[Physics] Physics Digest, Vol 19, Issue 5

[Tufail Abbas]

Tom,

I was just going through the book of Alternative Physics through your
provided link , and I came across the chapter of Electric Field and this
hypothesis.

*The Electric Field Hypotheses:*

*Each charged particle generates something called ‘field substance’ which
makes up what we call an electric field.  This substance is continuously
and perpetually generated within charged particles and moves away
..................... This substance is a not a mathematical abstraction,
but an actual physical substance that travels through space.  When it
strikes another charged particle it exerts a force............*

Who will believe this? And why?

Regards,

Tufail

On Tue, 4 Dec 2018, 02:40 carmam at tiscali.co.uk <carmam at tiscali.co.uk wrote:

> It would appear that we have more in common than perhaps we thought
> Tuffail.
> Relativity is only a well formulated theory because it is heavily based on
> maths. But maths, as I previously stated, does not always represent the
> real world. It has become widely accepted largely because of Arthur
> Eddington and his flawed 1919 solar eclipse experiment. Flawed in two ways.
> First, he had expressed his admiration for Einstein's work, and that made
> him biased. Second, the results were by no means as clear as he made out.
> He was using the telescope in daylight, and had not given it the required
> aclimatisation period. The images were not conclusive (this is from
> memory), and yet he announced his success. There is another explanation for
> the bending of starlight at the limb of the sun, and that is simply that
> light passes through the corona, and is bent by that, not by gravity. I may
> have sent you a reference to that, if I did I apologise for sending it
> again.
> http://www.extinctionshift.com look at the animation titled Finding
> Clearly Supported by Astrophysical Evidence.
>
> Your statement "Every theory is built upon certain basic assumption and if
> those assumptions are not actual truth, then it is certain that theory is
> in error." is describing relativity.
> The first step is criticising and pointing out the errors. Then a new
> theory has to be proposed which explains or corrects those errors. Such a
> theory is presented in http://alternativephysics.org/  by Bernard
> Burchell. It covers all of relativity's assumptions/observations, and uses
> classical physics to explain them.
> Of course, Bernard is called a crank, and shunned and scorned by
> relativists, but if you read his paper, you will find no errors in his
> logic or his maths.
> Take your time with it, in parts it is not easy reading - or to be
> precise, was not easy reading for me.
>
> Tom.
>
>
> ----Original Message----
> From: tufail.abbas at gmail.com
> Date: 03/12/2018 20:56
> To: <carmam at tiscali.co.uk>, "General Physics and Natural Philosophy
> discussion list"<physics at tuks.nl>
> Subj: Re: [Physics] Physics Digest, Vol 19, Issue 5
>
> Tom,
>
> Usually I do not believe in criticizing unless an alternate possible
> solution is discussed. Relativity is a well formulated and widely accepted
> theory.
>
> So my question would be that if not Relativity then what?.
>
> Every theory is built upon certain basic assumption and if those
> assumptions are not actual truth, then it is certain that theory is in
> error.
>
> In case of relativity that assumption is  about the physical existence of
> a "body of reference"/ coordinate system  extending from -infinity to
> infinity for every moving body. The truth may be completely different from
> what Einstein has proposed.
>
> Quoting from the paper which you shared, Einstein himself admitted that:
>
> "In practice, the rigid surfaces which constitute the system of
> co-ordinates are generally not available ; furthermore, the magnitudes of
> the co-ordinates are not actually determined by constructions with rigid
> rods, but by indirect means. If the results of physics and astronomy are to
> maintain their clearness, the physical meaning of specifications of
> position must always be sought in accordance with the above considerations"
>
> Despite the above admission, he assumed as follows for formulation of his
> theory of relativity.
>
> "Every description of events in space involves the use of a rigid body to
> which such events have to be referred. The resulting relationship takes for
> granted that the laws of Euclidean geometry hold for "distances;" the
> "distance" being represented physically by means of the convention of two
> marks on a rigid body".
>
> We have to recognize that in  practice/reality , atmost only a 2-D surface
> is ever available as a rigid body of reference: like the surface of earth.
>
> Due the practical non-existence of such a "rigid body of
> reference"/"coordinate system" for 3-D, for all those applications to which
> relativity is related, the validity of the theory is doubtful if it is
> based upon such a coordinate system which assumes that.
>
> 1. All length intervals or distance between neighbouring points are
> equidistant.
> 2. All points of space are available(continue) for positioning a physical
> object made of matter.
>
> Indeed, maths should represent what is physical, and we should seek for
> truth of physically existing coordinate system that represent our reality,
> not the mathematical coordinate system assumed by Einstein.
>
> POSSIBLE ALTERNATE REALITY
>
> Physical properties of space are based on all kinds Fields that exists in
> that space. The existence and interaction  of Fields should possibly
> alter some configuration of space, so that length separation between
> neighbouring  "available points" are not same everywhere, but time interval
> is same.
>
> IMPLICATIONS OF PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE
>
> 1. Space is divided by equidistant time interval , hence time becomes
> absolute.
> 2. Space is not divided by equidistant length interval, hence it may still
> become possible to explain constant speed of light for all observers.
>
> RELATED QUESTIION
>
> What alternative 3-D truth exists which mathematically appears/behave as
> 4D continuum?
>
> Regards,
>
> Tufail
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.tuks.nl/pipermail/physics/attachments/20181206/f7e5f197/attachment.html>