Dr. Bryan G. Wallace
FARCE OF PHYSICS
Chapter 7
Ultimate Unification
I now suspect that the original foundation for my 1964
intuitive insight on how to create the ultimate unified theory of
physics came from a 1959 Scientific American article[106] titled
"Descartes." The statements that probably had the most impact on
my thinking, are as follows:
"I should consider that I know nothing about physics if I
were able to explain only how things might be, and were unable
to demonstrate that they could not be otherwise. For, having
reduced physics to mathematics, the demonstration is now
possible, and I think that I can do it within the small compass
of my knowledge."
With these words Ren‚ Descartes declared the viewpoint that
placed him among the principal revolutionaries in the 17th-
century scientific revolution. Against the "forms" and
"qualities" of Aristotelian physics, which had proved to be a
blind alley, he asserted the "clear and fundamental idea" that
the physical world was sheer mechanism and nothing else.
Because the ultimate laws of nature were the laws of mechanics,
everything in nature could ultimately be reduced to the
rearrangement of particles moving according to these laws. In
analytical geometry, perhaps Descartes' most enduring
achievement, he created a technique for expressing these laws
in algebraic equations. He thus put forward the ideal program
of all theoretical science: to construct from the smallest
number of principles a system to cover all the known facts and
to lead to the discovery of new facts.
All subsequent theoretical physics has been aimed at the
realization of this ideal of a single theoretical system in
which the last details of observable regularities should be
shown to be deducible from a minimum number of fundamental
equations, written perhaps on a single page. Blaise Pascal and
Isaac Newton may certainly be said to have carried on in the
17th century the Cartesian program of looking for the
explanation of the physical world in terms of its mechanism.
In this century we have witnessed attempts at universal
theories by Albert Einstein and Werner Heisenberg, among
others. In the vision of Descartes, however, his indisputable
first principlesДД"nearly all so evident that it is only
necessary to understand them in order to assent to them"ДДwere
not the end but the beginning of the search....
Descartes himself came to recognize that his purely
deductive, mathematical ideal for science had failed in the
face of the complexities of nature and the enigmas of
matter....
In order to explain how the planets were kept in their
orbits, Descartes put forward his famous vortex theory,
according to which the fine matter of the "ether" forms great
whirlpools or vortexes round the stars and the sun. The
planets are carried about in the sun's vortex, rather like a
set of children's boats in the celestial bathwater, and the
moon is carried round the earth in the same way. The
astonishing thing is that Descartes did not bother to check
whether or not this very important part of his physical system
agreed with the facts as expressed by Kepler's laws of
planetary motion. It was Newton who destroyed Descartes'
famous vortex theory. In fact, he may have chosen the title
Principia Mathematica to give point to his polemic against
Descartes' Principia Philosophiae. Newton treated the vortex
theory as a serious problem of fluid dynamics and utterly
demolished it....
My first standard radar paper was dated 12/9/67 and titled "AN
INTERPLANETARY RADAR TEST OF RELATIVITY," and it went through a
number of titles and revisions as it was submitted to, and
rejected by a large selection of journals. I received a letter
dated October 13, 1969 from the Editor of the journal
SPECTROSCOPY LETTERS, Prof. J. W. Robinson of the Department of
Chemistry of Louisiana State University, who wrote that it had
been brought to his attention that I was interested in the
special case of relativity and that I had evidence that the speed
of light may not be c. I submitted the paper to his journal and
it resulted in my first published paper[18] titled "RADAR TESTING
OF THE RELATIVE VELOCITY OF LIGHT IN SPACE," and the abstract
read:
Published interplanetary radar data presents evidence that the
relative velocity of light in space is c+v and not c.
I next published a series of three more papers in that journal,
the second paper[107] was titled "COSMOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS OF A
c+v RELATIVE VELOCITY OF LIGHT" and the abstract goes:
The c+v relative velocity of light explains the observational
data from spectroscopic binaries and presents evidence that the
Universe is not expanding. Inconsistencies between previous
laboratory experiments that present evidence of c, and the
interplanetary radar evidence of c+v, can be explained in terms
of a dynamic ether.
The third paper[108] was titled "RADAR EVIDENCE THAT THE VELOCITY
OF LIGHT IN SPACE IS NOT c" and the abstract states:
Observed-computed residuals of Earth-Venus radar time-delay
measurements from 1961 to 1966 show variations that range to
over 30,000% the expected error from the best possible general
relativity fit the Lincoln Lab could generate. The variations
are not random but are related to relative radial velocity and
intervening plasma. These variations are evidence that the
relative velocity of light in space is some form of c+v and not
c as predicted by Einstein's general relativity theory.
The forth paper[109] was titled "EXPANSION OF A DYNAMIC ETHER
HYPOTHESIS OF PHYSICAL REALITY" and revised the models of atomic
structures presented in the second paper[107] by replacing fused
electrons with neutrons. In a 4/4/79 letter from Dr. Robinson,
he informed me that because the very negative reader reaction to
these type of arguments he could no longer publish my papers on
mass dynamics and relativity. In a 7/23/90 letter he expanded on
his first answer by saying that he had received completely
unsavory and unobjective anonymous letters and phone calls.
The fifth paper[19] I've published on this was in the prestigious
journal FOUNDATIONS OF PHYSICS, a journal that many prominent
scientists have published papers in over the years. The paper
presents the current foundation and the fundamental equations of
my work on a unified theory based on mass dynamics. The title of
the paper is "The Unified Quantum Electrodynamic Ether" and the
abstract reads:
The basic evidence and doctrines of physics and astronomy are
examined and found to contain a simple, consistent unitary
nature. It is proposed that all physical phenomena may be
better explained in terms of a single physical entity if one
accepts a conceptual advancement of presently accepted
doctrine. The modification postulates that the inertial mass
of matter is the same entity as the virtual mass of a photon
and that a circular motion of speed c is transformed into a
linear motion of speed c when mass is transformed into energy.
The logical expansions of the modification seem to give simpler
explanations for basic phenomena and the infinite and eternal
nature of the universe.
In part of section, 2. THE UNIFIED QUANTUM ELECTRODYNAMIC ETHER,
of the paper, I wrote:
I think that Dirac's idea of reintroducing the ether in a
modified form[65] has a great deal of merit. A viable theory
must operate within the limits of man's psychological
limitations. The word "ether" seems to have a more desirable
descriptive potential than Einstein's use of the words field,
unified field, or energy in describing a unitary physical
entity. I think the best name for the entity would be "unified
quantum electrodynamic ether" or "dynamic ether" for short.
The dual wave-particle nature of radiation and matter forms
the basis of quantum mechanics. The conceptual difficulty of
understanding quantum mechanics resides in Born's probability
interpretation of the wave nature in terms of the distribution
of particles. The wave-particle paradox occurs only if one
insists on describing the physical entity as a wave or as a
particle. If, on the other hand, one describes the entity as a
quantity of a compressible fluidlike ether moving through
space, the paradox disappears.[107,109]
A photon's momentum is normally stated as E/c, which is
equivalent to mc since E = mc2, the average physicist
considering the m of the photon as virtual mass which is
somehow different from the inertial mass of matter. When a
thermal positron and a thermal electron are transformed into
two photons moving in opposite directions, the virtual mass of
the photons is equal to the inertial mass of the particles, the
difference being that the particles had almost no linear
motion, while the photons have a linear motion of velocity c.
The fact that the center of mass of a particle is at rest does
not automatically mean the mass does not have an internal
motion. This in essence is the flaw in the conceptual basis of
the average modern-day physicist; he ignores the obvious, the
possibility that a circular motion of speed c of the mass of
matter is changed into a linear motion of speed c of the mass
of a photon when matter is transformed into energy. The
penalties he must pay for ignoring the above possibility are
substantial; he must invent inconsistent additional hypotheses
such as: (1) The virtual mass of a photon is somehow different
from the inertial mass of matter. (2) When matter is
transformed into energy, somehow motion is created. (3)
Momentum is conserved if it is created or destroyed in equal
and opposite amounts, etc. In order to rectify this situation,
I would like to advance current doctrine with the following
basic postulate: "An internal circular motion of speed c of the
mass of particles is changed into a linear motion of speed c of
the mass of photons when matter is transformed into energy."
The following is an attempt to determine some of the possible
consequences of this basic postulate:
I.
The conservation of mass; dynamics ether can neither be
created nor destroyed.
II.
The conservation of momentum; the momentum of dynamic ether
can neither be created nor destroyed.
III.
The equality of action; when two quantities of dynamic ether
meet, they both experience an attraction that changes the
direction of their motion by an amount proportional to their
masses.
If the above three properties are correct, they should describe
all physical phenomena in a consistent manner....
In sections 2.1. Photons, and 2.2. Electrons and Positrons, I
define the basic equations that form the foundation of Mass
Dynamics. In section 3. THE FIRST POSTULATE OF RELATIVITY, I
presented Einstein's former research associate's argument[73]:
In the foregoing, I have pinned the breakdown of the principle
of relativity to the background radiation: but this is only by
way of emphasis. One can construct local frames of rest also
by averaging over the observed proper motions of the
surrounding galaxies; the field of direction obtained by this
procedure will not deviate grossly from the one gained from
observing the background radiation. Either way, permitting
large-scale samplings to enter, one is led inexorably to the
breakdown of the principle of relativity.
Then in the next section 4. THE SECOND POSTULATE OF RELATIVITY, I
presented a short review of the interplanetary radar evidence
that the speed of light in space was not a constant of speed c.
Then in section 5. RELATIVISTIC DILATION OF TIME, I wrote:
Hafele and Keating[74] have used commercial jet flights and
atomic clocks to present convincing empirical evidence that
tends to resolve the relativistic clock "paradox." They found
that the relativistic dilation of time was a function of the
clock's speed relative to an absolute coordinate system at rest
relative to the distant galaxies. The clocks that
circumnavigated the earth in the eastward direction ran slower
than the clocks at rest on the earth's surface by an average of
59 billionths of a second, while the clocks that traveled
westward ran faster than the clocks at rest on the earth's
surface by an average of 273 billionths of a second.
In the next section 6. THE INFINITE, ETERNAL UNIVERSE, I argued:
Arp[110] has discovered observational evidence of galaxies
joined by luminous bridges that have completely different red
shifts, thereby casting doubt on the assumption that the red
shift is a Doppler effect. Pecker et al.[111] have presented a
photon-photon interaction theory that explains the red shift as
an energy loss in which the lost energy goes into a soft photon
pair. The transformation characteristics of matter and energy
imply the potential of explaining the eternal nature of reality
in terms of recycling photons back into matter. The attractive
nature of the dynamic ether operating over vast time and
distances could transform the energy lost in the red shift into
huge columns of dynamic ether. Where these columns collide,
energy would be transformed into matter. A likely candidate
for such a collision event would be the nearby irregular galaxy
M-82. A hydrogen-alpha photograph of M-82 taken by the 200-in.
on Mount Palomar shows a spectacular array of hydrogen
filaments that extend more than 14,000 light-years above and
below the galactic disk. Photographs reveal that the galaxy
cannot be resolved into individual stars, although at its
distance, normal stars should be visible. The light from the
filaments is highly polarized, indicating a regular, large-
scale magnetic field aligned predominantly along the axis of
rotation. It is obvious that conventional thermonuclear
reactions are not adequate to explain the phenomenon.[112]
Since the heavier atoms are considered to have evolved from
hydrogen fusion, it seems obvious that the age of a galaxy
would be proportional to its interstellar hydrogen. Radio
astronomers have found that some irregular galaxies have as
much as 30% of their mass as interstellar hydrogen. In Sc
spiral galaxies, the hydrogen content runs as high as 14%,
while in Sb spiral galaxies, the content is about 1%. In
galaxies with little flattening or spiral structure, they have
been unable to detect any interstellar hydrogen.[113] Recent
evidence shows large amounts of extragalactic hydrogen falling
into the spiral arms of our galaxy.[114] The quantity of
infalling hydrogen is sufficient to explain the formation of
new stars and the spiral nature of the arms. It seems obvious
that the hydrogen expelled from an irregular galaxy such as M-
82 would eventually fall back to the galaxy, forming the spiral
arms. The evolution of galaxies would be from irregulars to
Sc, Sb, Sa, and E, finally ending their lives as quasars. The
compact starlike nucleus of a Seyfert galaxy is similar to a
quasar, indicating the possibility that the quasar is a huge
super-massive star that forms from the dense nuclear material
of a galaxy, Quasars release far more energy than can be
accounted for by known physical processes. From the beginning,
theorists have postulated that some form of matter annihilation
must be involved.[115] The planet Jupiter radiates 2« times
more energy than it receives from the sun and it is impossible
to explain the energy generation in terms of conventional
theories. The energy generation of stars seems to be
proportional to their density. This all seems to indicate the
possibility that the dynamic ether orbital structure could be
disrupted by sufficient pressure, causing matter annihilation,
this being the principal energy source of massive celestial
bodies. The quasar would be expected to be an efficient
mechanism for transforming the matter in a galaxy back into
electromagnetic radiation. The red shift would degrade the
radiation and eventually it would be recycled back into matter
in an infinite and eternal universe.
I now think that the quasars are globular clusters that form in
the dense nuclear regions of a galaxy, rather than single massive
stars. The n-body dynamics would suck up the dense material and
the pressure mass annihilation mechanism culminates with massive
stars exploding as supernovae.[152] The clusters could be
expelled from the nucleus by uneven massive gas pressure, and
then orbit the galaxies as normal globular clusters. The last
two sentences of paper's 7. CONCLUSION, read:
...I think the ultimate task of physicists should be to invent
the simplest possible consistent unified theory that would fit
all known empirical information. The theory would rise in
status as it became possible to program advanced computers with
the basic equations and the fit between computer readout and
empirical information improved.
The sixth paper[82] I've published was in collaboration with
Prof. Wilbur Block and Prof. Richard Rhodes II at Eckerd College,
and marked the experimental phase of my career as a scientist.
The paper also reflected my interest in the electron as the
possible fundamental building block of the heavier particles.
The paper was published in the prominent journal REVIEW OF
SCIENTIFIC INSTRUMENTS, and the title of the article was "Glow
discharge source of H- ions."
The seventh paper[83] was also in collaboration with Block and
Rhodes, as well as a senior student at Eckerd, Carey Floyd, and
the paper was published in the prestigious journal The Journal of
Chemical Physics. The title was "Crossed beam electron-electron
scattering at 90ш and 300 Ev" and the abstract read:
An extensive search of the literature has revealed no evidence
that a primary isolation type experiment such as crossed beam
electron-electron scattering has ever been performed at low
energies. High energy scattering was first performed by a
colliding beam technique at a total energy of 600 MeV in 1966.
In the usual cathode ray tubes the density of residual gas
molecules far exceeds the density of electrons. An analysis of
crossed beam scattering equations revealed that if the electron
beams intersected each other at an angle of 90ш the energy Eю
of electrons scattered in the direction of the c.m. velocity
vector could range to as high as twice the primary beam energy
E. Since electrons scattered from the residual gases would be
expected to have energies у E, it seemed possible to separate
the electron scattered electrons from the gas scattered
electrons with an energy analyzer. We performed an extensive
series of experiments using a parallel plate energy analyzer
that revealed no significant results above the rather large
background count. The experiments showed how difficult it is
to detect the scattering with conventional apparatus. We next
constructed an apparatus designed to detect almost all the
electron scattered electrons that had energies greater than the
retarding potential of a grid. The experiments were performed
with beam energies of 300 Ev and currents 1.2 and 1.3 жA. The
experimental results were compared to predictions based on
Mюller's quantum mechanical model for electron-electron
scattering. A computer was programmed to numerically integrate
Mюller's nonrelativistic c.m. differential cross section
equation and the crossed beam equations due to Morse and
Bernstein. We found the experimental results to agree well
with theory.
My eighth published paper,[66] and the third and last one done
in collaboration with Block and Rhodes, was published in The
Journal of Classical Physics and was titled "Computer Simulation
of Mass Dynamics in Electrons." The abstract of the paper read
as follows:
Werner Heisinberg contends that modern particle theory is
little more than a "super review of particle properties" and
that we will not understand the nature of matter until we
devise a theory of natural law and boundary conditions defining
the dynamics of matter. In order to address this question we
have devised an initial computer model of possible natural law
that is based on two simple first principles and the equation
for mass dynamics. Simulated experiments based on the model
give high resolution explanations of the experimental evidence
of photon emission at speed c and the 1/r mass distribution of
rest and moving electrons. The model also tends to give low
resolution first principle explanations of the nature of
photon-electron interactions, electron-electron interactions,
electron spin forces, gravitational forces, and nuclear forces.
My ninth, and last research paper[67] to date, was published
in the journal Speculations in Science and Technology, and the
abstract reads:
Einstein's dream of a causal unified theory of physics is
coming true. The dynamic ether has the potential of explaining
all microscopic and macroscopic physical phenomena in terms of
simple first principles.
A sampling of some of the highlights of the paper, goes as
follows:
Much of Albert Einstein's life was devoted to searching for a
theory that incorporates gravity and other fields into a
generalized geometrical structure derived from the general
theory of relativity. Peter G. Bergmann collaborated with
Einstein on research on this problem and in his paper `Unitary
field theories',[116] he gives a brief review of the
fragmentary nature and the difficulties inherent in this type
of approach.... Banesh Hoffmann's paper, `Einstein the
catalyst',[117] shows how Einstein's bold and iconoclastic
style and his pioneering endorsement of other people's
revolutionary ideas influenced many important 20th century
physicists. `What of Einstein's refusal to accept as final the
indeterminacy probabilistic nature of the quantum theory that
he had done so much to bring into existence? There was a time
when it was almost professional suicide for a physicist to
raise doubts about the so-called Copenhagen interpretation.'
It now appears that the tide has changed in Einstein's favor on
this question. In 1951, David Bohm's causal pilot wave theory
caused Louis de Broglie to abandon the Copenhagen
interpretation and return to his original deterministic
philosophy of quantum mechanics.[118] In 1953, Erwin
Schrodinger, in his paper, `What is matter?',[119] writes:
`Physics stands at a grave crisis of ideas. In the face of
this crisis, many maintain that no objective picture of reality
is possible. However, the optimists among us (of whom I
consider myself one) look upon this view as a philosophical
extravagance born of despair.' In 1957, the Soviet physicist
V. A. Fock `went to Copenhagen and presented Niels Bohr with a
paper in which complementarity was criticized in four different
ways: (1) one should insist on the fact that the psi function
of quantum mechanics represents something real; (2) the
presence of precise mathematical laws is equivalent to a
certain type of causality; (3) limitations in understanding
come only from the use of a classical language; (4) no
"uncontrollable interaction" between apparatus and system takes
place during measurements. After reading the paper, it is
known that Bohr agreed on these four points.'[120] In 1963, P.
A. M. Dirac, in his paper, `The evolution of the physicist's
picture of nature',[65] writes: `one can make a safe guess that
uncertainty relations in their present form will not survive in
the physics of the future'. Andr‚ Mercier reports[121] a
conversation with Werner Heisenberg, in which Heisenberg argued
`that even major modifications of present physical theories
would not transform them into the desired new theory, as quite
different and novel ideas are required. Secondly, the impact
of quantum theory and relativity theory on the minds of those
scholars who helped found them during the first half of our
century is conceivably such that they are imprisoned by these
theories and thus cannot help but reason conformably, that is,
in terms of traditional concepts; whereas the need is for a
whole revolution of thought, which can only be carried through
by nonconformists.'... There is a popular myth in modern
physics that argues that relativity and quantum mechanics are
not ether theories. The current publication of the translation
of a 1922 lecture by Einstein shows that he developed
relativity as an ether theory.[48] He reconfirms this fact in
his 1938 book, The Evolution of Physics,[20 p.153] and argues
that because of the `forced and artificial character of the
assumption' he gave up on trying to devise a mechanical model
of ether. There are a few enlightened physicists who admit
that the `vacuum' of quantum mechanics is really the
ether.[122] The problem with the static ether is the fact that
it is a solid which if it had the shear modulus of elasticity
no less than steel, must have a density less than that of our
best vacuum in order to transmit transverse waves with the
speed of light.[123] On the other hand, the compressible-
fluid-like mass of my c model of mass dynamics[19] is
equivalent to a dynamic ether that moves with the physical
phenomena, and it is a simple matter to make mechanical models
where the elasticity and density are proportional to the
phenomena. The concept of a dynamic ether is hardly new. Lord
Kelvin developed this type of theory in the middle of the 19th
century. It was far ahead of its time, and Maxwell gave it a
glowing review.[124]... Our paper, `Computer simulation of mass
dynamics in electrons',[66] attacks the mathematics problem of
the c model by developing a mass-in-cell technique that is
similar to the 3D gridless charge cloud-in-cell computer
numerical integration method used in plasma simulations.[125]
Figure 1 plots the results from current simulation experiments
where each particle is divided into 12 independent cells of
radius 2.8 X 10-15 m and the differential mass of the particle
is simulated by a computer algorithm that determines the c.m.
of the particle and substitutes a centre cell of radius 2X10ю14
m. All cells move at speed c and the position of each cell was
plotted at 2 X 10-24 sec intervals with 1/2 step integration and
calculations at 10-25 sec intervals. The cell surfaces are
plotted at their initial starting positions and the elapse time
for all but the (c) and (d) experiments was 1.2 X 10-22 sec
which gave slightly more than one rotation of a rest particle.
The (a) experiment shows the wave pattern that results from a
two-cell photon, (b) shows a captured one-cell photon moving
with the mass flow of a rest electron, (c) gives the path of a
photon moving through the electron with the mass flow, and (d)
shows the path of a photon moving against the electron mass
flow. All the photon cells had one-tenth the mass of the
electron cells. The (e) experiment shows the repulsion of two
electrons with opposing mass flows in the same plane, (f) shows
electron-positron annihilation that results from the mass flows
coming together from the same direction, and (g) shows two-
electron repulsion from a head-on collision and the wave
patterns of moving electrons. The (h) experiment shows
positron-electron bonding with mass flows moving in the same
direction.... The use of independent mass cells can be
expensive in terms of computer time. Higher resolution using
far more mass cells would be desirable, but calculation time
tends to be proportional to n2, and it may take massive
parallel processing computers to obtain resolution that would
result in reasonably good quantitative results.... Figure 2
lists a computer program called UNIFIED that introduces the
gravitational force as due to a mass cell surface tension that
is very small when any mass is immersed within the fluid-like
mass of the body of the electron, but tends to approach the
magnitude of the Lorentz-type mass flow force when the cell
starts to separate from the surface of the electron. The model
postulates that the inner radius that determines the rest mass
of the electron is similar to the inner surface of a bubble
that is held together by the surface tension.... the FG values
gives the predicted gravitational force in (10-43 N), and the
FGCM values give the equivalent force derived from the surface
tension characteristics of the mass cells.... Both the FLCM and
FGCM results are good to within 3 s.f. of the predicted values
out to 100,000 (10-16 m) using a PRIME 750 running BASICV at 13
s.f.... Figure 3 shows plotted curves of the Lorentz force FL
between two electrons moving in the same direction along
parallel paths at the same speed that ranged from 0 to 0.9c....
The points plot the FLCM c model values obtained from the
UNIFIED program. Note that at the 10-13 m interelectron
distance there is no observable difference between the Lorentz
and c model predictions, while at the 10-14 m distances one can
observe a deviation that occurs for both the Lorentz and
gravitational forces when the interelectron distance is within
the 1.1 X 10-14 m point where the 50% electron mass distribution
distances touch. Analysis of weak decay of hadrons and
simulation experiments of test cells through stacked arrays of
electrons and positrons lead to the proposal of a neutral pion
content of 104 electrons and positrons with mass flow binding
energy that could carry spin might tend to explain the ~ 100X
strong to electromagnetic interaction ratio.... In John S.
Bell's paper `On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen paradox',[126]
Bell states: `It is the requirement of locality, or more
precisely that the result of a measurement on one system be
unaffected by operations on a distant system with which it has
interacted in the past, that creates the essential difficulty'
(for causality). If one follows Dirac's suggestion to
introduce non-local hidden variables inside the particles
themselves, i.e. drop the point-particle picture, then one
opens the possibility of such an action at a distance
propagating as phase motion.[127] This is consistent with
Louis de Broglie's argument[128] that a particle `could be
compared to a small clock', and it is also compatible with the
Figure 1 photon (a) and electron (g) wave patterns. Modern
laser interference experiments[129,130] clearly show that the
old probabilistic argument that a photon interferes with
itself, is untenable. The experiments can be explained,
however, by the argument that clock-like photons synchronize
clock-like electrons in the interference area, and future
photons then interact with the electrons.
The evidence of energy transfer between photons in intense
laser beams,[131] the large body of evidence of anomalous red-
shifts in galaxies and quasars,[132] and the large-scale
filamentary structure of the galaxies in the universe,[133] all
tend to support the steady-state model presented in my earlier
paper.[19] The c model of mass dynamics is probably the
simplest possible first principle unified theory that can be
devised. It is, I suspect, little more than a first-order
approximation to an ultimate model because of the evidence that
the speed of light in space is not constant. A c+v model will
have to be developed, but because of flexibility of the dynamic
ether concept, I do not anticipate any major problems. I feel
that this type of approach will lead mankind toward an intimate
understanding of the simple microscopic and macroscopic nature
of our infinite eternal universe. This is the dawning of the
golden age of physics.
My concept of a dynamic ether was not completely original; Few
ideas are, most knowledge being built from the work of those who
have gone before. A number of prominent scientist have advanced
this type of argument in the past, to mention a few that come to
mind, Ren‚ Descartes, Lord Kelvin, and P. A. M. Dirac. I am sure
that if I had never existed, others would eventually return to
the concept, since it is so simple and self evident. I expect
that the scientists of the future will consider the dominant
abstract physics theories of our time in much the same light as
we now consider the Medieval theories of how many angels can
dance on the head of a pin or that the Earth stands still and the
Universe moves around it.
Релятивисты и позитивисты утверждают, что "мысленный эксперимент" весьма полезный интрумент для проверки теорий (также возникающих в нашем уме) на непротиворечивость. В этом они обманывают людей, так как любая проверка может осуществляться только независимым от объекта проверки источником. Сам заявитель гипотезы не может быть проверкой своего же заявления, так как причина самого этого заявления есть отсутствие видимых для заявителя противоречий в заявлении.
Это мы видим на примере СТО и ОТО, превратившихся в своеобразный вид религии, управляющей наукой и общественным мнением. Никакое количество фактов, противоречащих им, не может преодолеть формулу Эйнштейна: "Если факт не соответствует теории - измените факт" (В другом варианте " - Факт не соответствует теории? - Тем хуже для факта").
Максимально, на что может претендовать "мысленный эксперимент" - это только на внутреннюю непротиворечивость гипотезы в рамках собственной, часто отнюдь не истинной логики заявителя. Соответсвие практике это не проверяет. Настоящая проверка может состояться только в действительном физическом эксперименте.
Эксперимент на то и эксперимент, что он есть не изощрение мысли, а проверка мысли. Непротиворечивая внутри себя мысль не может сама себя проверить. Это доказано Куртом Гёделем.
Понятие "мысленный эксперимент" придумано специально спекулянтами - релятивистами для шулерской подмены реальной проверки мысли на практике (эксперимента) своим "честным словом". Подробнее читайте в FAQ по эфирной физике.
|
|
 |
