Captain’s Log - Stardate 03

 

Relative Theory of Relativity

 

 

It is contended:-

- that ample intuitive evidence exists to show that Albert Einstein made a relative quantum error and hence

 

e ≠ mc²

 

- there must be balance to Quantum Theory and Quantum Theory must be in balance — evidence shows that it is not.

 

Billions spent on science-fiction ‘research’ which is not physics — funding/rewarding of engineering to diminish poverty is aggressively & oppressively denied.

 

APOLOGIES for any typo errors in this paper – new Hewlett Packard Laptop finally crashed – APPALLING HP customer service – had to buy new laptop & OCR convert text from hardcopy.

 

_______________________________________

 

(Please Note This website is primarily about the pioneering of ENGINEERING into the SEBFL environments, it is about seeking truths, it is NOT about journalism, English grammar or prose, or quick-sell — it is down-to- earth engineering & pioneering requiring extensive & intensive THINKING.

(SEBFL = social/economy/business/finance/legal environments)

Explaining transmission mechanisms & pre-empting catastrophic failures is NOT doom-prophecy, it is explaining probabilistic reality.)

_______________________________________

 

It is suggested that you read the previous paper in this series:

Captain’s Log, Stardate:-

01 — ‘Blackholes’ are not holes.

02 — Dark side of the Moon

Mathematics is an abstract concept and it can lead people astray unwittingly. For proofs of mathematics being wittingly used to mislead people & perpetrate global frauds see other papers at www cdadd.com: e.g.

- Infinity, Eternity, Evolution, Creation.

- Economists’ Inexact models Exactly Defective (entire series).

- Annuities in Retirement.

- Mastermind of Organised Crime 1 & 2 (Donald Gordon, Richard Branson, etc.)

_______________________________________

 

IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT YOU READ THIS QUICKLY FOR THE FIRST TIME then find space for a quiet re-reading & thinking.

 

The foundation of Quantum Physics has been expressed by Einstein & others as:

- Quantum theory is non-intuitive and defies common sense’

- as being ‘essentially mathematical’

- as ‘likened to eastern philosophy’.

Without splitting hairs, and certainly not atoms, intuition essentially stems from the practical extrapolation of incremental knowledge gained and practically applied wisely, which is common sense.

For some 80 to 100 years the world has been confronted by increasingly complex Quantum Physics/Theories and we are still asked not to confuse it with intuition or common sense. We are asked instead to incrementally, step-by-step, follow blindly scientists & physicists who are coming up with increasingly obscure theories which are increasingly diverging from any and all intuition and common sense.

As stated in the previous paper ‘Dark side of the moon’, we are asked to accept 9, 10, or 11 dimensions, that there is a ‘theory of everything’, that soon we will have no need for God, and so on.

Does any of this make any sense?

After some 80 to 100 years the only conclusion is that it does not.

It is STRESSED, emphatically, that the brilliance of the thinking & reasoning by leading physicists/scientists cannot be, and is not being, knocked - knowledge can only be expanded by pioneers — and to ascertain that something is correct the incorrect views must also be tested & eliminated.

BUT, at some point, and certainly within a 100 year framework, new & abstract theories must begin to converge with reality and become a proven & tested LAW OF NATURE otherwise it remains simply abstract thinking/theory that is outside of the bounds of TANGIBLE REALITY. And the physicists/scientists are then no longer fulfilling their physics/science mandates but some other obscure directions.

It is contended that there is sufficient everyday evidence around us that dispels Einstein’s (e ≠ mc^2) relationship (Energy is related to the mass of a body times the speed of light squared), and that consequently much, if not all, Quantum Theory needs to be reconsidered.

It is contended that this relationship fails for the simple reason that light particles do not travel at the speed of light, c.

We must avoid confusion over terminology & facts. Whether light comes about because of particles, or wave motion, or both, or by some other means is not fully known — but to argue certain theories that are propositioned one must, by necessity, resort to (some of) the terminology of that theory. And sometimes one tends to become very loose and switch from one to another to attempt to explain points.

Einstein is saying in his equation (e ≠ mc^2) & his relativity argument that light particles travel at the speed of light (c ) and it being 299,792, 458 metres/second (or approx 300Mmetres/sec).

It is contended that there are a number of intuitive arguments that concretely disprove Einstein’s energy equation, these are, but not limited to:-

1.

The first intuitive argument that this cannot be so is that if we did have particles travelling at speed of light anything & everything would be shredded by the gatling-gun effect of all these ultra-high-velocity missiles. But, we are not shredded therefore these particles are not travelling at 300Mm/sec, nowhere near it.

[You can ignore these square brackets if you wish.

We can test this very simply by putting a cuddly teddy bear in front of us and looking at it - the fact that we can see the teddy bear is because light is reflected from the surface of the teddy. What Einstein is saying is that the light particles are coming of at the rate of 300Mm/sec. But, looking at teddy long & closely we do not feel any negative gatling-gun effects from all this light that is coming towards us, and the reason that we do not feel any gatling-gun effect is not because teddy is nice & huggable but because any light particle that is coming off of teddy is not the light particle we are seeing at the same instant of time. No - what we are seeing, at the time one particle is being emitted from teddy, is just one of the zillion of shunted particles that are in-between us & teddy. It is a short while later that the earlier particle that was emitted from teddy does eventually reach us, but it arrived at us at a far, far, slower drift velocity rate, and not at the gatling-gun rate of 300Mm/sec.

We can also confirm that it was not the nice & huggable nature of teddy that protected us from the gatling-gun effect. Simply place a figure of Darth-Vader or some other evil dude in the place of teddy — notice how the light particles do not blast us to smithereens.

This also proves that light particles are indifferent to huggability.

Sorrreeee!!!]

2.

Consider a motor connected to a circuit such that it draws 1 amp (in real power terms - we can measure the power both mechanically & electrically to determine the current is 1 amp). We also know that in the electrical circuit that the electrons propagate, ‘shunt’, the electrical power at, or near, the speed of light but that also the electrons travel at a drift velocity (of some metres/second, if not less than 1 m/sec - textbooks had to be left at home when forced into exile from SA), i.e. the electrons themselves do not travel at near the speed of light but the ‘shunting’ transmission, propagation, process does.

Consider this shunting process from the perspective of a whole bunch of pool balls lined up and being 10 metres long in total. Now, the first ball is moved from the 0 position to the 1 metre position and in 1 second - the effect of this is that the entire line moves 1 metre because each & every ball in turn moves the next ball in line by the same amount, and hence the end ball moves from the 10 metre position to the 11 metre position. From this we determine that the drift velocity is 1 metre in 1 second (or lm/s) but the energy propagation/transfer rate is 11 metres in 1 sec (or 11m/s) the velocity of the first ball is NOT 11 metres in 1 second.

This shunting process is really no different to hitting a long rod with a hammer – the energy is transmitted ‘instantaneously’ down the rod whilst the hammer travels at a very slow relative speed.

Now, connect a light such that we also draw 1 amp (in real power terms):—

- we still have electrons in the electrical circuit travelling at drift velocity, i.e. we know that the electrons inside are NOT travelling at the speed of light.

- we also know that when we open the switch that the light immediately extinguishes - i.e. there is no prolonged afterglow of light.

- we know that the light is stable & constant (in practical terms) — i.e. we do not have pulses of light followed by long periods of dark.

Therefore, if Einstein’s energy equation had light electrons travelling at the speed of light then to achieve a quantum balance in terms of electrons going into the circuit to the electrons emitted out of the circuit (through light) we would need electrons inside the electric circuit also travelling at the speed of light.

It follows then that either light particles/electrons do not travel at the speed of light or that there is a multiple conversion rate of electricity electrons to light electrons. BUT, if the drift velocity of electrons in the electrical circuit is say 10m/s then with light at 300Mmetres/sec, it would need a conversion rate of 30, 000, 000 light electrons for every electrical electron, and this would exclude the heat generated by the lamp. Clearly then, since electrons inside the electrical circuit do NOT convert to so many light electrons and that they only travel at a drift velocity it must follow that light electrons cannot be travelling at the speed of light and can only be travelling at a similar, identical, drift velocity.

Einstein’s proposition that light particles travel at 300Mm/sec would imply that we have more electrons emitted in light than can be delivered by the electric circuit – which is no different to arguing that one can get more water out of a hose than one puts into it.

Therefore we can deduce that propagation of light is by a ‘shunting’ process and not by particles travelling at c.

To summarise - it is contended that we have two propositions in the alternative if there is to be balance with Quantum Theory and for Quantum Theory to be in balance, and for stable/consistent light:

- if we insist that particles do not travel at, or near, the speed of light then we must, by induction, have conversion of one electrical electron to massive quantities of light electrons, OR

- if we insist that conversion of one electrical electron to massive quantities of light electrons is not possible then we must, by induction, not have particles travel at, or near, the speed of light hut at speeds of drift velocity.

On a balance of probabilities, and until evidence shows otherwise, it is contended that it is virtually zero probability that one electrical electron can convert to massive quantities of light electrons.

On a balance of probabilities it is contended that it is virtually zero probability that particles travel at the speed of light

Hence, it follows that light particles travel at drift velocity, and hence e ≠ mc^2.

Therefore, since light particles are travelling at drift velocity it implies that e = l/2mv^2 =m(k.c)^2 and this implies that Einstein simply had a relative, proportional quantum error with a factor k= √(v^2/2c^2).

Also note, Einstein’s ‘light box’ experiment in which he determined the emission of 1 photon - he assumed the photon being emitted was the same identical photon that was energised to be emitted on the basis that it would be travelling at the speed of light, c. But it was not the same photon (under drift velocity contention), it was some zillionth photon that was in the shunting chain that was the photon emitted from the box. Einstein, by his box experiment, implicitly agrees that there must be balance between electrons in & electrons out - that Quantum Theory must have quantum balance - i.e. Quantum-going-in must equal the Quantum going-out including losses through heat.

3

Magnetic fields exist all around in space - it would be grossly inefficient for a particle to travel 300,000,000 metres every second instead of simply shunting an adjacent particle in a shunting process to transfer energy more effectively & efficiently.

It is hard to imagine that God would have engineered an inefficient transmission mechanism.

4.

It would be impossible for a light particle to travel through space without colliding with other particles and it is contended that it would be impossible for light to get much further than a fraction of a millimetre before it was in collision. On a balance of probabilities it would be the norm, for collisions to occur, hence it would be exhibiting a shunting, propagation, process.

5.

All other areas of physics experience non-linear distortions as velocity increases, it would be unreasonable to expect light not to behave non-linearly if light particles were able to travel at 300Mm/sec. Non-linear behaviour would create gross distortions hence we would not be able to see objects coherently.

Since other shunting processes occur within the linear range it is more likely that light is behaving similarly.

6.

If we assume that light does travel at 300Mm/sec then it would be the only phenomena that did - matter would not be able to travel at the speed of light, hence no observer would be able to experience the effects of relativity, hence relativity is an abstract concept, hence Einstein’s Theory of Relativity is not physically possible, hence it is not physics.

7.

All other areas of physics experience ‘shunting’ propagation processes - particles in water, air, electrons in electrical circuits, ands so on. It is unreasonable to consider that light would not behave similarly. Hence, purely on probabilities, it would be such that Einstein’s energy equation does not hold, vis: e ≠ mc^2.

8.

If we consider light diffraction through a prism or water droplets (rainbow) then it is hard to imagine that particles travelling at the speed of light could separate into different components to produce different colours & bands which process would require each singular light particle transforming into a multiplicity of light particles, and all supposedly travelling at or near the speed of light. Such a proposition would create a Quantum imbalance and hence a contradiction to observed laws of physics/nature.

It is contended that the only plausible action that could cause diffraction is a shunting process, similar to a cue ball breaking the cluster of pool balls at the start of a game.

9.

Einstein’s relativity theory flowed as a consequence of his energy theory which is an abstract, unproven, theory, hence his Theory of Relativity takes abstract thinking to another level and neither of these theories has been proven. On the contrary, the evidence is overwhelming that they are physically impossible theories.

But scientists today still pursue even higher levels of abstract thinking upon these earlier abstract models — hence physics increasingly diverges from tangible reality.

10.

If light does not come in particle form then Einstein’s energy equation also becomes invalid because it is on the basis that there is some particle of mass m travelling at speed c. Also, we cannot see any particles actually travelling at that speed, it is only by theoretical assumption that it does.

Ether:

If we do not understand light then it is not rational to argue that we may be able to do without God, which statement nonetheless acknowledges God.

There must exist an ‘ether’ through which a ‘shunting’, propagating, transmission mechanism must occur.

And by observation we can detect that a magnetic ‘ether’ (at least) does indeed exist and it is what (partly) holds universes together, but the ether is not the gravity force we experience on earth.

Since light is electromagnetic transmission and since (under this contention) light particles move at drift velocity it means that there must be an ‘ether’ in which a shunting process can occur and this ‘ether’ must be such that the light from each & every different object must faithfully, accurately, transmit to the next electron adjacent to it the identical information that the previous electron ‘held’, and that electron must do the same to the next electron, and each subsequent electron must do it each & every time in the sequential ‘shunting’, transmission, propagation, chain from the very first to the very last ‘pool ball’ that conveys the information from each & every element of each & every object to each & every observer, and each & every position regardless of whether an observer is present or not.

The most obvious component that gives us the ‘ether’ is either magnetism alone or electro-magnetism combined.

PROPOSAL

To reiterate: it is important not to become locked into terminology. The term ‘shunting’ may be an incorrect description. It could be a more complex process of progressive charging/discharging of adjacent particles, in all & full spherical directions simultaneously, and the transferring/triggering of energy to the next adjacent particles by means of coded ‘messages’, and with sunlight recharging each particle. This process would repeat spherically outwards at speeds which would cause energy transfer at some 300Mm/sec.

First - think in terms of having eyes in the back of your head. You would see light from behind you conveying information of what is behind you, you would also see light from the front conveying information about what is in front of you. This is happening at the same time.

If we assume that zillions of particles are buzzing around at 300Mm/sec conveying all this we would surely have total chaos & indecipherable light particles. The problem becomes even more complex when light must convey information from every which direction about us & about every other area in space – it becomes impossible to think in terms of discreet particles conveying this information by zipping at 300Mm/sec.

How can we view a structured system?

If we consider one minute point in space, whether one calls it a particle or whatever (for simplicity let’s call it a particle, A), then what would be seen by A in any particular direction is what is seen on the OPPOSITE side of the adjacent particle B to A. BUT, particle B is obstructing A’s view of what B sees, so somehow particle B must transfer to A, on the opposite side, that information it sees. If a mechanism existed which triggered the transfer of that information which is 180 degrees opposed to the next particle adjacent to it then A would be able to see what B saw at a time a tiny fraction of a second earlier.

In turn A must transfer to B what A sees 180 degrees opposite to B.

Now imagine a whole set of discreet points on a sphere, similar to compound eyes on a fly but all around, then in any one time cycle information would be transferred to adjacent particles but the information would be 180 degrees opposed. Upon discharging, sunlight now recharges each particle ready to discharge once again by some triggering mechanism which transfers this 180 degree opposed & coded light information.

The ‘coded message’ contains what level of energy & what frequency must be passed on so that the right light information is relayed sequentially.

Bear in mind that we observe still photographs as having motion when they are sequentially displayed at a rate of 16 frames a second - it is then easy to understand that any transmitting/recharging process that cycles at a faster rate will appear as normal motion – 300,000,000 charge/discharge cycles per second gives high definition viewing.

This approach would fit in with Einstein’s contention that light comes in ‘energy packets’, and with particles oscillating/drifting in wave motion whilst light is propagated at some 300Mm/sec.

If we consider further and assume (as Big-Bang theorists do) that there was a singular event that brought all of what we see today into being - it follows then that over many billions-of-years that light has travelled outwards at a drift velocity rate thus forming the ‘ether’ upon which the ‘pool-ball’ shunting can occur.

This would mean that the time existence of what we do see has been around over 30,000,000 times longer than previously thought (if we assume a drift velocity of 10m/sec). Because, if we are saying we can determine approximate lifetimes of universes by the light we observe from outer space then it would mean that the ‘ether’ would first have had to propagate to that point before the light could be transmitted back at the rate of ‘c’ (300 Mm/sec). This argument would be modified by the fact that matter would be travelling at higher velocities and with the fact that they would have inherent magnetic and/or electro-magnetic characteristics it would imply that the ether foundation would be formed much faster than drift velocity but much slower than the speed of light - the nett effect still being that what we previously thought as being the time horizon, due to speed c, is in fact a time horizon that is much further away in history.

Space & significant matter do not become ‘distorted’ by the ether.

Space is space & matter is matter, the presence of an ‘ether’ does not alter that space or matter, certainly electrons moving around will be affected by the localised effects as it moves from one region to another, but that does not change or distort the space or matter — it simply affects the visual interpretation that we have of the electro-magnetic rays that we do detect, and from which detection we identify matter. The light particles are not the space, nor the matter, they are particles within the ‘ether’ transmitted as a consequence of ‘ether’ and which inform us about matter that exists. And it is by not seeing matter that we recognise it as the space between matter. Deflections experienced by the electrons as the information is propagated (at speed c) causes us to see that there is a ‘distortion’ but this does not mean that the matter has become distorted.

_______________________________________

It is not for people to prove the disproving of non-intuitive, common-sense defying, Quantum Theories — it is only necessary to show that the non-intuitive, common-sense defying, Quantum Theory does not converge with reality. It is up to Quantum Physicists to disprove the intuitive & common-sense arguments that counter their theories, and those persons that put countering arguments forward must not be discounted simply because of popular media support that physicists might, & frequently, enjoy.

Unfortunately, in the world of academic institutions, distorted by financial inducements and false media reporting, mis-information & dis-information is at the fore — hence popularity of persona takes precedence over factuality — hence increasingly warped/defective thinking finds its way into the public’s imagination to fuel more obscure thinking.

Thus, sincere thinking has been able to be steered increasingly off-track for some 100 years.

Man did not fly by theorising mathematical models but by practically experimenting – engineering is totally absent from physics/science.

Quantum Physics theories MUST converge with tangible reality if they are to become laws of nature - after some 80 to 100 years there is nothing but divergence and into sci-fi abstractions — and with no sight of turning toward convergence.

Quantum Physics cannot remain isolated in abstract theory.

At some point it must incrementally advance man’s knowledge such that it becomes intuitive and of common- sense so that mankind can progress, incrementally, beyond that new-gained, tested & proven, knowledge - which knowledge then becomes a law.

Or, it must be discarded as being defective.

When the incremental theory increasingly diverges it must be recognised as a warning signal the fact that physicists are considering ‘string theory’ of 9, 10, or 11 dimensions means that the theory has diverged beyond all reasonable bounds, and way beyond tangible reality — it means that physicists have missed the warning signals.

It is clear that Einstein’s equations, despite the brilliance of its intellectual insights, do not conform to tangible reality.

And that Einstein’s theories although perfectly valid & sincere, are nonetheless in relative, proportional, quantum error.

It is also clear that present physics theories have diverged far further from tangible reality - there are clear reasons why this is so, which will be canvassed in a later paper.

We are way beyond the point where financial expenditures on abstract theories should have been questioned, especially as far more pressing issues need to be solved back on earth?

The prevailing ‘sci-fi’ physics research is enjoying billions in expenditures but engineering into the SEBFL environments is aggressively & oppressively denied, and millions continue to die through starvation & genocides.

The reality is that disparities are causing pressure from anger and is building toward earthly big-bangs, and far greater than twin towers.

The cost of dealing with a big-bang far exceeds the nominal cost of developing sound engineered solutions to constructively avoid such a destructive big-bang.

Chris Addington Pr. Eng.

www.cdadd.com

(Under enforced exile from South Africa due to ANC government’s oppressive XDR-nazi system and oppressive economic isolation by corporate & academic worlds.

XDR = Extreme Democracy Resistant.)