Global Warming or Climate Change is a reality, we are being told, it is something we must deal with if in the near future we don't want to see the earth become inhospitable to life. And Global Warming is being brought on by humans burning oil and coal. It is the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, a gas that transforms our planet into a greenhouse, destined to warm up until we stop burning those fuels.

"Cap and trade", is the way to reduce emissions to levels that will stop the inevitable warming up of the planet. No more increase in fossil fuel burning except ... if a country can pay for the right to continue emitting carbon dioxide.

Leuren Moret, examining global warming in the context of geological history, comes to a different conclusion. In her interesting and immensely readable examination of Global Climate Change, the whistleblower at the Livermore Nuclear Weapons lab, and former
Environmental Commissioner in the City of Berkeley, lays out for us the reasons for global changes in temperature in the context of "deep time", the long term geological history of the earth, and some of the behind-the-scenes manipulations that have led to a rather hysterical campaign that sees us concentrate our attention on one of the minor causes for the changes that doubtless are afoot.

Continue reading "Global Climate Change: The Arctic Deep Time" »

Posted by Sepp at 5:39 PM | Permalink | Comments (4)

Mathematical Physics, which takes its cues from Newton, seeks to analyze the universe and the matter it contains in terms of force and energy. We seek to discover ultimate reality by dissecting things into ever smaller parts, backtracking from the visible into the realm particles.

Physics has come a long way in explaining how things work and our mathematical formalisms are extremely useful for technological development, but the larger picture still escapes us. The 'big bang' origin of the universe takes the concepts of force and energy to their highly illogical conclusion. No one can say how that unlikely concentration of energy that, according to physicists, gave rise to a primordial explosion from which both space and matter developed, could have come into being in the first place.

William Day approaches the problem from a different angle. In his books, and now in a paper titled Holistic Physics in a Self-Organizing Universe, he argues that we must look at hierarchies, at systems and patterns of organization. Instead of trying to understand matter in terms of its parts, we must look at how things fit together. Non-Newtonian Physics is a way of looking at the universe as a system, not just an accumulation of material parts that interact and that can be understood by putting them under a microscope.

My favorite analogy for the universe has been that of a tv screen.

What we perceive as a picture in motion is nothing but a clever manipulation of pixels of light. We can create, on a perfectly immobile screen, successive images that our eyes and brain put together into a representation of moving scenes of life. Granted, the physical universe is much more detailed and more "real" than any movie, but we are still looking at the same principle.

What we see on the screen cannot be fully understood by analyzing the details of the single pixels and in a similar way, we can't understand the universe by analyzing matter, by looking at particles and splitting them up into their constituent parts.

William Day's paper details his approach to modeling physical reality by looking at how the screen is made, rather than just analyzing the picture and finding out what its parts are composed of and how they interact with each other ...

Continue reading "Holistic Physics in a Self-Organizing Universe" »

Posted by Sepp at 9:36 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

"Dirac's equation has profound implications for both science and for the search for new energy," says Don Hotson in the preface to his two-part article that takes Dirac as a starting point to explain where the Standard Model of physics has gone wrong.

Hotson also indicates the direction we should take to arrive at a more realistic interpretation of experimental results and of the data obtained through astronomical observations. He develops a model, based on what Dirac originally intended with his equation, that is intuitive and provides a good base for further research.

"If we continue to use the wrong model (and the Standard Model is profoundly wrong) we will continue to get confusing results," says Hotson, going on to develop an explanation of "the nature of the energetic, non-stationary aether that Einstein missed, that Dirac's equation demonstrates, and that Heisenberg and others destroyed when they dismantled this equation."

Flower of life - (I found the image on Richard Lalancette's blog, as part of an article titled: Zero Point Energy & The Dirac Equation)

If, like me, you are mathematically challenged, please do not get discouraged by the use of Dirac's equation. That is merely a starting point for an immensely readable, if somewhat lengthy, treatise in plain language of what's wrong with physics and where to look for better answers.

Don Hotson's article was first published in 2002 in Infinite Energy magazine and, due to its importance, is scheduled to be re-published in an upcoming special edition of the same magazine.

Dr. Brian Ahern (PhD, physics, MIT) called it "The best physics yet written". Dr. Hal Puthoff said it was "A true tour de force" and apparently plans to do some analytical work based on it. Dr. Nick Herbert, author of the book "Quantum Reality", offered to write an introduction and an astronomer called it "The finest example of beauty and simplicity in all of physics".

I hesitated to read the article when I first saw it, and only did so recently on the insistence of the author. Having read it, I do recommend that you download the two PDF files and print them out for reading. Get the files here:

<>

<>

Continue reading "Dirac's Equation and the Sea of Negative Energy" »

Posted by Sepp at 4:04 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

What if space was filled with a non-material but very dense fluid and matter was composed of 'holes' in that fluid? Visualize water as the omnipresent medium and tiny bubbles swirling around to eventually give form to everything that can be seen. You'd have an analogy of the way Paramahamsa Tewari, a nuclear engineer with a passion for physics sees the universe.

Paramahamsa Tewari

Tewari's Space Vortex Theory (SVT) explains universal reality in a radically different way from that proposed by physicists today. A new book titled Discovering Universal Reality is available from his site (PDF download - 1.3MB) or in print from Stonehill Foundation in Kerala, India (stonehillfoundation@asianetindia.com). Tewari summarizes and explains the principles of SVT in a way that is understandable to everyone. You do not have to follow his equations to get the gist of what is said.

According to Tewari's theory, there is only one basic, stable particle - the electron - which in combination of great numbers builds atoms and thus makes up all the matter we perceive. The electron is seen as a bubble in the fluid of space, created by circulation of the space medium. When that circulation exceeds the space medium's limit of cohesion, it leaves a tiny spherical void. The existence of this tiny void stresses the incompressible space medium creating the electrical and gravitational properties we associate with matter.

Light and heat are oscillations of matter but they are transferred through space by a wave-like disturbance of the medium of which matter consists. There are no "photons" to visualize as separate particles, merely successive expanding "shells" of a disturbance propagating through space with the speed of light - c.

To vizualize this, let's look at the sea shore. The waves of water (the medium) transmit a force to the pebbles at the shore, they move them, roll them around, and in time grind them into fine sand. But there is no particle doing all this work - merely the waves of the medium. And the medium of space is much more dense than water...

But I better let Tewari speak, lest I get carried away and inject too much of my own - in this case necessarily secondary - understanding of things. Tewari's views have revolutionary implications for our understanding of the universe and they will - if proven correct - allow us to gain a conceptual understanding of physical reality. What a change that would be from today's physics which has become an esoteric labyrinth of mathemathical constructions that - it is said - only the brightest (but really perhaps only the most convoluted?) minds can grasp...

Continue reading "Tewari: Discovering Universal Reality" »

Posted by Sepp at 9:58 AM | Permalink | Comments (5)

Star formation is thought to be driven by gravity-induced accretion of material distributed in space. A recent article on space.com titled Jets Spiral in 'Reverse Whirlpool' from Star illustrates this widely accepted but mistaken concept of the formation of heavenly bodies. Space.com's Jeanna Bryner reports that

"Astronomers have observed for the first time a jet of matter spiraling outward from an infant star, as if a lengthy strand of curly pasta. The enormous jet, which shoots out in two directions, is rocketing material away from the so-called protostar and into interstellar space at more than 'supersonic speeds'."

Artist's concept of protostar HH 211, believed to be accreting material from a surrounding disk. - Credit: Change Tsai (ASIAA)

For a dynamic view, see the video animation "Black Hole Blazar Jets" at

http://www.space.com/common/media/video/player.php?videoRef=080428_blazar-coil

I cannot help but thinking that what are called "jets" are in fact the black hole's incoming vortices. What appears as matter being expelled at near light velocity (those blobs of lighter color moving outward from the black hole) is really incoming matter lit up by powerful time-limited flashes of light escaping from the black hole's center. Matter is inward directed in the jet-cum-vortex and it encounters in its path flashes of light, giving the impression of matter exiting at near light velocity.

"Stars are thought to form at the center of rotating disks of hydrogen gas and dust", continues the article, describing the theory according to which gravitation is the principal star-forming mechanism. However, there is a problem: "The gas can't fall inward toward the star until it sheds excess spin power called angular momentum". As far as official theory goes, the vortices astronomers observed in HH 211, are thought to dissipate some of the energy of rotation which, it is argued, counter-acts accretion by giving rise to centrifugal forces.

That is the official theory, but this explanation of star formation has several problems.

One obvious question: where does the spin come from, that now needs to be dissipated and more importantly, what use does that spin have in star formation?

Secondly, the "jets" observed to accompany the formation of both stars and galaxies and which are described in this instance as "reverse whirlpools" would seem be a very inefficient mechanism if not entirely counter-productive in the formation of a star. Instead of accreting material, they are said to be dissipating both matter and spin.

Thirdly, where there is no accumulation of matter, gravity cannot accumulate more matter. Also, when mathematically modeled, gravitation-induced accretion does not resolve into an accretion disk but works in a spherically symmetric way.

So what are we overlooking here?

In my view, this is one of the important areas where physics has gone down the wrong path in its insistence that gravity "obviously" must be the force that holds everything together, and that thus it is the sole force responsible for the accumulation of any kind of concentration of matter in the universe.

Continue reading "Star Formation: Vortex Builds Stars, Planets" »

Posted by Sepp at 8:36 PM | Permalink | Comments (21)

Posted by Sepp at 5:50 PM on June 23, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (7)

Posted by Sepp at 5:55 PM on May 11, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (5)

Posted by Sepp at 11:33 AM on March 29, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (13)

Posted by Sepp at 12:06 PM on March 14, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (10)

Posted by Sepp at 5:36 PM on February 16, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (9)

Posted by Sepp at 3:36 PM on January 21, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (14)

Posted by Sepp at 8:54 AM on October 10, 2006 | Permalink | Comments (26)

Posted by Sepp at 1:11 PM on July 26, 2006 | Permalink | Comments (3)

Posted by Sepp at 9:55 PM on April 15, 2006 | Permalink | Comments (21)