[Physics] Physics Digest, Vol 3, Issue 19

Wed Dec 28 09:56:11 CET 2016

Yes it is possible that we here at this forum, may apparently seems like
making horrible assumptions and speculations, but that does not mean that
our assumptions are totally unfounded. The only difference is that when a
noted/famous physicist make similar assumptions, then they are hailed for
their brilliance, whereas lot of meaningful efforts by many other remains
unnoticed and gets rejected without consideration.  I am sure that all of
you are well grounded in knowledge, and  every paper that you have produced
is a result of lot of hard work and valuable time that you have
invested through years of research.

Nevertheless, If we want to live happily and long, humor is the best remedy
that we have. Therefore it is nothing wrong to discover humor in aether
discussion. It's healthy.

I also find a lot of humor in the way the assumptions are made under SR and
out of the experiment carried out by Michelson-Morley. Let us discuss each
of it:

*Special Relativity*

To start with, I quote from Carl's email :

>>>>>>>>it seemed obvious to me that your grasp of both Special Relativity
and General Relativity, cannot really become solid.

As it seems to me,  the implicit message in this statement is that, anybody
who is not accepting the conventional interpretation of equations under SR
and GR  do not have enough grasp over these theories. In other words only
way to demonstrate  your grasp over these theories is to conform
to conventional interpretation.

Now some quotes from the book "Meaning of Relativity" from Albert Einstein
himself (://books.google.com.om/books?id=cw3rAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA32&dq=ein
stein+meaning+of+relativity+ict&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=one
page&q=einstein%20meaning%20of%20relativity%20ict&f=false
<https://books.google.com.om/books?id=cw3rAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA32&dq=einstein+meaning+of+relativity+ict&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=einstein%20meaning%20of%20relativity%20ict&f=false>

 Quote: Page 29

Let ray of light pass from P1 to another point P2 of K1 through vacuum. If
r is the measured distance between P1 and P2, then propagation of light
must satisfy the equation r= c.dt .

Quote Page 30

In the pre-relativity physics space and time were separate entities.
Specifications of choice were independent of the choice of space of
reference

>From this point onward, albert Einstein derived the whole theory of
relativity, to finally conclude that time dilates and space(or
vacuum) bends.

In these initial statements itself, behavior or nature of at-least four(4)
phenomenon/parameters are either assumed or taken for granted:

1. *Vacuum:* What does this vacuum actually contain. What is meant by
travelling through vacuum if it means nothing.

2. *Measurement:* What constitute a single most basic measurement in
this Universe and what is the mechanism of making that measurement. How the
most basic particles of the Universe respond to changes in this Universe to
make this basic measurement. If one of these particles is the standard of
measurement, then what difficulty we could face while measuring this
standard by comparing it with particles that are usually measured.

3.*Propagation of Light*: By measuring the behavior at source and
destination end, and then concluding that it has behaved in similar manner
while it was travelling is also an assumption.

4. *Reference Frame:* While defining a reference frame, is it not a
worthwhile contemplation that what constitutes a reference frame. How does
all particles in a particular rest frame are aware that other particles are
in same rest frame, that they agree that relativistic mass now has to be
zero.

When we are still not sure that what exactly is space and what  exactly is
time, isn't it humorous when we declare that time-dilates  and space bends
without a full understanding of space and time  itself . This is
like declaring that “banana is red” and “apple is yellow”, without defining
“what is a banana” or “what is an apple”. If we will continue to believe
that ‘apple is banana', we will continue to make conclusion that “banana is
red”.

Why it is not possible that this is the case of mistaken identity?

*Now let us see Michelson- Morley Experiment,*

The assumption that were made under Michelson-Morley Experiments are as
follows:

1. If aether is a medium, then e/m waves should travel through it,
following exactly the same principles that are applicable for propagation
of conventional transverse waves of sea.

2. Nature of the Aether was assumed to of either of the following two
possibility:

a. Aether is partially dragged by earth in motion.
b.  aether was completely dragged, thus sharing it motion at earth surface.

Then the experiment was conducted and its was concluded that none of the
above assumptions are correct. And based upon this it was concluded that
"aether do not exist"

This is like first assuming that:

1.    Potato is a ‘perfect square’ ,
2.    Size of potato is as big as football field’,
3.    Potato is blue in color.

And when we found none of our assumptions about potato is correct, then we
declared that "Potato does not exist."

A more reasonable conclusion would have been:

1. Potato is not a ‘perfect square’,
2. Size of potato is not as big as football field,
3. Potato is not blue in color.
4. We don’t know what the Potato is, if it exist.

I agree with Carl that checking *facts and logic* is extremely important to
produce a well founded theory.

On the other hand,  no idea should be out-rightly  rejected, just due to
reason that they do not match with theories (based upon some  initial
assumptions) possibly accepted as facts by many. There is no way to know,
that which idea  has *that element of truth *which may lead us into the
right direction.

With this, I congratulate and wish all the best to all the participants of
this forum for laying this small foundation, which has all the potential to
pave the road to future of physics.

Let’s come together to freely express our ideas, for churning out this gift
for our future generation *-  “A simple and beautiful theory of physics”,*

On 27 December 2016 at 21:09, Hans van Leunen <jleunen1941 at kpnmail.nl>
wrote:

> Dear Carl Johnson,
>
> *Physical reality has some built-in healing principles that cleans
> theories about its structure and phenomena.*
>
>
>
> *Physical reality has a rather simple foundation, which is easily
> comprehensible. Extension of this foundation with trustworthy mathematical
> methods must automatically result into a more complicated model of reality
> that after some extension steps will show features and phenomena, which we
> know from observing reality. This path does not allow fantasy theories. It
> automatically guides you in the proper direction. The problem is that you
> must first find that foundation. The foundation is simple, thus there exist
> a big chance that the structure of this foundation was discovered long ago,
> but it was not detected that this structure IS the foundation of reality.
> So you must rediscover this structure. Quite probable it was stored as part
> of mathematics. If you happen to rediscover it, then an important property
> is that any extension of this foundation leads to a more complicated model
> that is again a model of physical reality.*
>
>
>
> *This is the idea behind the Hilbert Book Model project. A report about
> the status of the projects is https://doc.co/WmxXCB <https://doc.co/WmxXCB>*
>
> *Sincerely yours,*
>
> *Hans van Leunen*
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Van: Physics [mailto:physics-bounces at tuks.nl <physics-bounces at tuks.nl>]
> Namens cj at mb-soft.com <cj at mb-soft.com>Verzonden: dinsdag 27 december 2016
> 16:26Aan: physics at tuks.nl <physics at tuks.nl>Onderwerp: Re: [Physics] Physics
> Digest, Vol 3, Issue 19*
>
>
>
> *I fully concur with you gentlemen that many of the “mainstream” modern
> Physicists use horrible assumptions and speculations in dreaming up many of
> the ideas which all other mainstream physicists then immediately accept. *
>
>
>
> *However, I see a variation of that same problem in the discussions that
> you gentlemen try to discuss in this Forum. As a Theoretical Physicist, I
> find humor in some of your arguments. A recent example is your fascination
> with “aether”. IF you are going to refer to historical information, please
> make an effort to get your facts straight. It is darkly hilarious that you
> discuss incremental differences, and errors, in the orbital parameters of
> the planets, where you then attempt to justify the “aether” regarding those
> math issues. PLEASE check your history regarding such things. Kepler was a
> smart guy, but he lived a hundred years (five generations) before the even
> smarter Isaac Newton. Kepler very reasonably assumed that the mass of the
> Sun established the orbital parameters of the planets, and it was very
> impressive that he determined that the Sun is at one of the foci of each
> planet’s elliptical orbits.*
>
>
>
> *It was a hundred years later that Newton realized that BOTH masses orbit
> each other in such ellipses, where he corrected Kepler’s earlier math
> imprecision.*
>
>
>
> *So your arguments today about trying to sleuth out some aether
> explanation for that difference are in error. It was merely the way science
> advances through history. *
>
>
>
> *I note that none of you seem to refer to another advance that Newton
> made, due to his “Fluxions” (which we call Calculus). Even the “mainstream
> physics community” have not gotten past Kepler here. Kepler’s ideas that
> everything in the Solar System are entirely dependent on the Sun’s mass, is
> STILL assumed to apply to the Milky Way Galaxy, and so people argue today
> that the Spiral Arms fail to comply with Kepler’s Laws in having any chance
> of being stable. The mainstream physics community should also check their
> historical records, to see that Newton had also resolved that a hundred
> years after Kepler, by stating that Calculus must be used regarding the
> DISTRIBUTED MASS of any entity like the Galaxy, where Kepler’s assumption
> of a POINT MASS of the Sun was relatively accurate for the Solar System.*
>
>
>
> *It is really critically important to be extremely careful in checking all
> facts and logic, if worthwhile physics might result. *
>
>
>
> *A few weeks ago, I had noticed a similar error of such sloppiness in your
> discussions about Michelson-Morley and Lorentz and Fitzgerald and Maxwell
> (a genration before the others, around 1860). As a Physics student at the
> University of Chicago, we spent months in very carefully examining and
> analyzing all of the thoughts of those brilliant men (and Faraday even
> earlier). Comments by some of you gentlemen seem to have neglected a lot of
> that important fact-checking, where you express “personal opinions” which
> were often just speculations. Due to such logical errors, it seemed obvious
> to me that your grasp of both Special Relativity and General Relativity,
> cannot really become solid.*
>
>
>
> *If you really want to advance the field of Physics, or even better, clean
> up some of the areas of the speculations of the “mainstream physics
> community”, you really should rigidly check your facts and logic before
> building your own conjectures. *
>
>
>
> *Carl Johnson*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *_______________________________________________ Physics mailing list
> Physics at tuks.nl <Physics at tuks.nl>
> http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics
> <http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics> *
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.tuks.nl/pipermail/physics/attachments/20161228/74cbba2c/attachment.html>