|
|
Main
Something is wrong with our view of the universe as propagated by physicists around the world. The contradictions are glaring and the sums don't add up. And yet - we are told that red-shifted light from the stars is evidence of a continuous expansion of the universe, an expansion that started with a primordial explosion or big bang, and that is still going on to this day.
Big Bang 'afterglow' or thermal anisotropy of the universe?
Robert Neil Boyd questions that 'received wisdom' in a recent article. He argues that observation is far superior to theory. Whenever an observed fact contradicts a theory, the latter has to give way. We need to re-think and find a better explanation that fits all of the observations.
Boyd also challenges Einstein's Relativity. He says it fails the test of Popper's Criteria for Reliability in the Sciences.
His conclusion: We need to return to reality, even in physics, and even at the expense of tearing down a holy of holies like Einstein's Relativity.
Empirical Science: Back to Reality!
Science is based on the principle of Cause and Effect. We observe an effect. (Something happens, or some event is observed.) What caused it? Then, on finding out, we want to know, "What caused that?", going from cause to cause, looking for the actual origination of things. This succession of asking the same question, at every point in the sequence, is a process which is apparently without end. (Though there may be some end-points reached eventually, in some regards.)
"What caused it?" is the primary and most fundamental question in science. What causes that observable event to happen? In fact, this question is primary to existence and to life experience. We are always asking questions in our lives, such as: Where did that come from? Why did that happen? What started it? Who started it? Why did they do that? What was the origination of that (event)?
These are all varieties of the same question: What caused it, actually? Because we know that until we find out what is the cause of some experience, the origination of it, we may be experiencing the same painful experience over and over again, until we learn to avoid the results of that cause, or cease performing that particular action. Or we may be missing the same pleasant experience, time after time, until we learn how to get it to happen again.
Cause and effect. This principle is used and applied by all Life and all forms of Consciousness, continuously. Knowing the cause of a thing or event is fundamental to existence. Nothing can live without applying this principle of cause and effect, at every opportunity. So learning about cause and effect is a natural condition, and is crucial to all Life. So, doing "science" (in terms of cause and effect) is a natural behavior.
The proverbial tale of Newton and the apple that bonked him on the head (it never happened, really) leading to Newton's discovery of the Law of Gravitational Attraction, is an example of how exploring and examining our experiences in order to find what is the origin of the given observable event, results in reliable understandings about how Reality actually works.
Given a known cause, we can observe that a known effect is always resulting from that same cause...
Read the rest of the article here
Continue reading "Continuous Creation, Einstein and the 'Expanding' Big-Bang Universe" »
This article is a continuation of an earlier post that contains parts I and II of Don Hotson's article titled "Dirac's Equation and the Sea of Negative Energy". You can find the earlier post by following this link.
In the meantime, Don Hotson has written part III of the article, and like the previous ones, it was published in Infinite Energy magazine.
To give you an idea of what the argument is, here's the introduction to part III of Don Hotson's article:
Introduction
The preceding two-part article published in Infinite Energy 44 and 45 (see web links to both documents in Bill Zebuhr's Introduction) was entirely predicated on the proposition that a true physics must be based on simplicity and causality. If Dirac's equation means what it says--that it describes everything that waves or every possible particle--it arguably provides the first basis, simplicity: the universe must be built of the four kinds of electron which are the roots of the equation.
We have shown at least plausible ways this might happen, ways that solve the glaring problems with conventional physics. Moreover, we have shown direct contact, causal solutions to the problems of the "electromagnetic field" and gravitation, in which we have shown that both represent physical, non-local structures, responses the Big BEC (Bose-Einstein condensate) must make to balance imbalances and maintain its own integrity.
There are a number of developments, unmentioned in Parts 1 and 2, which greatly strengthen the case presented there. First, the Nobelist Dr. Norman Ramsey convinced his colleagues that negative absolute temperatures made thermodynamic sense.1 Since it is the quantity of positive energy in a substance that gives it its positive energy temperature scale, it should be a perfectly obvious corollary that negative energy must be a prerequisite for negative absolute temperatures.
This complements our symmetry arguments, and the fact that both the energy equation and Dirac's equation have negative as well as positive roots.
Dr. Benni Reznik of Tel Aviv University has demonstrated that the "vacuum" as a whole violates Bell's inequalities, and so acts like a BEC. (Bell's inequalities, and the now voluminous proofs thereof, show that two particles or photons, created in the same event, remain "entangled" with each other, sharing the same wave function, no matter how far apart they may move. Thus an action on one instantaneously causes a complimentary change in the other.)
Dr. Reznik demonstrates that two unentangled probes, inserted into the "vacuum" at random distances, rapidly become phase-entangled. This is behavior one would expect from a BEC, not a "vacuum," and can hardly be understood except in terms of a universal BEC. Since the Dirac papers insist that the "vacuum" is a universal BEC, this represents an immense verification of its thesis.
This is only one of a number of demonstrations, recent and ancient, that entanglement and superluminal effects are real and fundamental factors. For instance, it has been known since Laplace that gravitation must act much faster than light, or the earth/sun system would form a "couple" and the earth would spiral off into space. That gravitation acts almost instantaneously has been shown by studies of contact binary stars, which show that it must act many orders of magnitude faster than light. Astronomer Dr. Tom Van Flandern has shown that General Relativity, though it gives lip service to the "light speed limit," simply goes on to assume instantaneous "changes in the curvature of space" in its equations, and so is non-local.
Further, it has been known for decades that electromagnetism acts faster than light, according to a whole series of experimental results starting with the Sherwin-Rawcliffe experiment and continuing with those of the Graneaus and Pappas. These experiments all show that changes in the electromagnetic field must propagate much faster than light, apparently instantaneously, so that a moving charge has no "left-behind potential hill." Thus changes in electromagnetic potential must propagate apparently instantaneously over any distance.
A BEC has been shown by laboratory experiments to be all one thing, so that an action on one end of a BEC causes an instantaneous reaction at the other end. Therefore a universal BEC is the only plausible explanation for these burgeoning superluminal effects.
But we require a further, in-depth look at causality... (continue reading here)
Continue reading "Dirac's Equation and the Sea of Negative Energy - Part III" »
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" »
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" »
"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" »
|
|
