the Ether really exists is to combine the two experiments and see if there is an interference or temporal difference at the point where the two experiments coincide.  We know the M-M experiment will remain constant because it has remained so in every test to date, but the P-R experiment should show a variation as the Earth rotates on its axis or orbits the Sun.

            Whoops, what am I saying?  We already do this.  It is called the Ground Positioning System or GPS for short.  There are thirty-one of these cesium atomic clock satellites orbiting the Earth and, six positions on the ground and six shared throughout the world.  These clocks communicate with one another constantly to give positional data for any GPS system.  The way they work is by comparing motional time dilation (slowing down time) with positional time dilation.  Positional time dilation or what is called gravitational or proper time dilation is different for each atomic clock depending how deep or shallow it is in the gravity well.  By this I mean that the greater the gravity potential or higher the clock is in orbit the more near normal the clock runs and the lower the potential or nearer to Earth the clock is the slower it runs.  (This is the general relativity part.) Then you add to that the linear translation or motional time dilation, east, south, north or west, you can locate any moving object on Earth.  (This is the special relativity part.)  The interesting thing about the ground cesium atomic clocks is that they have to be recalibrated constantly because they fluctuate by the amount of ±0.00166067 seconds per year due to the Earth’s orbit around the Sun.  This sounds like a solid comparison between the Michelson-Morley and the Pound-Rebka experiments and pretty darn Ethereal to me.

            Descartes saw space as an extension of mass and mass as a vortex in the Ether that permeated the universe.  Newton saw space as unaffected by anything always similar and immovable.  Einstein saw space and time as independent from every thing else but curved by the locality of mass.  Although no scientist today believes the Ether exists we see our Moon orbit our Earth, our Earth orbiting in our Solar system, our Solar system orbiting in its galaxy.  (It completes its 26,000 year orbit on Dec. 21, 2012, as known to the Mayans.)  We see galaxies affecting other galaxies and we just call it the gravitational influence.  But the truth is gravitational energy is most probably the Ethereal energy from which all neutral mass is made.  The combination of gravitational energy and electromagnetic energy is actually the fabric of space, time and all mass.

In the general theory Einstein used the concept of gravitational energy as a part of the total energy of the solar system; …For if we consider a complete system (e.g. the solar system), the total mass of the system, and therefore its total gravitating action as well, will depend on the total energy of the system, and therefore on the ponderable energy together with the gravitational energy.  The only problem was that Einstein still considered ponderable mass to be wholly electromagnetic in nature and gravity to be a separate energy due to spatial distortion from the mass.

            I stand on the side of Descartes and Lorentz and James Clerk Maxwell who formulated the unified equations for electromagnetism and believed in vortexes and the Ether as do the aliens.  We call it gravitation but the truth is it is the fabric of all neutral mass and all space in the universe is simply an extension of a loosely packed mass; no mass, no space.

            Later we will discuss black holes, wormholes, the Copenhagen interpretation, the uncertainty principle, the cat in the box and other strange and wonderful inventions of theoretical physics.

Part III: Time and Time Again!

            One of the major constraints of Einstein’s relativity is the temporal dimension. According to the general theory traveling faster than light allows one to go into the past.  Therefore most physicists will not even consider the idea of traveling faster than light because they cannot explain this phenomenon.  The time coordinate can move forwards or backwards, mathematically, without reason.  However the aliens know this is not the case in reality, and for good reason.

            Say you traveled faster than light and went fifty years into the past.  There you killed your grandfather so you were never born.  How did you wind up in the future to travel back into the past?  This is the paradox that physicists and sci-fi writers have played with for years, but no one really knows the answer, except the aliens. Let us look at this from a logical point of view.

            If you really traveled back into the past fifty years, when you are standing on Earth and looking up into the night sky you would have to see the same constellations the way they were fifty years ago.  You did not just send yourself back into the past, but you also reversed fifty years of Entropy of the universe.  That takes a lot of power and energy.  I know of no one that can violate the second law of thermodynamics, except maybe God, himself.

            What is Entropy?  Entropy is the measure of chaos of any system.  In the universe each moment is more chaotic than the last.  Simply, it is the expenditure of energy without reversal.  I have seen it likened to a billiard table where all the balls are racked in the triangular, orderly fashion, and then the que ball hits them and scatters them all over the table.  The scattering is entropy as the balls bounce off the rails and one another chaotically until they come to rest, dissipating the energy interjected by the que ball.  But let us take this just a little further and say that the balls are racked sequentially from one to fifteen.  This takes more time and energy and intelligence than just racking the balls. (My explanation of why I believe in God.  I digress however).  In Einstein’s concept of time travel into the past all the billiard balls must retrace their exact chaotic path back to the triangular formation.  This is possible in Einstein’s concept of relativity, not in reality.

            We see it is impossible from a logical point of view to travel into the past, but the theories of relativity allow this very thing.  This cannot happen not because relativity is wrong but because there is not just one temporal dimension, but two temporal dimensions.  The biggest surprise is we use them every day without even knowing it or ever being disoriented.  Nature compensates well.

            I must confess I was not the first to consider this.  Two great physicists of the past, Arthur Milne and P.A.M. Dirac, were the first enlightened physicists to think of this.  However, their efforts fell short, trying to preserve relativity in its current form they considered one temporal dimension to be the exponent of the other and experiments failed to prove this out.  It doesn’t mean they were wrong.  The temporal dimensions are simply added together along with the other dimensions in the coordinate system.

            You do not believe me?  You just have to look as far as your GPS.  The Ground Positioning System (GPS) uses two temporal properties to locate anyone at any time on the face of the Earth.  One is called motional or coordinate time (electromagnetic time according to the special theory of relativity) and the other is called proper or gravitational time (as according to the general theory of relativity).  There is the time dilation of the clock involved with coordinate or motional time and the relative positional time dilation involved with the position of the clock in the gravity well.  The professional journal NATURE just recently published an article that showed that cesium atoms, the atoms by which we set up our atomic clocks, vibrate at different rates just one meter apart in a gravity well.  (A gravity well simply meaning different depths and gravitational densities.)  In other words, the cesium atoms on the ground at the bottom of your meter stick will vibrate slightly slower than the ones one meter off the ground on the top of your meter stick.

            What is time dilation?  This simply means a slowing down of time.  It was introduced in the special theory of relativity.  A clock in uniform linear translation will supposedly move slower than one which is at rest.  However, this is an observational illusion.  The reason for this is because rest and uniform linear translation are two sides of the same uniform motion, just observer dependent.  Rest can be defined as uniform motion where the relative velocity of an object with respect to an observer is equal to zero; uniform linear translation (a constant steady speed without variation) can be defined as uniform motion where the relative velocity of an object with respect to an observer is unequal to zero.  And both forms of uniform motions are in a state of equilibrium, meaning all forces acting on them add up to zero.

            This is one of the great mental paradoxes of the special theory of relativity.  Physicists often use the concept of two rocket ships passing each other going opposite directions.  Observers on one ship notice the clock on the other ship moving slower than their clock on their ship.  The observers on the other ship also notice the exact same time dilation on the other ship as they pass by.  Whose clock is really going slower?  The answer is that both clocks are moving at the same rate.  If you select a position outside the ships that is exactly in between and equidistant at all times, say the center of gravity between them, you will see that the clocks move at exactly the same rate.

            However, if you bring the clocks together to compare you will find one is slower than the other.  That is because as one of the clocks remains steady and the other clock is brought to it, this other clock had to slow down and stop and reverse direction and then accelerate to get up to the steady clock.  Einstein proved in his general theory that acceleration and deceleration is the same as passing through gravity and gravity slows the time of the clock just as acceleration and deceleration does.

            This is why I always found the twin paradox so interesting.  One twin leaves Earth at twenty years old on a rocket ship on a twenty-light-year mission traveling at the speed of light.  He comes back, his brother is forty years older and he has only aged a few years.  This won’t happen, not unless the rocket ship accelerates half way there and decelerates the other half, and does the same thing on the return trip.  It’s the acceleration and deceleration that locks in the time dilation, not the constant uniform speed of the rocket ship, even at the speed of light.

            Of course this being true then it means that our universe is five dimensional just as Theodore Kaluza suggested in 1920.  The only difference is that Kaluza never thought of the extra dimension as a temporal dimension.  But a force divided by a field is equal to a linear dimension, so that we would have s² = x² + y² + z² + [- c²(t_e² + t_g²)].  It does unite all the forces of nature.

            Physicists little understand or comprehend the dimension of time.  Newton saw time as absolute, unaffected forever marching forward, Einstein saw time as being affected by a traveler’s relative velocity through it.  Physicists really do not know how or why it exists, but they do know how to measure it very precisely or at least they think they do.  The truth is they don’t understand the one dimension of time and could hardly even conceive the idea of two, when the truth is that every field has it on temporal dimension and since there are four major forces known to science they may all have their own temporal dimensions.  To travel into the past one must reverse and retrace each and every one of these dimensions exactly without deviation.  This is what the aliens know and why if one has the energy and power you can travel as fast as you like through space and time without ever traveling into the past.

            The unique thing about this equation is that it shows that no matter how many times faster than the speed of light one goes, one cannot travel into the past.  Time simply slows, infinitely, collapsing behind critical radius after critical radius while the observer moves through it.  Because 2KM/c² equals R_S, which is Schwarzschild’s critical radius, and if one lets v equal the speed of light, c, then our equation becomes the following;

                                                          dt = R_s/ (2+n^2)c,

And therefore, time slows infinitely with respect to the critical radius of the Universe but it never reverses itself, no matter how fast we go.