Category Archives: Science

KHTK Postulates for Physics – Part 2 (old)

April 14, 2014 – 6:20 AM
atom3

Please see Course on Subject Clearing

KHTK Postulate P6: The speed of propagation of electromagnetic disturbance decreases with increasing inertia of disturbance levels.

As inertia increases with disturbance levels it offers greater resistance to the propagation of disturbance. The constant for the speed of light (3 x 108 meters per second) applies only to a narrow band of the electromagnetic spectrum at DL49. It is expected that radio waves (DL27) propagate at a higher speed, and the gamma rays (DL65) propagate at a slower speed than the speed of light.

.

KHTK Postulate P7: The electromagnetic disturbance propagates in the form of discrete wave packets of finite number of wavelengths.

The electromagnetic disturbance propagates in the form of wave packets much like puffs of smoke.  These wave packets are very long and “snake like” at low disturbance levels. At higher disturbance levels the wavelengths are small and these wave packets may look more like “golf balls.”

.

KHTK Postulate P8: Particle-like properties come to dominate at higher disturbance levels.

At lower disturbance levels the wave packets are extended over long distance and behave like waves. At higher disturbance levels spacetime condenses and the wave packet increasingly assumes the appearance of a particle. Higher inertia and condensation of spacetime expresses itself first as charge, and then as mass associated with the particle.

At the level of electrons, inertia expresses itself both as charge and mass. An electron is still spread over some distance to display wavelike properties, while compact enough to display some particle like properties of mass. It seems that Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle comes into play when the electron is assumed to be like a “golf ball” rather than like a “snake.”

This ratio of mass to charge increases with increasing disturbance levels. At much higher disturbance levels, even the charge seems to “condense” into mass from electron to proton to neutron.

.

KHTK Postulate P9: The location of an object in this universe is only as certain as its inertia.

The stars and planets in this universe are massive and can be located with precision. However, the electrons in an atom have very little mass or inertia. They can be located in highly probabilistic terms only. Thus, it appears that the higher is the inertia of an object, the greater is the certainty with which it may be located as a discrete entity.

.

KHTK Postulate P10: The universe is made of multi-layered spacetime.

Each disturbance level acts like a unique layer of inertia and spacetime. Together, these layers of inertia and spacetime seem to make up this universe.

The fundamental inertial and spacetime characteristics of solid objects (> DL100) shall be very different from inertial and spacetime characteristics of light at DL50. We cannot reasonably compare the speed of a solid object with the speed of light in a framework based on solid objects (> DL100). We may reasonably compare such speeds only in a framework based on space (DL0).

The theory of relativity is flawed to the degree that it is “earth centric” and not “space centric.”

.

For further review:

Constants of this Universe

Mindful Subject Clearing – Physics

The Philosophy of Cosmology

Quantum versus Classical Reality

Inertial Frame of Reference

The Disturbance Hypothesis of Light

Evolution of Physics by Einstein

Ether and Motion

Inertia and Mass

Relativity and the Coordinate System

Galilean Relativity

Michelson-Morley experiment

The Mystery of Ether

Disagreement with Einstein

TIME, DISTANCE, RELATIVITY

Questioning Einstein’s Theory of Relativity

Motion and Inertia-less Field

.

By vinaire | Comments (0)

The Mystery of Inertia

April 2, 2014 – 8:38 PM

Amazing Slow Motion Bead Chain Experiment | Slow Mo | Earth Unplugged

.

By vinaire | Comments (1)

Motion and Inertia-less Field

March 26, 2014 – 9:21 AM

Both Lorentz and Einstein arrived at the same equation but from different angles. Lorentz was a classical scientist who still believed in ether. Einstein on the other hand simply discarded the idea of ether in favor of a new theory of relativity. But both looked at the datum of “motion” being senior to the supposed fundamental absoluteness of “space” and “time.”

I also believe that motion is senior to space and time. Space and time do not have to be absolute in their characteristics. We have long looked at motion as a function of space and time. It is revolutionary, but more accurate, to look at space and time as components of motion. The question now arises if motion is something absolute.

Both Lorentz and Einstein seem to treat motion as absolute in terms of “speed of light.” But I have doubts about that. It seems to me that speed of light is not absolute, and motion is not the seniormost datum.

Underlying motion there seems to be a primordial inertia-less field, which, when disturbed by a primordial activity-less agent, gives rise to motion.

But then, I doubt the absoluteness of this statement as well. But it may prove very useful for the moment.

.

COMMENT 2/19/2023

The following comments went into discussing the Higgs Field. Here is my current understanding of the Higgs Mechanism:

Higgs Mechanism

.

By vinaire | Comments (26)

Questioning Einstein’s Theory of Relativity

March 24, 2014 – 7:41 AM
albert_SL_23_09_2011
Reference: TIME, DISTANCE, RELATIVITY

.

From Evolution of Physics by Einstein

III. FIELD, RELATIVITY – Time, distance, relativity

Once more, the example of the moving room with outside and inside observers will be used. Again a light signal is emitted from the centre of the room and again we ask the two men what they expect to observe, assuming only our two principles and forgetting what was previously said concerning the medium through which the light travels. We quote their answers:

The inside observer: The light signal travelling from the centre of the room will reach the walls simultaneously, since all the walls are equally distant from the light source and the velocity of light is the same in all directions.

The outside observer: In my system, the velocity of light is exactly the same as in that of the observer moving with the room. It does not matter to me whether or not the light source moves in my c.s. since its motion does not influence the velocity of light. What I see is a light signal travelling with a standard speed, the same in all directions. One of the walls is trying to escape from and the opposite wall to approach the light signal. Therefore, the escaping wall will be met by the signal a little later than the approaching one. Although the difference will be very slight if the velocity of the room is small compared with that of light, the light signal will nevertheless not meet these two opposite walls, which are perpendicular to the direction of the motion, quite simultaneously.

Comparing the predictions of our two observers, we find a most astonishing result which flatly contradicts the apparently well-founded concepts of classical physics. Two events, i.e., the two light beams reaching the two walls, are simultaneous for the observer on the inside, but not for the observer on the outside. In classical physics, we had one clock, one time flow, for all observers in all c.s. Time, and therefore such words as “simultaneously”, “sooner”, “later”, had an absolute meaning independent of any c.s. Two events happening at the same time in one c.s. happened necessarily simultaneously in all other c.s.

.

In this thought experiment, the outside observer is at DL0, which is an inertia-less coordinate system. The inside observer is at, say DL150, which is a coordinate system very high on inertia scale. This is also the coordinate system of the source of light and the room. Light itself is at DL50, which is a coordinate system at the low end of the inertia scale.

The higher is the disturbance on the inertia scale the lower is its velocity. The velocity of the source (VS) is many orders of magnitudes (maybe 2100) slower than the speed of light (VL), relative to ether. Therefore, the contribution of the speed of source to the speed of light is virtually undetectable.

To the outside observer at DL0, VS would be extremely small compared to VL but not zero. To him both VS and VL shall be constant. To the inside observer at DL150, velocity of the source (VS) is zero, and the velocity of light (VL) shall appear to be the same in all directions.

Let’s look at Einstein’s thought experiment from the perspective of the Disturbance Hypothesis. Suppose the length of the room in the direction of travel is 2d and the source of light is at the center of the room. When the room is stationary, the light will travel the same distance to reach the front and back walls of the room.

Suppose the room travels to the right at a velocity VS along with the source of light and the inside observer. It travels a distance Δd in time Δd/VS. The light will still travel a distance d to the front and back walls from the perspective of the inside observer at DL150. However, it will travel a distance d+Δd to the front wall and a distance d-Δd to the back wall from the perspective of the outside observer at DL0.

From the perspective of DL0 (outside observer) the speed of light does not change. It takes slightly longer to reach the front wall than to the back wall because of the change in the distances. This shall be accounted for by the movement of the room. But from the perspective of DL150 (inside observer), who is not aware of the motion of the room, the speed of light would seem to slow down in the direction of the front wall and increase in the direction of the back wall. In reality, this difference would be undetectable because the velocity at DL150 is many orders of magnitude lower than the velocity of light at DL50.

Thus, Einstein’s conclusion that “the two light beams reaching the two walls, are simultaneous for the observer on the inside” is incorrect.

Einstein’s theory of relativity is formulated on a “matter-centric” conclusion of Michelson-Morley’s experiment that the velocity of light is constant in all coordinate systems with respect to matter. That experiment is not conclusive from the perspective of the Disturbance Hypothesis. According to this hypothesis the velocity of light is constant in the coordinate systems with respect to ether at DL0, and not to the coordinate systems with respect to matter at DL150 and above, but that difference is so small that it is practically undetectable.

.

By vinaire | Comments (28)

TIME, DISTANCE, RELATIVITY

March 19, 2014 – 8:52 PM

e-mc2

From Evolution of Physics by Einstein

III. FIELD, RELATIVITY – Time, distance, relativity

Our new assumptions are:

  1. The velocity of light in vacuo is the same in all c.s. (coordinate systems) moving uniformly, relative to each other.
  2. All laws of nature are the same in all c.s. moving uniformly, relative to each other.

The relativity theory begins with these two assumptions. From now on we shall not use the classical transformation because we know that it contradicts our assumptions.

It is essential here, as always in science, to rid ourselves of deep-rooted, often uncritically repeated, prejudices. Since we have seen that changes in (1) and (2) lead to contradiction with experiment, we must have the courage to state their validity clearly and to attack the one possibly weak point, the way in which positions and velocities are transformed from one c.s. to another. It is our intention to draw conclusions from (1) and (2), see where and how these assumptions contradict the classical transformation, and find the physical meaning of the results obtained.

.

The following are my comments on the assumptions above.  The terminology used in these comments is described under THE DISTURBANCE HYPOTHESIS below.

  1. The disturbance level of light is many orders of magnitude lower than the disturbance level of matter in an “ether-centric” view. Therefore, the velocity of light in ether is so much greater than the velocity of matter that it would appear to be the same in all coordinate system moving uniformly in a “matter-centric” view.

  2. All coordinate systems moving uniformly, relative to each other in a “matter-centric” view would essentially be coordinate systems with uniform disturbance levels in an “ether-centric” view.

.

THE DISTURBANCE HYPOTHESIS

The Disturbance hypothesis views visible light as a disturbance in a medium. This medium is not made of any substance, and the undisturbed medium has no inertia. The basic medium may best be described as a theoretical inertia-less field that acquires inertia as it is disturbed. We may refer to this field by the historical term, ether.

This ether acquires inertia when it is disturbed. The velocity of disturbance in turn is determined by the induced inertia. The inertia is a function of the level of disturbance. The higher is the disturbance level, the greater is the inertia induced, and the slower is the velocity of the disturbance.

The Disturbance hypothesis describes disturbance levels on the basis of a doubling of the amount of disturbance. The basic disturbance level is denoted as DL0, and defined as 20 in basic unit of disturbance. The subsequent disturbance levels are denoted as DL1 (21 units), DL2 (22 units), DL3 (23 units), etc. The nth disturbance level may be denoted as DLn (2n units). The basic unit of disturbance may be identified as Hertz for the time being, but a clarification is needed based on the very concepts of time and space. Based on the frequency of visible light, the disturbance level of visible light may be approximated at DL49.

The Disturbance hypothesis views matter as a disturbance of very high inertia. The de Broglie frequency of earth is about 1072. This corresponds to a disturbance level of DL239. A kg of mass on earth will have a disturbance level of DL153. These values are very approximate, but they provide the orders of magnitude involved accurately enough. Note that higher are the disturbance levels, the higher would be inertia, and the slower would be the speed of disturbance through ether. These rough estimates show that the speed of matter through ether is so slow compared to the velocity of light that it would be literally impossible to detect.

A change in the velocity of a material body is accompanied by a change in its momentum, and, thus, a change in its inertia. Uniform velocity in a “matter-centric” view may translate to uniform inertia in an “ether-centric” view.

Thus, coordinate systems moving uniformly in one system shall be replaced by coordinate systems that are uniform in terms of their disturbance levels.

It appears that our feel of space and time is probably unique to our “matter-centric” view of the universe. In an “ether-centric” view one may find space and time to be variable in their inherent characteristics.

Einstein Theory of Relativity seems to spring from a “matter-centric” view of the universe. On the other hand, the Disturbance Hypothesis is based on an “ether-centric” approach, which  may provide us with a broader view of the universe.

.

By vinaire | Comments (4)