From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>Subject: The entanglement of matter and geometry, arXiv:1412.1807v1 [gr-qc]Date: December 6, 2014 at 11:37:02 AM ESTTo: Craig J Hogan <craighogan@uchicago.edu>, cjhogan@fnal.gov"... the nature of the entanglement of matter and geometry is not
known, because it depends on unknown quantum degrees of freedom of the
geometry."
----
In fact, the nature of the entanglement of matter and geometry is
known: see Relative Scale Spacetime,
http://vixra.org/abs/1410.0194
Should you or any of your colleagues have doubts, check out Fig. 8, p.
14, at the link above. It is *the* most widely known public secret in
theoretical physics, ever since 1911.
You are the Director of Fermilab Center for Particle Astrophysics, and
there's no way to pretend that you know nothing about it.
Once I hear from you, I will show you where you went wrong in your
arXiv:1412.1807v1 [gr-qc], and explain your errors.
Sincerely,
D. Chakalov
Saturday, December 6, 2014
It is *the* most widely known public secret in theoretical physics, ever since 1911.
my aim is to offer this model to top minds in modern physics and cosmology
From: "Mihai Grumazescu" <grumius@mail.com>Subject: Quantum gravity modelDate: December 2, 2014
Hello Professor X,An intriguing experiment made me realize that there is a possibility of understanding the underlying secret of gravitation in a very intuitive way.I modified an older invention of mine and built what is called an inertial propulsion or impulse device in the form of a mechanical oscillator. Inertia itself is a very intriguing property of matter and I was curious to test if inertial propulsion really works. But the intellectual satisfaction given by the success of the experiment was nothing compared with the prospect to use it as an analogous for understanding the kinetic movement of gas molecules and the Brownian motion. Then, I devised a model that can explain many things, including gravitation, based on just one assumption which is, after all, very plausible. What if the oscillation of the atomic nucleus is not symmetrical in respect to its center of mass, as we know so far? What if said oscillation is an asymmetric stretch one, just like my mechanical oscillator, which should impart a linear moment to the nucleus? The nucleus will further "drag" the electronic shell, the whole atom being in a constant motion.The asymmetric stretch mode of vibration of the carbon dioxide molecule was detected through IR spectroscopy. I believe this vibration is the result of the aforementioned nuclear oscillation.Please find attached my article “A quantum oscillator that could explain gravity”.I also created a video showing the experiment described in the article which can be seen at:I seek your honest opinion on the proposed intuitive model of gravitation. I agree with Sir Roger Penrose who said “science is a great deal more than mindless computation”. For this reason, I avoided formulae, which make the article to appear less academic and more like an essay. However, sharing "a story" is more likely to trigger different ideas in the readers' minds because reading is always associated with the unique unconscious mind of each person. What we keep in the back of our mind is our whole experience and expertise.Therefore, my aim is to offer this model to top minds in modern physics and cosmology and I hope to obtain their approval, disapproval and/or suggestions. I am interested to learn from you if my vision on how gravitation works has any merit and if it can be related to other theories.Thank you for your time.Sincerely,
Friday, November 14, 2014
Sacred buildings of all time were located in places of high energy.
Static electricity – new knowledge
A large amount of literature, hypotheses and links on the Internet suggests various theories that Nazca is something mysterious that can not prove anything. A new piece of information is however sufficient to change everything - in the Caucasus mountains there are three thousand ton solid rocks that have been worked, transported and lifted to a height of forty feet. Manipulation of the rock of three thousand tons can only be done by antigravity, which for us is still an unknown concept. We realize that based on our historical information, the reality is that it will not be easy to achieve the technical level of the ancient civilization in our knowledge of natural laws in many ways that require to change our view of ancient history, rewrite textbooks, respect the findings that emerged from the newly-explored properties of static electricity and many others. Nazca can not be considered as a separate “building”, it is the climactic part of a global composition of megalithic structures. Zones created by countless charges of static electricity on the Earth form a three-dimensional grid that is in constant motion due to flowing streams, the movement of the clouds and many other charges. The straight lines marked on the Nazca plain may be zones of several ocean currents with the largest energy values. Their connection can easily be manipulated by flowing water in underground channels. This way you can manipulate the energy grid around the Earth. Nazca is a monument of inestimable value, which should be preserved for future generations and unharmed. Nowhere else in the world are recordings of the energy component in the purest natural form, which was in its time optimal for all life on Earth.
During experiments with capacitors, I just happened to noticed unknown energetic reaction that stimulated me to further research. The result was the finding that all matter has a charge of static electricity and the other two energy components, which I have called Zones and Inter-Zones. Athttp://www.miroslavprovod.com in Article 3 - Diagrams are described in detail and illustrated graphically. After writing the "Caucasian antigravity" article I have noticed an increased interest in research. Researchers have realized that they lack information about the real laws of nature that people already knew thousands of years ago. Four previously unknown forms of static electricity open up a new dimension for research.
The first finding suggests that all matter has a charge of static electricity, which perceives the aura, zones and inter zones. The zones are electrically conductive and form a huge three-dimensional grid around the Earth. The second observation suggests that contact of auras two or more objects merge in one joint aura, with joint zones and Inter-Zones. The third finding suggests that this fusion of the 2 or more zones gradually equals their electrical potentials. The fourth finding suggests that during the equalization of energetic potential a transfer of chemical properties occurs.
Static electricity and its three components of energy were used by people for thousands of years. Aristoteles tried to explain the unknown energy and called it the ether that is weightless, flexible and indestructible. Throughout history, the ether has prompted countless discussions, until the time when Einstein rejected and denied the existence of ether. Ether is not subject to gravity, is intangible - ether is "nothing." It can not be seen, can not be measured or weighed. We can not calculate it - "nothing" can not exist. The logic and knowledge of modern physics does not allow scientists to protest against Einstein and the existence of ether. Contemporary physics is simply not able, on the basis of its knowledge of the existence of ether, to accept it and therefore it must reject it. But if we replace the word ether with the word ZONE, you can discuss the matter further. The properties of both phenomena are identical, with one exception - the existence of zones can easily be proved. Through the Morse alphabet zones can send and receive messages, zones can also be visible, especially under high voltage power lines (Article 3, Diagrams). Zones throughout history have an essential role in many areas from prehistoric times until the present time.
You can not overlook the fact that only the zone of static electricity may provide an explanation for the megalithic culture, and many other human activities. "Caucasian antigravity" indicates to us that it is necessary to focus research on other yet unknown properties of static electricity, areas for further research are a big help. Sacred buildings of all time were located in places of high energy. We can deduce that the builders of these knew the attributes of static electricity. This information has metastasized to multiple directions, which can be expected to deliver new knowledge, particularly in the areas of medicine, architecture, urban planning, environment and other fields.
16/09/2014
Miroslav Provod
Wednesday, November 5, 2014
The non-Archimedean topology of its mind-like source
Jürg dorogoi,Incidentally, we are not talking about errors; we are
talking about the fact that you completely misunderstand
what Science is about.
Plato's proposal is 25 century old: see plato_cave.jpg (attached) from
https://sites.google.com/site/maximalsettheory/home/what-is- gravity
If you can find at least one error in Relative Scale Spacetime, please
write me back, and I will reply immediately.
I extend this offer to all colleagues of yours.
Sincerely,
D. Chakalov
Tuesday, September 30, 2014
(short for Pressure Of The Universe)
From: John <John@vidainstitute.org>
Date: Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 11:51 PM
Subject: Unscientific nonsense (What a mess!)
Recently, I proposed to a number of physicists that there is
incompatibility between the magnetic component of the Lorentz force
law, F=qvB, and Einsteinian Relativity (ER). I illustrated this with
the scenario of two point charges traveling at the same velocity, alone
in the universe. I asked - What would be used for the velocity in order
to calculate the magnetic force between the charges? A simple scenario
and a simple question; one for which there should be a simple answer. I
did not explicitly solicit a response, but many physicists at respected
institutions were kind enough to send one (50+ to date).
Several of the responses merely suggested that if I study elementary
physics texts, the answer to my question will be obvious. The shocking
thing is, that there are widely diverse opinions among physicists at
respected institutions, regarding what that obvious answer is. Some
example comments -
"Any college book on E&M would explain this in gory details. .."
"...the answer to your question is covered in the J.D. Jackson's
Classical electrodynamic (ISBN-13: 978-0471309321) this is covered in
the first year of graduate Electrodynamics...See the E&M tensor section
after the chapter in special relativity. This is really not an
interesting question anymore since it has been solved for nearly 100
years."
"...the net force is gamma^3 times the repulsive electric
force that the observer would see if the two charges were stationary.
However, this augmentation of the net force by gamma^3 is
exactly what is required by relativity for self-consistency. -
Actually, what I sent you is slightly incorrect. The net force is
e^2/(4 pi epsilon_0 r^2) /gamma"
"...m d^2 x^{\mu} / d\tau^2 = q F^\mu_\nu dx^\nu / d\tau
which reduces to the lorentz force equation when you convert all of the
taus to ts...This is the correct procedure..."
"Is it all moving along together in a vacuum? Then no. No relative
speed, no Lorentz force."
"...The electric and the
magnetic forces between them change, but the net electromagnetic force
stays the same,.."
"You have forgotten that same-sign charges also experience an electric
repulsion..."
"Observers in different reference frames see different electric and
magnetic fields; a pure magnetic field to one observer will be a
mixture of both fields to the other..."
"...the ‘electric’ force in the rest frame manifests itself as
a ‘magnetic’ force in the moving frame (furthermore, the electric force
in the moving frame will be less than the electric force in the rest
frame, which can be understood in terms of clocks advancing at
different rates in the two frames)."
"...there is no magnetic force in the rest frame of the
co-moving particles.
"The velocity in special relativity is measured relative to
the observer"
"The relevant velocity in the equation for the magnetic force is the
relative velocity between the two particles..."
"You cannot just separate one defined aspect (such as
what we call the Lorentz force) and think of that alone..."
"...after you first learn the right amount of advanced math.
Not only the magnetic field changes when you go to another frame, the
electric field changes too. So the electric force between the two
charges also changes. In adition, the masses of the two particles also
changes. So the final effect on the motion of the two charges is a
complicated calculation, and cannot be lightly analyzed as you did.
Furthermore, the meaning of length and time-duration also changes."
"...Einstein's special relativity. It is now firmly established to be
correct and there are no simple arguments like what you gave that could
prove it to be incorrect."
"A lot of higher physics violates my sense of logic. Quantum mechanics
is a doozy, for example. But, I trust mathematics more than my
human-scale logic, and the math just plain works. "
"The formula you are using is non-relativistic. If you would like to
invoke special relativity, you need to use Maxwell equations, which
contain both magnetic and electric fields, as one transforms into the
other under Lorentz boost...."
"This was solved once and for all in The 1920's. You don't need
quantum field theory to understand it; it is understandable
classically."
"Force itself is also a relative quantity in relativity, so there is no
incompatibility."
"So, the upshot of this is that the force you get _does not_ depend on
the relativistic frame of reference you choose! Because _any_ velocity
gets you the same force,
_any_ frame will get you the same force too!"
"...your idea is flawed (in your case by the work of Ernst Mach)"
"This is actually related to "Mach's principle". For example, suppose
you removed all of the matter from the universe except the earth and
moon. Would the moon still "orbit" the earth? How can we measure
their relative motion without an external frame of reference?"
---------------
The majority of the comments include circular arguments, using ER
concepts to defend ER, sort of like "A is true because of B, but B is
true because of A" (I believe this is also the case with much of the
experimental evidence cited in favor of relativity).
The comments vary widely, differ in fundamental respects, and some are
contradictory, but there are a couple of themes many of them share:
One is the idea that electric force must be considered in conjunction
with magnetic force, or that magnetic force cannot be considered
independently from electric force. A popular idea is "...The electric
and the magnetic forces between them change, but the net
electromagnetic force stays the same,.." (no dependence of force on
velocity?). This implies that the force of the the magnetic curl
depends on the state of motion of the observer. This is an example of
"What happens depends on who's watching" as discussed below. This idea
also suffers from the simple demonstration illustrated in Figure 5.2 on
page 203 of Griffiths' Intro to Electrodynamics. Two parallel wires are
attracted to each other, when current in the same direction flows
through both. There is never any electric force, but there is magnetic
force. The idea that magnetic force cannot be considered separately
from electric force, runs counter to the basic principle of engineering
mechanics, that forces can be analyzed separately.
A second is the idea that the velocity used to calculate the magnetic
force must be measured relative to an "observer". A couple of
commenters astutely pointed out that force itself is relative to the
"observer" in ER. This is the silly notion that forms the basis of
Einsteinian relativity - "What happens depends on who's watching". It
is curious that such an anti-intuitive idea could be accepted without
greater fuss, but then, it may not be so difficult when one has already
accepted that time (a human invention) has an actual physical reality.
The idea that force is relative to the observer, appears to offer the
only algebraic hope of reconciling the Lorentz force law with a
relative velocity, but it is simply absurd -
Imagine in the scenario described at the beginning of this letter, of
two moving charges alone in the universe, that the two charges are
connected by a spring. When the spring is compressed by a certain
amount, it will trigger a switch. The switch will set off a b**b which
will blow us to smithereens. We must hope that the velocity of the
"observer" is close enough to that of the two charges, so that the
relative velocity is low enough that there is insufficient magnetic
force to compress the spring and set off the b**b. If an observer that
is going too slow/fast is watching, we are in trouble! If this isn't
confusing enough, what about if there are multiple observers? One of
them would surely be going at a velocity that would set off the b**b.
Force is not a matter of relative perception, it makes real changes.
Alternatively, the switch in this scenario could be activated by the
force of the magnetic curl, rather than the linear force.
Some may still not see a problem with the magnitude of the force being
relative to the observer, so for purposes of discussion, let's allow
that it can be. Consider another relation between force and velocity -
F=ma
The problem here is that if the magnitude of the force is relative to
an "observer" and can vary depending on the observer, then the
magnitude of the acceleration must also be variable depending on the
observer measuring it, but it isn't. All observers who are not
themselves accelerating, will observe exactly the same acceleration. In
other words, any observer capable of measuring the velocity of
something else, will measure exactly the same numerical change in
magnitude and direction of that velocity when the thing accelerates.
Simply put, it is not possible that force is relative to the observer,
but Einsteinian Relativity cannot be correct unless force is relative
to the observer. (of course one could still claim that Newton's law is
also incorrect, or that the mass of the thing observed depends on the
observer, or create an extra dimension or two, but then anything can be
escaped from, given sufficient leeway).
If you concede there are logical problems with ER, but still wish to
defend it, you are left with such arguments as "ER makes mathematical
sense so it doesn't need to be logical or understandable in human
terms. This idea that nature must obey mathematics (another human
invention) has been around since at least the era of Pythagorus, and
seems to be as popular as ever. This belief attributes god-like powers
to humans. (If the math truly shows ER to be correct, then the
assumptions or premises on which it is based should be re-examined.)
Then there is the argument that ER - "just works" - Maybe not as well
as thought. I believe that the magnitude of magnetic force is being
erroneously calculated due to an observed or relative velocity being
used in the calculation, rather than the true velocity. ER compares the
velocity of things with each other. If the scope is made large enough
to include the things whose velocity is being compared, it still
neglects velocity that all the things in the scope share. This, perhaps
the most important and undefeatable argument against ER, has large
practical implications - The linear attraction resulting from this
overlooked velocity may be confused with gravity, but the curl of the
magnetic force cannot be. This has led to a serious distortion in our
view of the cosmos for example. Phenomena such as orbital motion, spin
(small-scale orbital motion), and coplanarity are being explained by
very nebulous and complex theories such as "big bang", when the real
explanation is the magnetic curl. We know how much this mistake is
costing us.
The final defense of ER is one that served religions well for centuries
- "What other explanation is there?" Now there is another explanation.
I call it the POTU theory (short for Pressure Of The Universe). It
explains gravity as Lorentz magnetic force between charges in matter,
caused by unidirectional motion of the known universe against an
infinite (or bounded?) cubic lattice comprised of alternating
elementary charges.
This universal background lattice provides a reference or measuring
stick for an "absolute" velocity, which is the sum of an observed or
relative velocity, and a background velocity shared by all our
surroundings. Careful repetition of the "Morgan Flywheel Experiment",
may provide data to allow calculation of the background velocity. Some
other highlights of the theory include: matter is comprised entirely of
electric charge; phenomena such as inertia are due to the
electromagnetic interaction of matter with "space" (the lattice), and
the speculation that supernovae create matter by blowing charges loose
from the lattice, and black holes destroy matter by compressing it back
into the lattice. For those interested, I would be pleased to send you
a free copy of the POTU theory.
Regardless of one's opinion of the foregoing ideas and discussion, one
must acknowledge that there is a problem. If the problem is not with
the science itself; it is with the lack of a clear and consistent
understanding of the science by professionals entrusted with teaching
it, as demonstrated by the comments I have received.
I hope that those with the power and responsibility to "right the ship"
will see opportunity in this, rather than foolishly seeking to continue
mistaken approaches. At some point, the matter will be more serious
than merely wasted effort and resources.
Yours truly,
John Best
Date: Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 11:51 PM
Subject: Unscientific nonsense (What a mess!)
Recently, I proposed to a number of physicists that there is
incompatibility between the magnetic component of the Lorentz force
law, F=qvB, and Einsteinian Relativity (ER). I illustrated this with
the scenario of two point charges traveling at the same velocity, alone
in the universe. I asked - What would be used for the velocity in order
to calculate the magnetic force between the charges? A simple scenario
and a simple question; one for which there should be a simple answer. I
did not explicitly solicit a response, but many physicists at respected
institutions were kind enough to send one (50+ to date).
Several of the responses merely suggested that if I study elementary
physics texts, the answer to my question will be obvious. The shocking
thing is, that there are widely diverse opinions among physicists at
respected institutions, regarding what that obvious answer is. Some
example comments -
"Any college book on E&M would explain this in gory details. .."
"...the answer to your question is covered in the J.D. Jackson's
Classical electrodynamic (ISBN-13: 978-0471309321) this is covered in
the first year of graduate Electrodynamics...See the E&M tensor section
after the chapter in special relativity. This is really not an
interesting question anymore since it has been solved for nearly 100
years."
"...the net force is gamma^3 times the repulsive electric
force that the observer would see if the two charges were stationary.
However, this augmentation of the net force by gamma^3 is
exactly what is required by relativity for self-consistency. -
Actually, what I sent you is slightly incorrect. The net force is
e^2/(4 pi epsilon_0 r^2) /gamma"
"...m d^2 x^{\mu} / d\tau^2 = q F^\mu_\nu dx^\nu / d\tau
which reduces to the lorentz force equation when you convert all of the
taus to ts...This is the correct procedure..."
"Is it all moving along together in a vacuum? Then no. No relative
speed, no Lorentz force."
"...The electric and the
magnetic forces between them change, but the net electromagnetic force
stays the same,.."
"You have forgotten that same-sign charges also experience an electric
repulsion..."
"Observers in different reference frames see different electric and
magnetic fields; a pure magnetic field to one observer will be a
mixture of both fields to the other..."
"...the ‘electric’ force in the rest frame manifests itself as
a ‘magnetic’ force in the moving frame (furthermore, the electric force
in the moving frame will be less than the electric force in the rest
frame, which can be understood in terms of clocks advancing at
different rates in the two frames)."
"...there is no magnetic force in the rest frame of the
co-moving particles.
"The velocity in special relativity is measured relative to
the observer"
"The relevant velocity in the equation for the magnetic force is the
relative velocity between the two particles..."
"You cannot just separate one defined aspect (such as
what we call the Lorentz force) and think of that alone..."
"...after you first learn the right amount of advanced math.
Not only the magnetic field changes when you go to another frame, the
electric field changes too. So the electric force between the two
charges also changes. In adition, the masses of the two particles also
changes. So the final effect on the motion of the two charges is a
complicated calculation, and cannot be lightly analyzed as you did.
Furthermore, the meaning of length and time-duration also changes."
"...Einstein's special relativity. It is now firmly established to be
correct and there are no simple arguments like what you gave that could
prove it to be incorrect."
"A lot of higher physics violates my sense of logic. Quantum mechanics
is a doozy, for example. But, I trust mathematics more than my
human-scale logic, and the math just plain works. "
"The formula you are using is non-relativistic. If you would like to
invoke special relativity, you need to use Maxwell equations, which
contain both magnetic and electric fields, as one transforms into the
other under Lorentz boost...."
"This was solved once and for all in The 1920's. You don't need
quantum field theory to understand it; it is understandable
classically."
"Force itself is also a relative quantity in relativity, so there is no
incompatibility."
"So, the upshot of this is that the force you get _does not_ depend on
the relativistic frame of reference you choose! Because _any_ velocity
gets you the same force,
_any_ frame will get you the same force too!"
"...your idea is flawed (in your case by the work of Ernst Mach)"
"This is actually related to "Mach's principle". For example, suppose
you removed all of the matter from the universe except the earth and
moon. Would the moon still "orbit" the earth? How can we measure
their relative motion without an external frame of reference?"
---------------
The majority of the comments include circular arguments, using ER
concepts to defend ER, sort of like "A is true because of B, but B is
true because of A" (I believe this is also the case with much of the
experimental evidence cited in favor of relativity).
The comments vary widely, differ in fundamental respects, and some are
contradictory, but there are a couple of themes many of them share:
One is the idea that electric force must be considered in conjunction
with magnetic force, or that magnetic force cannot be considered
independently from electric force. A popular idea is "...The electric
and the magnetic forces between them change, but the net
electromagnetic force stays the same,.." (no dependence of force on
velocity?). This implies that the force of the the magnetic curl
depends on the state of motion of the observer. This is an example of
"What happens depends on who's watching" as discussed below. This idea
also suffers from the simple demonstration illustrated in Figure 5.2 on
page 203 of Griffiths' Intro to Electrodynamics. Two parallel wires are
attracted to each other, when current in the same direction flows
through both. There is never any electric force, but there is magnetic
force. The idea that magnetic force cannot be considered separately
from electric force, runs counter to the basic principle of engineering
mechanics, that forces can be analyzed separately.
A second is the idea that the velocity used to calculate the magnetic
force must be measured relative to an "observer". A couple of
commenters astutely pointed out that force itself is relative to the
"observer" in ER. This is the silly notion that forms the basis of
Einsteinian relativity - "What happens depends on who's watching". It
is curious that such an anti-intuitive idea could be accepted without
greater fuss, but then, it may not be so difficult when one has already
accepted that time (a human invention) has an actual physical reality.
The idea that force is relative to the observer, appears to offer the
only algebraic hope of reconciling the Lorentz force law with a
relative velocity, but it is simply absurd -
Imagine in the scenario described at the beginning of this letter, of
two moving charges alone in the universe, that the two charges are
connected by a spring. When the spring is compressed by a certain
amount, it will trigger a switch. The switch will set off a b**b which
will blow us to smithereens. We must hope that the velocity of the
"observer" is close enough to that of the two charges, so that the
relative velocity is low enough that there is insufficient magnetic
force to compress the spring and set off the b**b. If an observer that
is going too slow/fast is watching, we are in trouble! If this isn't
confusing enough, what about if there are multiple observers? One of
them would surely be going at a velocity that would set off the b**b.
Force is not a matter of relative perception, it makes real changes.
Alternatively, the switch in this scenario could be activated by the
force of the magnetic curl, rather than the linear force.
Some may still not see a problem with the magnitude of the force being
relative to the observer, so for purposes of discussion, let's allow
that it can be. Consider another relation between force and velocity -
F=ma
The problem here is that if the magnitude of the force is relative to
an "observer" and can vary depending on the observer, then the
magnitude of the acceleration must also be variable depending on the
observer measuring it, but it isn't. All observers who are not
themselves accelerating, will observe exactly the same acceleration. In
other words, any observer capable of measuring the velocity of
something else, will measure exactly the same numerical change in
magnitude and direction of that velocity when the thing accelerates.
Simply put, it is not possible that force is relative to the observer,
but Einsteinian Relativity cannot be correct unless force is relative
to the observer. (of course one could still claim that Newton's law is
also incorrect, or that the mass of the thing observed depends on the
observer, or create an extra dimension or two, but then anything can be
escaped from, given sufficient leeway).
If you concede there are logical problems with ER, but still wish to
defend it, you are left with such arguments as "ER makes mathematical
sense so it doesn't need to be logical or understandable in human
terms. This idea that nature must obey mathematics (another human
invention) has been around since at least the era of Pythagorus, and
seems to be as popular as ever. This belief attributes god-like powers
to humans. (If the math truly shows ER to be correct, then the
assumptions or premises on which it is based should be re-examined.)
Then there is the argument that ER - "just works" - Maybe not as well
as thought. I believe that the magnitude of magnetic force is being
erroneously calculated due to an observed or relative velocity being
used in the calculation, rather than the true velocity. ER compares the
velocity of things with each other. If the scope is made large enough
to include the things whose velocity is being compared, it still
neglects velocity that all the things in the scope share. This, perhaps
the most important and undefeatable argument against ER, has large
practical implications - The linear attraction resulting from this
overlooked velocity may be confused with gravity, but the curl of the
magnetic force cannot be. This has led to a serious distortion in our
view of the cosmos for example. Phenomena such as orbital motion, spin
(small-scale orbital motion), and coplanarity are being explained by
very nebulous and complex theories such as "big bang", when the real
explanation is the magnetic curl. We know how much this mistake is
costing us.
The final defense of ER is one that served religions well for centuries
- "What other explanation is there?" Now there is another explanation.
I call it the POTU theory (short for Pressure Of The Universe). It
explains gravity as Lorentz magnetic force between charges in matter,
caused by unidirectional motion of the known universe against an
infinite (or bounded?) cubic lattice comprised of alternating
elementary charges.
This universal background lattice provides a reference or measuring
stick for an "absolute" velocity, which is the sum of an observed or
relative velocity, and a background velocity shared by all our
surroundings. Careful repetition of the "Morgan Flywheel Experiment",
may provide data to allow calculation of the background velocity. Some
other highlights of the theory include: matter is comprised entirely of
electric charge; phenomena such as inertia are due to the
electromagnetic interaction of matter with "space" (the lattice), and
the speculation that supernovae create matter by blowing charges loose
from the lattice, and black holes destroy matter by compressing it back
into the lattice. For those interested, I would be pleased to send you
a free copy of the POTU theory.
Regardless of one's opinion of the foregoing ideas and discussion, one
must acknowledge that there is a problem. If the problem is not with
the science itself; it is with the lack of a clear and consistent
understanding of the science by professionals entrusted with teaching
it, as demonstrated by the comments I have received.
I hope that those with the power and responsibility to "right the ship"
will see opportunity in this, rather than foolishly seeking to continue
mistaken approaches. At some point, the matter will be more serious
than merely wasted effort and resources.
Yours truly,
John Best
Tuesday, August 12, 2014
humiliates top scientists even after 84 years
Dear Friend,
Revealed the first energy generator thats
violates all law of physics and humiliates
top scientists even after 84 years..
Big Energy shut us down 6 months ago...
but now we`re back, and we`re here to stay.
They may not like it... and they may lose
billions because of this... but now, people
have the means to make their own electricity,
and cut the cord that ties them to the
greedy legal monopolies...
its from our nature..
Best Regards..
hendergenerator
Revealed the first energy generator thats
violates all law of physics and humiliates
top scientists even after 84 years..
Big Energy shut us down 6 months ago...
but now we`re back, and we`re here to stay.
They may not like it... and they may lose
billions because of this... but now, people
have the means to make their own electricity,
and cut the cord that ties them to the
greedy legal monopolies...
its from our nature..
Best Regards..
hendergenerator
Friday, August 8, 2014
my finding on G.U.T will cause revolution in physic and chemistry and mathematic and other applying scientific
Hi
at the first I apologize you if my English is not well
(this subject is very important,for this reason give me only five minute please,)
my name is hossein nori and I live in Iran
I have worked on (G U T: great unification theory) for years and finally I solve it.
not in 20 or 10 dimension such as string theory but in only 4 dimension.
I have find the origin of mass and charge and I can say what is the relation between gravity force and coulomb force
and what is relation between nuclear force and other .my solution not only admit Einstein theory but also complete it.
my finding on G.U.T will cause revolution in physic and chemistry and ma thematic and other applying scientific such
as engineering which are depend to them.(every body that knows only a few about G.U.T understand me and will not
be surprised about result of G.U.T)
I know this way is some strange for introducing such great solution but I have not any other option (because I live in
country that have special limitation , for this reason and many other, I don't want to publish it in Iran ).
I am ready to do (net meeting) to any skillful relativity professor in your university and be sure that he will admit me
and my solution.
my email is hosinnor@ yahoo.com
please contact me only by yahoo mail hosinnor@yahoo.mail
because face book,tweeter,... was blocked in my country
at the first I apologize you if my English is not well
(this subject is very important,for this reason give me only five minute please,)
my name is hossein nori and I live in Iran
I have worked on (G U T: great unification theory) for years and finally I solve it.
not in 20 or 10 dimension such as string theory but in only 4 dimension.
I have find the origin of mass and charge and I can say what is the relation between gravity force and coulomb force
and what is relation between nuclear force and other .my solution not only admit Einstein theory but also complete it.
my finding on G.U.T will cause revolution in physic and chemistry and ma thematic and other applying scientific such
as engineering which are depend to them.(every body that knows only a few about G.U.T understand me and will not
be surprised about result of G.U.T)
I know this way is some strange for introducing such great solution but I have not any other option (because I live in
country that have special limitation , for this reason and many other, I don't want to publish it in Iran ).
I am ready to do (net meeting) to any skillful relativity professor in your university and be sure that he will admit me
and my solution.
my email is hosinnor@ yahoo.com
please contact me only by yahoo mail hosinnor@yahoo.mail
because face book,tweeter,... was blocked in my country
I Have written a new theory of the real explanation of electromagnetism.
From: Abdur razzaque weimikus@yahoo.com
Subject: Research opportunity
Date: January 25, 2010 at 6:05 AM
Dear Sir,
I am engaged with research work on the theoretical and applied physics. I
have been trying to found a new horizon of physics. Recently I have proved
that "Energy is created newly by particle and matter in every where, Energy’s
conservation law is fault”. So, I think and have already proved
theoretically and in my laboratory that, spin of particles is related to the
creation of energy and electromagnetism. I wish to establish of my research
work and Invention. Please give me an opportunity.
I have been doing research work on Theoretical and Applied Physics.I have
written a copy of book of many new fundamental
ideas of all Physics and Astrophysics. I strongly confident the book after
publishing maximum problems would be solved by the book. Such as, problems
in Newtonians mechanics, real event of Maxwell’s electro magnetism, problems
of Quantum Theory & Quantum mechanics, problems in the Special and General
Theory of relativity of Einstein, problems in modern idea of particle
Physics, Salam’s conception, problems of Stephan Hawcking’s idea, and
maximum problems of physics will be solved by the book.
I Have written a new theory of the real explanation of electromagnetism.
Please help me. Please issue for me a Research opportunity.
Thanking you
MD. Abdur Razzaque
Aruapara chauler border,
6/4 Nuruddin Ahmed road,
Post: Mohini Mills,
Kushtia, Bangladesh.
Email: weimikus@yahoo.com
Mobile: 088-01732-807017; 088-01730-096567
Fax: 088-071-7354
Subject: Research opportunity
Date: January 25, 2010 at 6:05 AM
Dear Sir,
I am engaged with research work on the theoretical and applied physics. I
have been trying to found a new horizon of physics. Recently I have proved
that "Energy is created newly by particle and matter in every where, Energy’s
conservation law is fault”. So, I think and have already proved
theoretically and in my laboratory that, spin of particles is related to the
creation of energy and electromagnetism. I wish to establish of my research
work and Invention. Please give me an opportunity.
I have been doing research work on Theoretical and Applied Physics.I have
written a copy of book of many new fundamental
ideas of all Physics and Astrophysics. I strongly confident the book after
publishing maximum problems would be solved by the book. Such as, problems
in Newtonians mechanics, real event of Maxwell’s electro magnetism, problems
of Quantum Theory & Quantum mechanics, problems in the Special and General
Theory of relativity of Einstein, problems in modern idea of particle
Physics, Salam’s conception, problems of Stephan Hawcking’s idea, and
maximum problems of physics will be solved by the book.
I Have written a new theory of the real explanation of electromagnetism.
Please help me. Please issue for me a Research opportunity.
Thanking you
MD. Abdur Razzaque
Aruapara chauler border,
6/4 Nuruddin Ahmed road,
Post: Mohini Mills,
Kushtia, Bangladesh.
Email: weimikus@yahoo.com
Mobile: 088-01732-807017; 088-01730-096567
Fax: 088-071-7354
age of the universe, based on the interpretation of some Qur'anic verses.
Dear colleague,
I've just finished writing a new paper (in French) where I propose a new estimation of both the age of earth and the age of the universe, based on the
interpretation of some Qur'anic verses. I've found 4.565 Gy for the age of the Earth and 13.697 Gy for the age of the universe (for French version see
http://piges.2presse.com/ or download from
http://piges.2presse.com/IMG/pdf/Age_de_la_terre_et_age_de_l_univers_version_finale.pdf
I'll send you a copy when the English version will be ready.
Besides, in the paper I sent you a little while ago and entitled: "A new vision of the universe evolution" published in "The Pacific Journal of Science and
Technology" (Vol 6,1, May 2005, see : http://www.akamaiuniversity.us/PJST6_1_37.pdf ), I mentioned in section 3.1.3.1 that all experts in astronomy state
that at the end of the solar system, the sun will occupy after its blowing up the whole of the celestial dome in a similar way as "Cat's eye" nebula discovered
in september 1994 (Please click on :
http://imgsrc.hubblesite.org/hu/db/1995/01/images/a/formats/full_jpg.jpg ).
Lately, I realized that I cited in the published version, the verses concerning this phenomenon i.e.
- Sura 81, verse 1
" When the sun becomes like a swelling ball"
- Sura 55, verse 37
"Then, when the heaven is rent asunder, becoming scarlet-rosy like red hide."
Unfortunately, the above link has been omitted.
P.S.:
- As far as the first paper is concerned, several readers asked me about my objective behind
writing this paper. In fact, I explained it in the foreword.
- The extended version of the article cited above is available in word and pdf versions.
- For archiving reasons, I use the email address : kamel.bensalem@gmail.com.
Kindest regards,
Kamel Ben Salem
Professor of Data analysis at the Department of Computer Science at the Faculty of Science,
Tunis, 2092 El Manar II - Tunisia;
E-mail : kamel.bensalem@fst.rnu.tn
I've just finished writing a new paper (in French) where I propose a new estimation of both the age of earth and the age of the universe, based on the
interpretation of some Qur'anic verses. I've found 4.565 Gy for the age of the Earth and 13.697 Gy for the age of the universe (for French version see
http://piges.2presse.com/ or download from
http://piges.2presse.com/IMG/pdf/Age_de_la_terre_et_age_de_l_univers_version_finale.pdf
I'll send you a copy when the English version will be ready.
Besides, in the paper I sent you a little while ago and entitled: "A new vision of the universe evolution" published in "The Pacific Journal of Science and
Technology" (Vol 6,1, May 2005, see : http://www.akamaiuniversity.us/PJST6_1_37.pdf ), I mentioned in section 3.1.3.1 that all experts in astronomy state
that at the end of the solar system, the sun will occupy after its blowing up the whole of the celestial dome in a similar way as "Cat's eye" nebula discovered
in september 1994 (Please click on :
http://imgsrc.hubblesite.org/hu/db/1995/01/images/a/formats/full_jpg.jpg ).
Lately, I realized that I cited in the published version, the verses concerning this phenomenon i.e.
- Sura 81, verse 1
" When the sun becomes like a swelling ball"
- Sura 55, verse 37
"Then, when the heaven is rent asunder, becoming scarlet-rosy like red hide."
Unfortunately, the above link has been omitted.
P.S.:
- As far as the first paper is concerned, several readers asked me about my objective behind
writing this paper. In fact, I explained it in the foreword.
- The extended version of the article cited above is available in word and pdf versions.
- For archiving reasons, I use the email address : kamel.bensalem@gmail.com.
Kindest regards,
Kamel Ben Salem
Professor of Data analysis at the Department of Computer Science at the Faculty of Science,
Tunis, 2092 El Manar II - Tunisia;
E-mail : kamel.bensalem@fst.rnu.tn
Wednesday, August 6, 2014
With no means of calculating it, we just don't know for sure.
Can bound charges in matter, including charges associated with protons,
electrons, charges in subatomic composite particles, etc. create
Lorentz magnetic force due to the velocity of the matter in which they
are contained? The Lorentz force law indicates that the magnetic force
produced by charge should depend only on its magnitude and velocity. Is
there a theoretical reason why this is untrue, or experimental evidence
to show that it isn't?
This is an important question - In cosmology, for example, where there
are large masses containing lots of charge, traveling at celestial
velocities, this force could be significant. How significant? With no
means of calculating it, we just don't know for sure. The experiment
described below, if carefully repeated, would provide the means to
calculate this force, if my supposition is correct that it is an
example of the phenomenon of all charges, and the macroscopic velocity,
contributing to the Lorentz force law:
The Harvey Morgan Flywheel Experiment- IEEE, AES Systems magazine,
January 1998-
"A 2 pound lead flywheel was mounted on the shaft of a small, very high
speed (26,500 rpm advertised) electric motor. Another flywheel was
mounted on a ball-bearing shaft aligned with the motor shaft.
The two flywheel's parallel faces were separated by about 1/16 inch.
When the motor was energized, it accelerated the lead flywheel toward
its top rated speed. The other flywheel, in response to the changing
angular velocity and momentum of the lead flywheel, started turning
briskly -- in the opposite direction! ... When the electric motor was
turned off before reaching top speed, the other flywheel stopped
turning. It then started turning slowly in the same direction as the
lead flywheel..."
I believe that this phenomenon is caused by the curl of the magnetic
fields generated by the charge contained in the wheels. I couldn't find
access to the original Morgan paper on the internet, or any repeat of
the experiment. I have attached a page I found, with a photo of the
apparatus.
It appears that little data is available from the results of the
experiment, and it was not carefully done (it was not done in a vacuum,
etc.).
If this experiment could be repeated in a careful fashion, measuring
all the parameters, including axial force, this would provide the data
to calculate a charge/mass ratio. If this experiment could be repeated
in a careful fashion, measuring all the parameters, including axial
force, this would provide the data to calculate a charge/mass ratio. In
other words, it would provide a number for how much magnetic force is
produced between given masses traveling at a given velocity.
Because of the enormous import of this experiment, it is essential that
the experiment be done, regardless of one's theoretical viewpoint. Can
you recommend anyone who might be willing to do it?
Yours truly,
John Best
.jpg)
Tuesday, July 29, 2014
strategy for sustainable development of the Third World
Dear Colleague,
Please allow me to introduce my new book, Qualitative Mathematics and Modeling: Theoretical and Practical Applications, LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishing, Saarbrücken, Germany, 2013.
The book presents the new methodology of mathematics and science, Qualitative Mathematics and Qualitative Modeling (QMAM), respectively, that, together with the introduction of the concept of nested generalized physical fractal, was the crucial factor for the discovery in 1997 of the indestructible superstring, fundamental building block of matter, complete with structure and properties, and the development of the Grand Unified Theory (GUT) consolidated in 2008 from a series of papers that started in1997. Qualitative mathematics, the complement of computation and measurement, resolved the 360-year-old Fermat’s last theorem (FLT), 1998, proved the 250-year-old Goldbach’s conjecture, 2003, and developed the new real number system and complex vector plane, 2009, which, together with the generalized integral and derivative and nested generalized physical fractal, 2011, provide the main mathematics of GUT. The principal theoretical applications of GUT through QMAM are the Unified Theory of Evolution, 2009, Theory of Intelligence (The Physics of Intelligence, 2012), and the Theory of Chaos and Turbulence, 2013. Their practical applications are the design of research and development program on GUT technologies that include electromagnetic treatment of genetic diseases, program of creative mathematics-science education from primary through graduate school and strategy for sustainable development of the Third World. There are definitive statements in this book on the Higgs boson, big bang, “missing link” and emergence of life from non-life.
The book is accessible through these links:
https://www.morebooks.de/
https://www.ljubljuknigi.ru/
https://www.ljubljuknigi.ru/
The book is also distributed by Amazon and Barnes and Noble and listed in the online catalogue of Barnes and Noble:
Yours sincerely,
E. E. Escultura
Editor-Author
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)