[Physics] Why is a new beginning in physics necessary? *

[Master Inventor]

Dear Arend,

Thank you for providing me with the word I needed.  The rotations as they are used in conventional physics need to be completely "decoupled" from the linear dimensions and listed separately.  Another words a space vector would have 6 separate terms: x, y, z, θx (roll), θy (pitch), and θz (yaw).  Linear vectors of this type are used in satellite and space craft engineering.  (I used these types of vectors during my first job at NASA.)  This 6-term vector form works well enough 99% of the time.  But again I must emphasize that these are linear engineering simplifications of the true angular dimensions.  The true angular dimensions cannot be written in linear form because the angles are non-commutative and the angles are not entirely independent of one another.  One cannot perform the usual mathematical operations on the full non-linear representation of rotations.  I have read that attempts to do this have been performed but the results are very clumsy.  

I do not have the answer as to how the non-linear rotations can be written in mathematical form.  Perhaps the rotations could be computed entirely separately from the linear space vector and connected together only by the time dimensions?  It is of critical importance that physicists make the effort to incorporate the 3 angular space dimensions and the one angular time dimension into the equations of physics if physics is ever to advance into the domain of what today is strange science.  This in not just math games or semantics, this is real power of knowledge.  Let me provide an example.  

Many of you have heard of the Philadelphia Experiment conducted in August of 1943, during WWII by the US Navy.  In this experiment the USS Eldridge, a newly launched minesweeping ship, was equipped with complex, high-powered, electromagnetic equipment designed to make the ship invisible.  The story goes that both Einstein and Tesla served as consultants on that project.  The experiment was more successful than expected.  It not only disappeared from radar, it disappeared from sight.  It warped out of 4-dimensional space and into hyperspace.  The story is fascinating reading.  There are many books about the experiment, at least one movie, and many articles on the internet.  There is both good information and a lot of misinformation about the project.

The experiment actually took place in a Navy Black program and was later covered up after it produced disastrous results.  I have talked to two people who had direct knowledge of the program's existence and I have seen the physics equation used to construct the magnetic field around the ship.  The equation is a standard electromagnetic propagation equation with added cross-product terms and use of rotational time at its core.  

During WWII the Germans also conducted strange science experiments using the rotational dimensions.  Of particular note was an experiment called "The Bell" which reportedly created anti-gravity and other effects using counter-rotating cylinders of mercury.  

So you see rotational dimensions are real, and can be manipulated to produce spectacular effects.  

My point in all this is that physicists have been operating in a fog since the  war and have confined themselves to playing with safe toys, like particle accelerators, that will never create useful new physics.  Somehow the war put physicists in a state of shock and amnesia when they saw what evil could be done with their discoveries.  So now they chase harmless math theories that never resolve anything while waiting for a time when the world becomes more spiritual and we can once again open Pandora's Box.  

Chemistry can be dangerous, but physics can destroy worlds or create utopias.  

---Maurice---

P.S. The 8 geometric dimensions do not answer the question as to the existence of the aether,  nor have I addressed how electric, magnetic, gravitational and other fields interact with the dimensions.  It will take generations of scientists to work that out.  In one book of esoteric knowledge I read that there are 28 fields in nature; we only know 4 of them.  I am disappointed that so many of you keep trying to rework old physics instead of exploring the frontiers of physics.  Modern physics is only 300 years old; we have millions of years of discovery ahead of us.  Then we will become masters of the universe and join those who have gone before us.  

Am I the only one who's excited about physics?

---Maurice---

P.P.S.  Arend, I appreciate all the work you did on this approach.  I am writing a book on the subject of Time and Space.  The book will be about 75 pages and it will only describe what time and space are; it will not attempt to describe how fields or particles interact with the various dimensions.  The book will have almost no math.  

On Dec 9, 2016, at 4:58 AM, Arend Lammertink wrote:

> Dear Maurice,
> 
> On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 5:49 PM, Master Inventor
> <mdaniel at masterinventor.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> The greatest omission of classical physics is  the failure to deal with rotations.  Because rotations are non-linear, physicist wrote simplified linear relationships to deal with them.  They failed to consider that rotations add 4 more dimensions to all the laws of physics (3 rotations in space and one rotation in time).  The physics we were taught compresses 8 dimensions into 4 dimensions, resulting in strange and unexplained behavior, such as quantum mechanics.
>> 
>> If physics is to have a new beginning it must be expanded to a framework having 8-dimensions.
>> 
> 
> I agree wholeheartedly that the incorporation of rotation is the key
> for formulating a new physics foundation.  However, that does not mean
> one would have to add 3 spatial dimensions and/or an extra time
> dimension. After all, the rotation of a fly wheel, a tornado, etc. all
> take place within our normal interpretation of 3D space and 1D time.
> And in practice, there's not only rotation which occurs in a vortex,
> but also a pressure variation. In other words: rotation and pressure
> c.q. density variations c.q. material tensions go hand in hand, so you
> can't just decouple them completely in a 6 dimensional spatial
> (coordinate) system and thus define the inter-relations between
> rotational and translational movements away.
> 
> The model I made is in the form of differential equations within a
> continuous fluid dynamics context. The latter means the equations do
> not describe the exact movement of each "particle" within the fluid,
> but rather describes the flows and the pressures within the fluid on a
> more macroscopic level, where you don't "see" the individual
> particles.
> 
> Using differential equations in this case means that one describes the
> fluid movements and tensions/stresses over an infinitely small volume,
> which means that one can consider all relationships to be linear
> within such an infinitely small volume.  In computer simulations,
> these infinitely small volumes are approximated with "small enough"
> volumes with respect to the phenomenon one is studying. This is called
> the "finite element method":
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finite_element_method
> 
> For example, if one is interested in simulating weather phenomena, one
> can consider the air pressure and wind velocity to be constant across
> a volume of, let's say, 10-100 meter in diameter. When one would be
> interested in studying a vortex in a cup of water, one would use
> volumes with a diameter in the order of 1 micrometer to 1 millimeter.
> 
> Another way of thinking of it is to consider that any non-linear
> relationship/function can be approximated by a "piecewise" linear
> function:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piecewise_linear_function
> 
> The more "pieces" one uses, the better the approximation. So, when one
> takes the length of each piece infinitely small mathematically, one
> ends up with a 100% exact "approximation" using only linear
> relationships.
> 
> In other words: differential equations allow you to use linear
> equations, regardless of whether or not the "macroscopic" relations
> are linear or not.
> 
> 
> Now let's address the need for 8 dimensions. At this moment, I don't
> see any reason to consider time to have a rotational component within
> our physics model. Sure, it could very well be multi (3?) dimensional,
> but if one wishes to describe that, one would need to define a
> coordinate system for time and define some trajectory trough that
> time-space which makes sense. In that case, it would be the
> "observer", our consciousness, which "moves" trough "time-space".
> While that is certainly an interesting subject of study, at this
> moment I don't think such considerations should be incorporated in our
> physics model. At some point in time (pun intended) we might be able
> to go in that direction, but not now.
> 
> So, then we would end up with 7 dimensions, variables or degrees of
> freedom. We would need 6 spatial parameters and 1 time parameter.
> However, this does not mean we would need 6 spatial dimensions in our
> coordinate system. If we find a method whereby we can model 6
> parameters as 3 translational related parameters and 3 rotational
> related parameters, we arrive at the situation where we can model the
> aspects we need within a 3 dimensional spatial coordinate system.
> 
> Now enter the Helmholtz decomposition:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmholtz_decomposition
> "n physics and mathematics, in the area of vector calculus,
> Helmholtz's theorem, also known as the fundamental theorem of vector
> calculus, states that any sufficiently smooth, rapidly decaying vector
> field in three dimensions can be resolved into the sum of an
> irrotational (curl-free) vector field and a solenoidal
> (divergence-free) vector field; this is known as the Helmholtz
> decomposition. It is named after Hermann von Helmholtz.
> 
> Because an irrotational vector field has a scalar potential and a
> solenoidal vector field has a vector potential, the Helmholtz
> decomposition states that a vector field (satisfying appropriate
> smoothness and decay conditions) can be decomposed as the sum of the
> form − grad ⁡ Φ + curl ⁡ A  where Φ is a scalar field, called scalar
> potential, and A is a vector field called a vector potential."
> 
> 
> What we have here, is a mathematical method to "split"  3 dimensional
> laws of physics into two 3 dimensional components, which may be
> evaluated separately and thus give you your 6 parameters, without
> actually requiring the addition of 3 extra actual spatial dimensions.
> 
> In other words: when we use differential equations, which are by
> definition linear because of the infinitely small "piecewise"
> elements, we can achieve the goal of modelling rotational movements
> separately from translational movements in a natural, consistent and
> mathematically proven way within a model which completely describes
> these within our normal, natural 3 dimensional understanding of
> "space".
> 
> 
> When I applied this reasoning to Maxwell's equations, I discovered
> that in the textbook definition for the electric scalar potential
> field Φ, which should be rotation-free within the Helmholtz
> decomposition, there is a term which incorporates the rotational
> vector potential [A] (i;e; the axis of rotation):
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_potential#Magnetic_vector_potential
> "The magnetic vector potential A is a vector field defined along with
> the electric potential ϕ (a scalar field) by the equations:
> 
> B = ∇ × A ,  E = − ∇ ϕ − ∂ A ∂ t , "
> 
> 
> So, the magnetic vector potential field [A] is defined as:
> 
> Any vector field [A], which curl equals the magnetic field [B]..
> 
> However, for the scalar potential Phi, we can write:
> 
> ∇ ϕ  = −E  − ∂ A ∂ t
> 
> So, the scalar potential field Phi is defined as:
> 
> Any scalar field, which gradient equals minus the electric field [E]
> minus the time derivative of a vector field [A] which curl equals the
> magnetic field [B].
> 
> So, the term dA/dt introduces a *rotationa*l term into an equation
> which *should* be *rotation-free*, as per the Helmholtz decomposition.
> In other words: in the textbook definition the "rotational dimensions"
> are mixed with the "translational dimensions" in the definition for
> the scalar potential field Phi, which is clearly wrong when considered
> this way.
> 
> What's more, the Helmholtz decomposition is supposed to decompose a
> "deeper" vector field into two components, in this case the rotation
> free scalar potential and it's divergence (the electric field [E]) and
> a divergence free (incompressible) vector potential and it's
> rotation/curl (the magnetic field [B]).
> 
> Now this "deeper" field isn't even defined!  WTF??
> 
> Now what would you think would happen if we defined this "deeper"
> field as being the flow velocity field [v] - as defined in textbook
> fluid dynamics for an ideal, compressible, loss free fluid we call
> "aether" - and split this field up in a curl-free and a divergence
> free component using the rotation and divergence operators, as done in
> the Laplacian operator, and deleted the term dA/dt?
> 
> Well, we get a proper Helmholtz decomposition, without mixing of
> rotation free terms with rotational terms AND we no longer have the
> "gauge freedom" which allows us to define all kinds of imaginary
> fields AKA Quantum Field Theory:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauge_fixing
> 
> 
> To cut a long story short: when we delete the term dA/dt in the
> definition for the scalar potential field Phi and assume the "deeper"
> field causing the electromagnetic fields to be the bulk flow velocity
> field of a fluid-like medium called "aether", everything drops into
> place and we get the 3 extra dimensions you seek in a natural and
> mathematically consistent way., yet still within our normal
> understanding of space to have 3 dimensions.
> 
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Arend.





Maurice Daniel, Master Inventor
mdaniel at masterinventor.com




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.tuks.nl/pipermail/physics/attachments/20161210/d0e7359e/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Maurice Photo, Small Size.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 17131 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.tuks.nl/pipermail/physics/attachments/20161210/d0e7359e/attachment.jpg>