Sound Off: World Views and The Empowerment Factor

Co-Creating our Future


Leave a comment

The Nonlinearity of Physical Law

Frequency vibration

The Nonlinearity of Physical Law

 Investigating the “Why” for the Big Screw Up in the Standard Model of Physics

“physicists have two ways of describing reality, quantum mechanics for the small world of particles and general relativity for the larger world of planets and black holes. But the two theories do not get along: attempts to combine their equations into a unified theory produce seemingly nonsensical answers” “…..Cats are both dead and alive, an infinitude of simultaneous existing universes, reality depends on what’s measured, or who’s observing, particles that signal each other across vast distances at speeds exceeding light”

Historically, as our boundaries expanded, the flat world was seen to be round.

What is not being “seen” and recognized, as Physics’ boundaries expanded – when size, mass, distance begin approaching the micro and macro domains where the CURVATURE, with the constant C radius, HAS TO BE ACCOUNTED FOR?

The natural laws are relative?  That is, the value of one can be altered between any two reference points by altering the value or relationship of the other. We defined space as that which separates bodies of matter, so we define time as that which separates events. (If there is no discernible separation in this respect, the events are said to be simultaneous.) Examining this concept carefully, we find that time follows the same curve of natural law which is apparent in the operation of all the basic factors of nature, and again the radius of that curvature is measured by the quantity C.

Mathematical/timing/observational error, or eyesight limitation? (The theory of relativity does not say that man cannot travel faster than the speed of light, it merely says that no one on earth will be able to ‘see’ him do it.)

The Simultaneous Issue? In referring to the problem of simultaneity in the introduction to his first book on relativity, Dr. Einstein pointed out that since our only contact with the world about us is through our senses, and since all of the knowledge which we have concerning the universe has come to us through them, if we are to formulate mathematical rules based upon our observations, we must begin with the postulate that the things which our senses tell us are true. If we should observe through a large telescope, the creation of a nova in a remote galaxy, and at the same time observe the eruption of a volcano upon our own earth, we must assume, for the purpose of our mathematics, that the two events are simultaneous (see detailed explanation on Time – StarSteps3)

A review of the definitions, for the purpose of measurement, will assist in defining Common Denominators in the major factors of Nature – space, time, mass, matter, energy, gravity (and fields in general) as represented by frequency.  (see Definitions)

curvedlaw d4a55-yen4tcmove

Moving away from a straight line to infinity, super-imposed space time coordinate systems, and a CURVED space, we will look at the nonlinearity of physical law itself.

 The Nonlinearity of Physical Law

The series of mathematical formula which Albert Einstein gave to the world in 1905, he called “A Theory of Special Relativity”. Einstein brought to our attention that the factors of Gravity, Space, Time and Energy were not absolute and independent entities, but that they were variable factors, each having a value which depended upon the value of others. Thus the first faint light of understanding began to filter through the dense screen of absolute determinism which had been erected about the physical science.

Unfortunately, science, instead of pursuing this bright gleam of truth, attempted, from force of habit, to mold it into the common pattern of knowledge, by reducing it to a mathematical formula, which could be used without the necessity of understanding it. Special Relativity was made into a “universal law of absolutes”.

We have ignored the forward with which Einstein prefaced the mathematics, and so have created the very thought blocks which he hoped to prevent. We will refer to this problem later on, but it might be wise first, to devote a little time to the consideration of what we will call “the non linearity of physical law”.

A few decades ago, our physical laws were considered to be linear. That is: we had, by trial and error, by observation and test, developed a set of laws which apparently held true for all of the small segment of nature, which we were able to observe at the time. We assumed, therefore, that these laws would hold true in any segment of nature, no matter how far removed from our point of observation.

When, however, the study of physics moved into the microcosm, that is, when we began to examine the interior of the atom, we found there a set of laws which did not agree with those to which we had been accustomed. They too appeared to be linear, but operated at an angle to our established laws. The same disturbing situation was discovered in the macrocosm. When our astronomers developed the giant telescope capable of peering many millions of light years into space, they found there, still another set of laws operating apparently at an angle to both of the others.

For a time, we attempted to accustom ourselves to the existence of three sets of physical laws, each

set linear within its own range of observation, but each set operating angularly with respect to the others. Then, with the development of the principles of relativity, we began to realize, or at least we should have realized, that these different sets of linear laws were not actually linear, nor were they different sets of laws. They were simply three widely separated segments of the one great curve of natural law.

As long as we were dealing with quantities which could be observed with the unaided eye or with simple instruments, we were unable to detect the curvature, because the segment we were observing constituted such a tiny portion of the curve that its deviation from linearity was too slight to be detected.

For most practical purposes connected with the ordinary mechanics of our daily lives, these laws are still considered to be linear. Calculations are simpler when they are so considered, and the resulting  error is negligible. For the same reason, a surveyor who is surveying a small residence lot does not find it necessary to take into consideration the curvature of the earth, because the error resulting from this neglect is not detectable even by the most sensitive of his instruments. If, however, the surveyor is to make accurate measurements of large areas such as a State or a Continent, it does become imperative to consider the curvature of the earth’s surface, and to do this, of course, it is necessary to have a reasonably accurate knowledge of the radius of that curvature.

The necessity of an accurate determination of the radius of curvature of the natural laws was first realized perhaps by the late Dr. Einstein, who devoted a large part of his life’s work to this problem. The results which he obtained have filled a number of text books, and have been of inestimable value in the progress of the physical science. They proved to be the key which opened the door to the utilization of nuclear energy, and have many other implications which are sensed but not yet completely understood.

As soon as a successful effort is made to reduce these mathematical formulae to simple concepts easily grasped by the mind, these concepts, together with the additional truths which will then  become self evident, will open the door to space travel with a surety and ease which we would now find hardly possible even to imagine.

The difficulty with our present mathematical approach to the problem of relativity lies not in any error of the mathematics themselves, but in the fact that the methods and terms used in the attempt to explain them, often lead to incorrect thinking and assumptions.

For example: the best known formula perhaps, which has emerged from the study of relativity, is the expression E =MC2, which simply states that the quantity of energy (in ergs) which is inherent in any mass, is equal to the number of grams of that mass, multiplied by the square of the quantity C. The quantity C is considered to be a constant, in fact the only constant which has survived in a relativistic world.

In almost every text book on physics in the world today the statement is made that the quantity C represents the velocity of light (in centimeters per second), yet every student in the world who has studied the subject, knows that the velocity of light is not a constant. That its velocity, in fact, varies slightly with each different medium through which it is propagated. Any student who has ever passed a beam of sunlight through a prism to produce a spectrum of color, has demonstrated that not only does the velocity of light vary in different media, but that the change in velocity varies somewhat with the frequency of the light when propagated in material media. This of course is the principal upon which all of our spectroscopes are designed, although most textbooks state merely that the light is refracted or `bent’ in passing from one medium to another. There are many who will dispute the statement that the change in velocity varies with the frequency, but when sufficiently precise tests are made entirely within a single medium, the results indicate convincingly that this is true. At this point most students will remark that the quantity C refers to the velocity of light in a perfect vacuum, but where in the universe can we find a perfect vacuum in which to test this assertion?

Astronomers and physicists have estimated that even in the remotest depths of intergalactic space there will probably be found, from three to seven nuclear or atomic particles per cubic centimeter. A  beam of light traveling at approximately 3×10(10) centimeters per second would still encounter a rather large number of such particles during each second of its journey. While it is true that the proportionate decrease in velocity which would be produced by this minute concentration of matter is so small that it might be negligible for all practical purposes of measurement, nevertheless it demonstrates the fact that we have chosen as our sole remaining constant, a quantity which actually can never be a perfect constant anywhere in the know universe.

Fortunately there is a value to which the quantity C can be assigned which is a constant. Moreover the assignment of the quantity C to this factor makes possible a much better understanding of the natural laws involved in the propagation of energy.

The quantity C is actually the kinetic energy equivalent of the mass energy of matter. In other words, if we take a gram (or any other quantity of matter: Newtonian mass) and convert that matter gradually into energy according to the formula E = MC2, and the resultant energy, as it appeared, were constantly applied to the remaining matter in such a way as to accelerate it uniformly in a given direction, when all the matter had been so converted we would find that we had zero Newtonian mass, infinite inertial mass and a resultant velocity equal to the quantity C, or approximately 3×10(10) centimeters per second (with respect to the given reference or starting point). The maximum velocity attained would always be the same regardless of the quantity of matter with which we started. This is a fact which can easily be verified by anyone who is mathematically inclined, and who is familiar with the laws of acceleration. The energy required to accelerate each gram of mass to the velocity C through energy conversion is exactly equal to total energy inherent in any matter having that mass.

This fact forms the true basis of the statement in our present day physics that the velocity C is a maximum or limiting velocity, since it represents the greatest kinetic energy differential which can exist between two given reference points. Since a good understanding of this concept is of great importance, it will be referred to again, and discussed more fully in the chapters on energy and matter.

Another assumption in the theories of relativity given to the world by Dr. Einstein, the natural laws, in general, are assumed to be linear, but the space in which they operate is considered to be “curved”. This concept offers the simplest mathematical presentation, since all of the deviations from linearity can thus be explained by a single postulate. Unfortunately, like most of our mathematical  presentations, the concept offers but little for the mind to grasp. A curved space cannot be pictured mentally, nor can it be drawn upon paper. The question always arises, if space is inside the curve, what is outside?

We have discovered that the linear mathematics which we commonly apply to the ‘laws’ or rules of nature, do not hold true when carried to an extent which permits the error to be measured, because they do not follow a straight line reaching to infinity, but a curve of finite radii. In a timeless universe, this curve, in any given plane, would be represented by a circle, but since the laws operate through time as well as space, the curve may be more readily understood if depicted as a “sine curve” or “wave”. The “base” line of the wave (which is the center line of the curve) represents zero, and the portions above and below the line represent the positive and negative aspects of the law.

Thus we see that there are points and conditions in which the natural laws reach zero value with respect to a given reference point, and that beyond these points the laws become negative, reversing their effect with respect to the observer.

The constant repetition of the term “reference point” or “observer” is necessary to emphasize the frequently unrecognized fact that none of the basic factors of nature have any reality or significance except when considered from a specified position or condition.

If, therefore, we exchange the existing mathematical postulate of linear laws operating in a curved space, for a concept based upon the curvature of natural law, we will find that we have not  invalidated or changed any of the presently accepted mathematics which we apply to these concepts. They can still be applied in the same way, and will give the same results.

By the exchange, however, we will have achieved a position from which the operation of the natural laws can be pictured by the mind, and can be charted upon paper. Our new perspective will allow us to take the mathematics past the velocity of light and infinite mass limits, past the disabled negative leg of gravity, and past the inappropriate explanations of our positive and negative mathematical frames of reference. It will take us past our limits and permit widespread application. And there is no more beautiful experience than when the world expands beyond its accustomed limits. Those are moments when reality takes on splendor.

For those that wish to read ahead:

1.      General Definitions – critical

2.      The Nonlinearity of Physical Law

3.      Gravity

4.      Matter and Mass

5.      Space

6.      The Quantity C

7.      Time

 StarSteps1

StarSteps1 

StarSteps2
 StarSteps3

StarSteps3 

 

 

Advertisements


Leave a comment

Living in the Flat World of Science’s Standard Model

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

.

Living in the Flat World of Science’s Standard Model

 

It would be almost impossible today, to imagine a world where all denied their common sense and defiantly maintained their belief that the world was flat in spite of all evidence to the contrary.

 

Well, science did it. 

 

How did our science go so far past common sense to do just that – maintain their stance on a FLAT science base, a flat standard model of physics?

 

· Stuck in the same age old dichotomy – “physicists have two ways of describing reality, quantum mechanics for the small world of particles and general relativity for the larger world of planets and black holes. But the two theories do not get along: attempts to combine their equations into a unified theory produce seemingly nonsensical answers” (NewScientist Oct. 2013).

 

· Predicting a stunted future for humanity, as scientists venture further and further out on a tangent, continuing to stand on a narrow and shallow original fundamental base, ignoring the changes/expansion to the “base” as explorations moved deeper and deeper into the microcosm and macrocosm..……..where the curve, with a radius measured by the constant C, begins to be noticed and unifies the micro, here and now, and macro base…………….opening the doors to fantastic possibilities when C is also recognized to be the kinetic energy equivalent of the mass energy of matter.     

 

These Stage Coach ideas are demanding an upgrade:

 

·       “but the foundation of modern physics has largely been made, and we do not expect any major revisions of this basic knowledgde” Physics of the Future

·        “It’s very nice these people have done an experiment to illustrate this effect and show how in practice it can occur,” says Page, who is now at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Canada. But not everyone thinks the Wheeler-DeWitt equation is the correct route to unification of the quantum and classical worlds, says Lee Smolin at the Perimeter Institute in Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. “They have verified in the context of a laboratory system that quantum mechanics is working correctly,” he says. But Smolin argues that any correct description of the universe must include time. (New Scientist Oct. 2013).
·       David Bodanis’s analogy of our current scientific understanding the effects resulting with approaching the speed of light, the quantity C:  (page 81) “As the cars hurried by (approaching light speed), we’d not only see them as getting more massive, changing size, we’d also notice that time seemed to be slowing down inside of them. These effects are summarized in relativity by saying that when someone watches an object recede away from them, the object will be seen to undergo mass dilation, length changes, and time dilation. The bystanders will see it in the car; the driver of the car, looking back, will see it in the bystanders. 
·       Lee Smolin – In Time Reborn, certainly grapples with the larger picture, and in many, many instances hits pieces of the solution directly on the head – but still draws upon the narrow and shallow base of Relativity and Quantum that takes him further out on an inconsequential tangent (Even Einstein warned of false premises derived from incorrect math and observation timing, as in simultaneity – Einstein also said “We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.”)  However, Lee Smolin definitely sees errors in Physics’ foundational base, and Time is certainly one of them. Lee Smolin adds  “Quantum Mechanics is the most successful physical theory yet invented, but remains a challenge to our attempts to comprehend the world. Since its invention in the 1920s, physicists have concocted bizarre scenarios to make sense of the puzzles of quantum theory. Cats are both dead and alive, an infinitude of simultaneous existing universes, reality depends on what’s measured, or who’s observing, particles that signal each other across vast distances at speeds exceeding light….”

In future posts, we will probe into more detail the far reaching, expansive, characteristics of Light, the quantity C, the radius of curvature of all natural laws, the kinetic energy equivalent of the mass energy of matter – with its implications to E=MC2 and our current theories.  (the current math is good within the local here & now,  micro, or macro domains, but fall  apart across domains where the CURVE- radius C, has to be accounted for, as noted by our contemporary  absurd theories. We will begin foremost with The Nonlinearity of Physical Law and general definitions. 

 

1.      General Definitions – critical

2.      The Nonlinearity of Physical Law

3.      Gravity

4.      Matter and Mass

5.      Space

6.      The Quantity C

7.      Time

 
 

time

 

 

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

For those that wish to read ahead: