Review and Critique of Vincent's APM links

[altonhare]

Here I will be chronicling my review of the lists of gooses and golden eggs that Vincent claims are contained in the links he posted in "Journeys into Gravity Theory": http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... f=8&t=1084

First up is the Blaze Labs article and their theory of gravity. Here is the first paragraph:

This paper aims at providing a satisfying theory for the yet unknown mechanism for gravity. High frequency, closely coupled pairs of electromagnetic waves sourced by diffuse cosmic waves in the upper gamma frequency spectrum, sometimes also referred to as zero point energy, is predicted from a steady state universe in oscillatory motion and pervades all space. Radiation pressure (Poynting vector) imbalance of such highly penetrating extragalactic incoming radiation, acting through all matter is held responsible for pushing matter together.

-Engineer Xavier Borg - Blaze Labs Research

And here we already have a problem. The author has already used a number of strategic terms without defining them unambiguously. While most of us are familiar with the terms "electromagnetic waves, energy, and radiation", there is not a single unambiguous definition for these terms. If we all went into separate rooms and were told to define these words there would not be 100% consensus. Some would write Maxwell's equations, others would quote relativity, and many others would have their own ideas of what these "are". The fact is, they are ill-defined terms that frequently take on whatever definition or characteristics are convenient for the discussion at hand. The proponent of a theory must be very careful with such words because it is tempting to let them "do everything". The word "wave" by itself is meaningless without someTHING waving. But this is all simply introduction, let's try to skip ahead to the "meat". The phrase at the heart of their theory is "electromagnetic radiation pressure":

Electromagnetic Radiation Pressure (EMRP), denoted by PRAD is defined as the force per unit area exerted by electromagnetic radiation.

Again, what is electromagnetic radiation exactly? The author neither illustrates it nor physically describes it. It is evident when the author uses this term, that he does not know what it is:

EMRP is a real effect that exerts a positive force due to the momentum given up during the interaction of waves with matter (De Broglie standing waves), or using quantum jargon, by photons hitting a target. Electromagnetic radiation pressure is proportional to the energy intensity of the EM field, and inversely proportional to the speed of light.

The key phrase here is "a real effect". An effect is not a theory or explanation, it is an observation. Just because something happens in some reproducible circumstances doesn't mean it is understood in the slightest! What are these waves? If they interact with matter they must have shape. What's this "energy intensity"?

Experiments with light make it appear that light has momentum, i.e. shining enough light on a balance and the balance will record a weight. However the author also makes it clear that light is not a particle, not an entity. The question is, why does the scale record a weight even though it is clear that light does not possess the quality "mass"? The author proposes:

That is, only the exchange of energy at the point of interaction between the source/target matter and the classical electromagnetic field is quantized. The exchange takes place in units of Planck's constant times the frequency, but the fields remain continuous and classical

So the author again simply describes an observation. When light is absorbed/emitted it is discrete and quantized but as it propagates it is a classical wave. The author does not tell you the reason for such anomalous behavior! He simply states that it is so. WHY should light be emitted/absorbed discretely but not travel discretely? He attempts an explanation:

The reason for momentum transfer between a wave and a material target is solely due to the existence of this vector. The Poynting vector describes the flow of energy (Power) through a surface in terms of electric and magnetic properties and has the dimensions of power per unit area. Radiation pressure in Pascals (N/m2) is equal to the time averaged Poynting vector magnitude <S> divided by the speed of light. Other names for <S> are irradiance and intensity.

So, the reason this continuous mass-less "entity" (EM wave, light, w/e) may impart momentum is because of the existence of a vector, a mathematical construct! The author poses no physical hypothesis. He claims that light can impart momentum because of the equations he uses! Does Mother Nature care what equations he uses? Does the underlying physical cause have anything to do with what equations a person decides to model their observations with? Has the author even defined his wave, energy, power, electric, magnetic, radiation, or time?

What is energy exactly? How can it be exchanged? I can give my basketball to you or a truck can unload its sand at my house. If energy can be similarly dropped, carried, given, and exchanged, what does it look like? Why does it get handed around in some cases and not in others? These are the most basic questions. The author has evaded them because he has no satisfactory answers. The author is getting way ahead of himself in trying to answer complex questions about gravity and light before he can even nail down the terms he is using.

What is this field he talks about? What does it look like? What does it mean for it to be quantized? If it's "continuous" then why would it be imparted in particular chunks? Again these are all observations made, and the author takes it for granted that they are understood simply because he can describe them. The author ventures a definition:

longitudinal wave is defined as oscillations of energy in the direction of the wave movement. Usually, this term is used to describe acoustical (sound) waves in air that is alternating compression and expansion of air. The longitudinal Poynting vector works exactly in the same way, with two important differences - it can travel through vacuum, and its magnitude is always positive.

Unfortunately he has used an undefined term, energy, to define his wave. Why does this energy oscillate? What does he mean by oscillate? Does it go up and down and side to side? Why should it go back and forth like this? The author reveals his ignorance (and his ignorance of his own ignorance) in using the analogy to sound waves. He defines sound waves perfectly! What is waving? The air. But apparently the wave of his theory doesn't need a medium. Again this is simply stated outright with absolutely no reason whatsoever.

The theory has no underlying physical mechanism. It assumes the classical mass-less EM wave which already has no physical interpretation. It then arbitrarily modifies this nonphysical hypothesis with the observation that light appears to have "weight". This is arbitrary because it does not fit with the original hypothesis, it is added ad-hoc because the hypothesis does not fit observation. The author then uses this observation to build the entire theory of gravity. Gravity is, apparently, the result of this "weight" light has as a result of "transferring energy". All of this mass-less non-entity "pushes" on actual entities. So, the gravitational force varies with "how much" of this non-entity is present. The author develops a mathematical description, much like Einstein and Newton, but still fails to pose a physical hypothesis.

The author covers all his bases by simply stating that light has conflicting characteristics. There is no explanation for this conflict. There are only equations. For an example of a physical theory of gravity look here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvWeYJg9Oxs

[altonhare]

Next on the list is a genuine APM article with the impressive title:

The model of Universal Vortical Singularity

http://www.singularvortex.com/WFE%20-%2 ... larity.htm

If you do not have the patience to read all my critique you can skip straight to the "Executive Summary" at the bottom and read, in concise format, why this theory fails.

If you are familiar with concepts like angular momentum, inertia, and the properties of gyroscopes just skip down to "the first sentence is:"

For the non-technical oriented or just generally unfamiliar reader here is an explanation of some of the basic mechanics of the theory:

The theory is primarily predicated on the properties of gyroscopes, specifically what they call a "suspended spheroid", which is simply a squeezed ball with a rod through the center with one of the ends of the rod attached to a string (suspended). Perhaps there is not a rod but rather the string is simply attached directly the spheroid, I'm not 100% certain on this precise detail. In any event a particular phenomenon of this object that forms the "fundamental inertial force interactions" of the theory is torque-free precession. This is a phenomenon observed when an object rotates about a non-symmetric axis. For the visual and hands-on types, this is easy to understand, perform the following experiment at home:

Pick up a fairly regular, well balanced stick and toss it at a large angle with a nice flick of your wrist as if you wanted to give it a good spin. You will see that it spins in a fairly regular, homogeneous fashion. Take a hunk of lead or other heavy object and fasten it to one end of the stick. Now repeat the same motion. You will notice the stick performs little "jumps" as it careens through the air, its spinning is not regular and uniform as before. The weight you fastened threw off the stick's symmetry. Though it may look pretty amazing, it is easily explained by carefully applying the basic physical law of motion conservation.

In the case of the spheroid you can try to do this with a football, which is essentiailly to an elliptical spheroid. It may take a few tries but you should be able to see the "wobbly jump" associated with torque-free precession by grabbing the football by one edge and throwing it at a wide angle with a nice flick of your wrist. Again, the phenomenon you see is purely due to the basic physics of motion conservation (specifically constant angular momentum).

There, now anyone can visualize what they're talking about. We're looking at something like a football with a string attached off-center that is spinning around in some "off kilter" way like the weighted stick. Some fundamental questions are, what is the string itself attached to? What is the football spinning with respect to? What is the football made of?

The first sentence is:

This is the fundamental foundation of a clockwork universe that sets everything in unisonal perpetual motion, as a perfect machine with its gears governed by the laws of physics.

-APM

I'm following so far. Among the fundamental laws of physics are conservation of motion and matter. As I know these concepts, this is logical. This theory starts out on sound footing.

Universal Vortical Singularity is categorically a theory of everything in a single model with a concept of nothingness that begets infinities and infinitesimals.

-APM

The "concept of nothingness" is just that, a concept. It involves looking at an apple then looking at no apple. Something and nothing. The author claims that nothingness "begets infinities and infinitesimals". If nothing is a concept how can it do anything? My basketball bounces. I punch you in the nose. Does ingratitude punch you in the nose? No, the ingracious PERSON punches you in the nose. Furthermore, how can a concept do anything to other concepts (infinity and infinitesimal)!? Does ingratitude punch insolence!? NO, an ungracious PERSON punches an insolent PERSON. Some do not care about consistent language but this kind of mangling makes it meaningless. The author attempts to define infinity and infinitesimal:

infinities - The manifold of infinity; manifold of increases without bound
infinitesimals - The manifold of infinitesimal; manifold of decreases to indefinitely small that are immeasurable

-APM

But what is manifold? Besides using an undefined term in the definition of an undefined term, the author cannot even communicate clearly at all. "Increase" is a verb and may only be modified by an adverb. A concept can increase incessantly but not "boundlessly". Boundless is predicated on the word "bound" which means a shape, a contour, a definite border. The author is trying to assign shape to that which he has plainly tried to define as a concept. Such basic and elementary logical blunders make the entire presentation meaningless.

Maybe it gets better? Maybe we should skip straight ahead to "Universal vortex is..."??? A sentence that starts that way should be plain, unambiguous, and edifying:

Unisonal vortex is a nothingness of warped surface in the form of void that emerges on the surface of viscous matter, it primarily wobbles in a two-axis spin in a suspended spheroid.

If you thought my original objections were "grammatical" or "semantic" just read this sentence. Read the first five words. The first 13 are even better. Now, the word "is" means "to be" i.e. to exist. "Unisonal vortex" is plainly something that exists here, both explicitly in how the sentence is written and implicitly in the fact that the article's title bears the name. The author is most definitely telling us that the universal vortex exists. Now, "nothingness" is the opposite of "to be", it means "not to be" or "not to exist". SomeTHING or noTHING. The author is essentially saying:

"Unisonal vortex exists as a nonexistent..."

Of course the author does not use explicit antonyms or everyone would laugh. He uses the fashionable term "nothingness" that appeals a bit more to the imagination. Do not be fooled by what is on the surface.

Not only does the author describe his unisonal vortex using antonyms, he then claims it is part of an existent, a "warped surface in the form of void". Under the common definition of surface "exterior of an object" and the common definition of void is "nothing". Some of its synonyms are "vacant, vacuous, bereft, unfilled, unoccupied, devoid... etc." The all indicate a lack, as in not something or "nothing". The author is saying:

"A Unisonal vortex exists as a nonexistent of the warped exterior in the form of nothing..."

Even more concise:

"Something is and is not part of something that is also nothing..."

This is more contradictory than George Busch or the Bible. I've not had to refute a theory on such basic, laughable, and elementary grounds since I debated Creationism.

The universal vortical system with unisonal vortex mechanism is the principle of the fundamental inertial force interactions in a torque-free precession that forms unisonal vortex in viscous matter on a suspended spheroid...

-APM

So, the mechanism of the something-that-is-nothing together with a related system (left largely undefined and unexplained) is the primary way that interactions in a torque-free precession form a "unisonal vortex" in "viscous matter". What can "viscous" possibly mean in this context? Viscosity is a useful parameter assigned to a fluid in analyzing fluid transport in pipes/plumbing. It describes the observation that some fluids flow easily through a pipe and some do not. This is because the constituents of the fluid near the pipe move more slowly than constituents in the center of the pipe. The slower motion is because the constituents near the pipe interact strongly with the pipe. One might understand it as a type of friction for the sake of using a familiar term, though friction is pretty subjective and varies in definition according to one's technical background and inclination. Are the authors talking about the interaction of matter with itself when they say "viscous matter"? Have they even defined matter or viscosity? We can't be sure what the author means.

Near as I can tell, at the end of the day there are interactions between, I presume, "unisonal vortices" to produce more unisonal vortices. So interactions among A produce A? It's not 100% clear because the "universal vortical system" was explained as both something and nothing so I'm not sure if these "vortices" are something or not. They certainly were not defined although the author attempts an illustration:

http://www.singularvortex.com/pictures/ ... 3_anti.jpg

The illustration alone doesn't make it clear why the interaction among these things would create more of them.

In any event, near as I can tell, A's interact to produce more A's on the surface of a suspended spheroid and they're all embedded in "viscous matter". I wonder if the vortices themselves are "in viscous matter" or "composed of viscious matter". It's all hard to tell. Continued:

...that in isotropy has potential density consolidated in volumetric pressure. This torque-free precession that drives a unisonal vortex in viscous matter is driven externally by a larger vortical mechanism that causes a torque-induced precession on the suspended spheroid.

-APM

Isotropic simply means uniformity in each direction. Potential density is the amount of matter that would be present in a region of space of volume Va if the equivalent amount of matter in a different region of space (volume Vb) were compressed/expanded to Va without interaction with the environment (adiabatically). Obviously it is a concept, specifically it is a thermodynamic concept that makes many calculations convenient because of the simplifying assumptions of no mass transfer and no motion transfer (isolated system). This assumption is only true when working on the scale of the entire universe. They appear to be talking about a "single spheroid" and certainly they also say "viscous matter" instead of "all matter". They do not appear to be working on the scale of the entire universe. Also, apparently this mathematical/thermodynamic conceptual construct is "consolidated" inside another thermodynamic concept "volumetric pressure". What on earth can this possibly mean? I cannot even pursue such a line of thought because the authors have not defined universe and are trying to compress concepts inside other concepts. If they had at least defined "universe" from the outset I could be certain if they were proposing that this suspended spheroid was the entire universe or if they are simply using potential density and volumetric pressure as simplifying assumptions.

The spinning movements of a suspended spheroid in its rotation on a revolving path would exert consistence fictitious forces on its body in a precession effect, and through conservation of angular momentum

-APM

Fictitious forces? Do we need to even read any further? To everyone I know "fictitious" means "imaginary, not real, nonexistent, fake...". What can fictitious possibly mean in this article? Again they do not define it so the reader is left wondering what in the world they are talking about. At best they have completely bungled their effort to communicate their theory. At worst they are simply assuming you will "take their word for it" that they "really mean something real" because telling you what they are thinking in clear terms would expose them for charlatans (wait didn't they already manage that with something is nothing is something made of nothing on something?). Continued:

... these inertial forces affect viscous matter on a whole mass of the wobbling spheroid is dilated from the core towards the surface, are then amplified enormously on lower density viscous matter layers...

-APM

At least one thing is clear from this is that the spheroid is not a continuous object, it is composed of smaller objects. While this was alluded to before, the language was so mangled one could not be sure. However they do not address these more fundamental parts at all! They keep throwing around the word "vortices" but they do not define it and, in common usage, a vortex is what something does and not a something. But this is a TOE! What TOE would not enlighten us on the fundamental constituent of matter? Is it a ball, a rod, a rope, a gyroscope? I want to know about those "viscous matter layers" in the spheroid! What GUT physicist completely evades the question "what is everything made of"? Continued:

...that initiates the fromation of unisonal vortex paradoxically by opening the vortex eye and forms the vortex column in a top-down manner from the surface pushing towards its core.

-APM

Fromation is a term that I am not familiar with, though I assume it means "create" or "bring forth". It's certainly not in the dictionary. Again the authors do not bother to tell you what it means. However the more fundamental problem is that the propagation of this dilation from the inner part of the spheroid does something "paradoxically". A paradox is a self contradiction. The dilation does something it cannot or should not do? Can A be both A and not A? What's the vortex eye? What's a vortex column? What is all this jargon? Why would the surface push down toward the core? It was the core that was dilating/expanding toward the surface wasn't it? I suspect the answer is contained in the mass of jargon they use to veil their meaning so that nobody can point out all the fatal flaws in their theory. Do not be swayed by technical, sensational, or scientific sounding language. Do not just assume they are right.

The viscous matter in layers on the suspended spheroid has varying potential density in volumetric pressure that are naturally segregated, mechanically or electromagnetically, governed by their inverse-square laws progressively in the state of molten matter, liquid, gas and plasma.

[/quote] -APM

Hmm, I think that, by this point, I have reason enough to believe that this suspended spheroid actually IS the universe in their theory. It purportedly contains the observed "states" of matter. Plus they are invoking the assumptions of an isolated system. In this case what they are saying makes a little bit of sense. However, what's around the spheroid? What's it suspended from and where does the thread that suspends it go? What is the spheroid actually made of? What is it spinning with respect to? If the universe is "everything that exists" then it certainly cannot spin with respect to anything else! "Anything else" is outside the universe and doesn't exist by definition! These are obvious logical blunders and result in irrationality, paradox, and self-contradiction. So again I ask, what is the spheroid spinning with respect to?

The rest of the article covers more particular aspects of the theory which are completely impossible to pursue without clearing up the plethora of problems I have identified. The theory is a non-starter either because it relies on self-contradiction or because the authors are completely incapable of communicating without sounding self-contradictory.

Executive Summary:

Untangling the syntactical, logical, and conceptual problems the heart of this "Theory of Everything" is presumed to be that the universe IS a football-shaped object that spins about a non-symmetric axis. They do not explicitly define "universe" as such but this is their definition as near as I can tell. The theory fails horribly because it cannot answer the most basic questions:

Question 1: What is the spheroid spinning with respect to?
Question 2: What is the spheroid made of?
Question 4: What is nothing?
Question 5: What is something?

The theory fails because it does not answer these simple, elementary level questions. I welcome the theory's proponent(s) to clarify.

[altonhare]

Before anyone attacks a straw man and says I said "nothingness" means "nonexistent" remember I am referring to the meaning "nothingness" has in the context of this sentence:

Unisonal vortex is a nothingness of warped surface in the form of void that emerges on the surface of viscous matter, it primarily wobbles in a two-axis spin in a suspended spheroid.

-APM

In the context of how *I* define "nothing" this sentence is trivial. However I am trying to translate it as best I can. There are two ways to interpret this sentence. One is trivial because it is redundant (unisonal vortex is established as a concept in the sentence even if the word "nothingness" is not present). This is the trivial translation:

"Unisonal vortex is a concept and not an object composed of a warped surface in the form of another concept on the surface of...."

This is the nontrivial (self-contradictory) translation that assumes the author has defined exist as shape+location:

"Unisonal vortex does not exist and is composed of a warped surface in the form of nonexistence on the surface of..."

In the end the problem is that the word "nothing" should only be applied to objects, not concepts. "I carry nothing" means "I am not carrying any objects". Or "The planet collided with nothing" means "The planet collided with no objects". When the author of this article tries to apply the word "nothing" to a concept it inevitably causes confusion, ambiguity, and contradiction. Is the author trying to emphasize (redundantly) that this concept is really a concept (i.e. it's not an object)? Or is the author trying to say the concept doesn't exist (which would only work if the author defined exist as: shape + location)?

So, when I say that "nothingness" means "doesn't exist" I am assuming the author is not redundantly saying that his concept "unisonal vortex" really is a concept. In the end, if the author had simply communicated clearly I would not have had to make this assumption.

[altonhare]

This article is titled:

A New Foundation for Physics, by Quantum Aether Dynamics Institute

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Paper:A_Ne ... _Institute

The paper starts with definitions, always a great place to start. First up is dimension:

A dimension, as defined here, is a non-material, measurable quality relating to the foundation of existence and being.

-APM

What I get from this is that dimension is a quality... A quality of what though? The author states that it is "related to the foundation of existence and being" but what actually IS a dimension? This is like asking for the definition of "tall" and someone saying "it's a quality related to size". It begs the question "What does it tell you about size? Thick, fat, skinny, wide, long, vast, tiny?" This is not a definition, it's a cop-out, an evasion. They evade using the word "object" because they could never define object in a non self contradictory way.

Object: That which has shape.
Dimension: The quality of an object indicating that it has extent in a direction mutually orthogonal to every other direction.

-altonhare

This is clear. It is unambiguous. It is non-evasive. It can be used consistently and rationally.

Let us define mass as a dimension, which when given a quantity, becomes a measurement of inertia.

-APM

ignoring the fact that mass is defined in terms of something undefined (dimension), why do we have to "give it a quantity"? By "give a quantity" do they mean "measure"? No, they cannot, because they state that it BECOMES a measurement AFTER being "given a quantity". What can this possibly mean?

Continuous object: An object that is not made of smaller parts.
Discontinuous object: An object composed of smaller parts.

Mass: The number of continuous objects comprising a discontinuous object

-altonhare

Again this is clear and unambiguous.

Let us define charge as a dimension, which when given a quantity, measures electricity.

-APM

What was a dimension again? How do we "give a quantity" except as a poorly phrased synonym for "measure"? How can charge measure if it's a concept? You can measure your house but can size measure your house? Can volume measure your house? What's electricity for that matter? This is quickly spiraling out of control.

Charge: A very complex phenomenon requiring a great deal more discussion in a thread devoted to it.

-altonhare

I'm sorry but if anyone's curious about my thoughts on this phenomenon you should probably talk about it in "problems with thread theory".

Let us define length as a dimension, which when given a quantity, measures distance.

-APM

This gets repetitive. We're defining the word in terms of an undefined word, assigning it a quantity, and letting it measure something. What meaning can this possibly have?

Length: The extent of an object in a direction.

-altonhare

Was that so hard?

Let us define frequency as a dimension, which when given a quantity, measures duration.

-APM

More of the same. Except they failed to define a quite complex an important term "duration" which is essentially synonymous with "time". I'd say time is pretty important.

Motion: Two or more locations of an object.
Do not mistake this for a statement of non-locality. A discrete object may only possess one location. Invoking "two locations" of an object implies by definition that the object MUST have moved from location A to location B.
Time: The comparison of the motion of one object to the motion of a reference standard object (The motion of which is either assumed perfectly constant or perfectly regular).
Frequency: The frequency of an object's motion (object B) that occupies the same location n times is the distance traveled (D) by a reference standard object (A) divided by the number of times B occupied that location as A traveled the distance D. f=n/D.
See "Time and Motion" thread or "To Anyone Who Believes in Special Relativity's Time Travel".

-altonhare

This is a bit more intricate but, again, it is not blatantly question-begging or evasive. It makes an actual statement.

The inane, ambiguous, and downright nonsensical definitions of APM are the basis for their entire theory! Do I need to go any further? I should have reviewed this one first and saved myself a good deal of trouble! The guys over at APM don't even know the meaning of the most basic words in physics!

[altonhare]

I am disapointed that nobody seems to care that this theory is based on circular and/or self-contradictory definitions. They can match experiment with equations all they want but if they can't tell you what is physically happening it's just an elaborate mathematical "curve-fitting". Mathematical curve-fitting has been the status quo since Bohr and others found a mathematical expression that correlated the energy levels of the H atom. Since then all that has mattered is if you can get the numbers right. A subtle but sweeping shift occurred in science to examining how Nature behaves rather than what nature is.