Hello!

Plasma and electricity in space. Failure of gravity-only cosmology. Exposing the myths of dark matter, dark energy, black holes, neutron stars, and other mathematical constructs. The electric model of stars. Predictions and confirmations of the electric comet.
balsysr
Posts: 14
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:25 am

Re: Hello!

Unread post by balsysr » Wed May 13, 2020 5:26 am


crawler
Posts: 501
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 5:33 pm

Re: Hello!

Unread post by crawler » Thu May 14, 2020 2:26 am

balsysr wrote:
Wed May 13, 2020 5:25 am
Try this link to a website. It has links to all three of the articles by Hotson. Rather than try to (inadequatly) explain Hotson I urge you to read the work. A few paragraphs from the start hopefully will encourage this.

"
Dirac's complete equation, however, describes a quantum spinor field, which has as solutions four different kinds of electron: electrons and positrons of positive energy, and electrons and positrons of negative energy. Such supposedly "fundamental" entities as quarks and gluons have no comparable wave equations; yet they wave. Therefore they cannot be truly fundamental. Since in principle the Dirac field comprises "everything that waves," the equation therefore predicts that the entire physical universe can be made from these four kinds of electron. This study validates this prediction: all matter and all forces are shown to be necessary combinations and applications of just these four kinds of electron, fulfilling Dirac's unitary expectation.

In addition, direct applications of Dirac's equation provide simple, logical, and natural models of the electromagnetic field, the "photon," the "strong nuclear" force, the Ψ wave, inertia, and gravitation. It provides direct-contact physical models that agree with experiment, as opposed to the purely mathematical (and unworkable) models so much in vogue. The phase-entanglement feature of quantum mechanics, demonstrated by Bell's Inequality and the proofs thereof, requires that our reality be non-local. This seems to banish causality. However, Dirac's equation provides causal, direct contact models which are nonetheless non-local.
" Hotson, Infinite energy, 2002.

Imaginary number are used in electrical engineering all the time in relation to AC current. The imaginary bit is the square root of -1, that when first theorized caused the other mathematicians on the boat to throw the originator of the idea overboard. He drowned. You might not like an idea, but that does not stop it being useful. Cheers,
Thanx for that, i read the three parts, very interesting.
I am not sure of how Hotson's redshifted tired light works. He mentions two kinds of energy losses.
(1) Due to inevitable losses during some kind of transformation at the receiving end.
(2) And due to inevitable friction losses during propagation/transmission. These energy losses are in quantum amounts. Hotson possibly says that energy losses are absorbed by epos vibrations in an imaginary direction, in which case they are possibly invisible to us whilst obeying conservation laws, in which case Hotson's tired light would give a kind of extinction (remember i said that the answer to Olber's Paradox in my view needs to invoke a true extinction of energy). Hotson doesn't mention Olber's Paradox, hencely his quasi-extinction solves the paradox accidentally. But i might be wrong, he might say that his version of the Bose Einstein Condensate absorbs the lost energy in the vibration of chains or perhaps lattices of electron positron pairs in a real direction (in which case there is no true extinction of energy in which case the universe would be infinitely hot).

Anyhow i am not in love with an aether made of chains & lattices of vibrating electron positron pairs (i think that he says that his electron & positron pairs orbit each other).
I like (but don't love) the idea that vibrations in one direction give em fields. That photons are waves of propagating angular momentum. Vibrations in three directions give mass. Gravity & em radiation propagate much faster than c.
And i agree with almost everything he says about standard science, eg the bigbang is krapp.

balsysr
Posts: 14
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:25 am

Re: Hello!

Unread post by balsysr » Wed May 20, 2020 4:13 am

Hotson does imply the energy is conserved by the epos, I assume it is stored in the Bose-Einstein condensate, but it is not clear to me how. Rather than "extinction" the energy is stored in the "negative sea". In this way conservation of energy is conserved.

I have no problem with dimensions at right angles to x, y and z, after all the y=a+ib imaginary number has a component that is at right angles to the other (real number) and this is used in electrical engineering to solve real world problems.

I think Hotson has got a lot right. I've had to read the papers a number of times to understand what he's saying and seem to learn new things all the time. A bit like what happens as you chip away at old ideas and replace them with new (paradigm).

The current physics derived from big bang models gives a non causal universe, with no conservation of energy and belief in unobservables that can never be observed. As an empirical physicist this is just bullshit.

Cheers,

User avatar
EtherQuestions
Posts: 119
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2020 10:54 pm

Re: Hello!

Unread post by EtherQuestions » Thu May 21, 2020 9:11 pm

Let us not turn into the same quarreling that the late Newtonians and Cartesians had ... crawler's argument of aether absorbing energy isn't impossible and neither is Donald Scott's thermodynamic position.

The question asked "where does the lost energy go", requires proper definition of "energy".

I, for one disagree with everybody here, energy is thrown around loosely as a term that has lost its meaning, and that observation of force is the basis of empirical reasoning.

"Energy" and "momentum" are only properly defined in classical mechanics. Not if one considers non-mechanical physical entities like light or "photons". Everybody (here in this thread, crawler also) take assumption that in light the same physical principles apply, an assumption upon further investigation is built upon no fundamental logical reasoning from Noether's Theorem and other notions:

Momentum can only be transferred from one particle to another by means of some static interaction force. However, no such interaction force (like the Coulomb- force for electron- impact ionization) is even known for "photons".

The flaw with the particle photon model of light (and Quantum Field Theory) is that the principles of Classical Mechanics are generalized to non-mechanical physical phenomena , i.e. it is assumed that a Hamiltonian (or Lagrangian) function exists for the corresponding systems (and with it the laws of momentum and energy conservation).


Interesting fact:
"Photons" (a theoretical construct from Einstein - not actually empirically proven to exist, not observed.) existing as particles and traversing an aether (crawler's preference) is actually almost the same to the theoretical Cartesian position of Descartes when it comes to defining light (before Huygens created a workable wave theory).
"Considering there is no reactive force even considered in the interaction between mass and space in General Relativity's space-curvature field equations, even though both can likewise act on one another, it is therefore in direct violation of Newton's 3rd Law of Motion."

User avatar
EtherQuestions
Posts: 119
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2020 10:54 pm

Re: Hello!

Unread post by EtherQuestions » Thu May 21, 2020 9:19 pm

:ugeek: Classical Mechanics:

Energy Conservation

"The change of kinetic energy ΔK of a particle when moving from point a to point b via a path s under the influence of a force F(s) is defined by the work done by this force and hence by the path integral:

(1) ΔK(a,b) = ab[bold]ds F(s)[/bold]

( where the bold letters shall denote vector quantities.)

Newton's second law F=ma results in the usual form for the kinetic energy:

ΔK(a,b) = 1/2.m.vb^2 - 1/2.m.va^2


One now defines a potential energy change ΔV(a,b) which is the negative of this change in kinetic energy, i.e.

(2) ΔV(a,b) = - ΔK(a,b)

Which means that one can define a total energy ε for which the corresponding change

(3) Δε(a,b) = ΔK(a,b) + ΔV(a,b) = 0

"

"
By virtue of having introduced the potential energy, energy conservation holds therefore by definition.

Of course this only makes sense if we have a closed mechanical system (if no overall work is done on the system as a whole. In this case it is said that we have a 'conservative' force field under which influence the particles move).


The crucial point is that through Eq.(1) the energy conservation law (Eq.(3)) inevitably involves the presence of a corresponding conservative force field which is responsible for changing the state of motion of the particle.

This circumstance is not immediately evident anymore in the mathematical Lagrange or Hamilton formalisms of classical mechanics, but it is nevertheless there as both the Lagrangian and the Hamiltonian function contain the potential energy V which in turn can not be defined without a conservative force field.

It is therefore completely unjustified to assume that a relationship like Eq.(3) (or any formalism equivalent to it) could be a general principle in physics that would hold outside classical Newtonion physics

e.g. for light (in fact, for light it contradicts Maxwell's equations as the curl of a conservative force field must be zero, however, according to Faraday's law curl(E)=-dB/dt).

Noether's Theorem or other similar theoretical arguments that purport to derive a general law of energy conservation in physics are therefore flawed as they are implicitly based on assumptions that limit their validity to classical mechanics. In fact, by the very definitions of Eqs.(2) and (3), the notion of energy itself does not make any sense for anything but classical mechanics."
"Considering there is no reactive force even considered in the interaction between mass and space in General Relativity's space-curvature field equations, even though both can likewise act on one another, it is therefore in direct violation of Newton's 3rd Law of Motion."

crawler
Posts: 501
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 5:33 pm

Re: Hello!

Unread post by crawler » Fri May 22, 2020 4:37 am

EtherQuestions wrote:
Thu May 21, 2020 9:19 pm
:ugeek: Classical Mechanics:

Energy Conservation

"The change of kinetic energy ΔK of a particle when moving from point a to point b via a path s under the influence of a force F(s) is defined by the work done by this force and hence by the path integral:

(1) ΔK(a,b) = ab[bold]ds F(s)[/bold]

( where the bold letters shall denote vector quantities.)

Newton's second law F=ma results in the usual form for the kinetic energy:

ΔK(a,b) = 1/2.m.vb^2 - 1/2.m.va^2


One now defines a potential energy change ΔV(a,b) which is the negative of this change in kinetic energy, i.e.

(2) ΔV(a,b) = - ΔK(a,b)

Which means that one can define a total energy ε for which the corresponding change

(3) Δε(a,b) = ΔK(a,b) + ΔV(a,b) = 0

"

"
By virtue of having introduced the potential energy, energy conservation holds therefore by definition.

Of course this only makes sense if we have a closed mechanical system (if no overall work is done on the system as a whole. In this case it is said that we have a 'conservative' force field under which influence the particles move).


The crucial point is that through Eq.(1) the energy conservation law (Eq.(3)) inevitably involves the presence of a corresponding conservative force field which is responsible for changing the state of motion of the particle.

This circumstance is not immediately evident anymore in the mathematical Lagrange or Hamilton formalisms of classical mechanics, but it is nevertheless there as both the Lagrangian and the Hamiltonian function contain the potential energy V which in turn can not be defined without a conservative force field.

It is therefore completely unjustified to assume that a relationship like Eq.(3) (or any formalism equivalent to it) could be a general principle in physics that would hold outside classical Newtonion physics

e.g. for light (in fact, for light it contradicts Maxwell's equations as the curl of a conservative force field must be zero, however, according to Faraday's law curl(E)=-dB/dt).

Noether's Theorem or other similar theoretical arguments that purport to derive a general law of energy conservation in physics are therefore flawed as they are implicitly based on assumptions that limit their validity to classical mechanics. In fact, by the very definitions of Eqs.(2) and (3), the notion of energy itself does not make any sense for anything but classical mechanics."
But where does classical Newtonian mechanics start or finish in relation to.....

(1) the subquantum aether world.
(2) photons (& neutrinos) (ie radiation).
(3) elementary particles (eg electrons quarks etc).
(4) electron orbits.
(5) protons & neutrons (& plasma).
(6) atoms.
(7) molecules.
(8) solids.

And we have (a) spin, (b) orbit, (c) linear motion.
And we have mixtures, eg a photon (2) meeting an electron (3) or a proton (4), etc.
And we have (i) longitudinal inertia etc & (ii) transverse inertia.

Bearing in mind that photons probably have gravitational mass, but possibly zero inertial mass.

User avatar
EtherQuestions
Posts: 119
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2020 10:54 pm

Re: Hello!

Unread post by EtherQuestions » Mon May 25, 2020 4:07 am

crawler wrote:
Fri May 22, 2020 4:37 am


(1) the subquantum aether world.
(2) photons (& neutrinos) (ie radiation).
(3) elementary particles (eg electrons quarks etc).
(4) electron orbits.
(5) protons & neutrons (& plasma).
(6) atoms.
(7) molecules.
(8) solids.

And we have (a) spin, (b) orbit, (c) linear motion.
And we have mixtures, eg a photon (2) meeting an electron (3) or a proton (4), etc.
And we have (i) longitudinal inertia etc & (ii) transverse inertia.

Bearing in mind that photons probably have gravitational mass, but possibly zero inertial mass.
I wasn't implying no parts of Newtonian Mechanics can apply to interaction that do not have a conservative force field, just "energy conservation" and also the definition of "energy" is assuming to translate ALL these mechanical features to other things, with no true empirical or logical reasoning.

It is affront to common sense and deductive reason, and as ionizing effects are attributing to false misnomers of "energy" and "momentum" it is now the case "frequency" gets paired to these and retroactively is being ascribed to the original definitions with "top-down reasoning" (at least for some theoretical physicists).

"Bearing in mind that photons probably have gravitational mass, but possibly zero inertial mass."

I don't believe in "photons", they are defined by frequency and its ionizing effects - but as said before a "complete" EM Wave is not required to send an electromagnetic signal. As for wave-particles, a duality by definition is paradoxical and this isn't possible in my opinion. As for gravitational lensing this doesn't have to be attributed to mass.
"Considering there is no reactive force even considered in the interaction between mass and space in General Relativity's space-curvature field equations, even though both can likewise act on one another, it is therefore in direct violation of Newton's 3rd Law of Motion."

Aardwolf
Posts: 1368
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 2:56 pm

Re: Hello!

Unread post by Aardwolf » Thu May 28, 2020 12:48 am

crawler wrote:
Wed May 06, 2020 9:38 pm
Aardwolf wrote:
Wed May 06, 2020 5:49 pm
crawler wrote:
Wed Apr 29, 2020 12:55 am
If the first sphere/shell is 1 mile radius, & if there are 5 snipers on the first sphere, then the next sphere will have 20 snipers, etc. If the 5 snipers on the 1 mile sphere have a 100% accuracy then the 2 mile sphere is likely to have a 25% accuracy, etc. If the 1 mile sphere has 120 hits per day then the 2 mile sphere will have 120 hits per day, etc.

This results in an infinite number of hits per day, if an infinite number of spheres. And if per eternity instead of per day then the number of hits is still an infinite number of hits per eternity. The numbers go like this (your numbers are in parenthesis)………….

1 mile sphere = 5 (5) snipers shoot (24) times with 100% (10)% accuracy = Hit 120 (12) times.
2 mile sphere = 5*4=20 (25) snipers shoot (24) times with 100/4% (1)% accuracy = Hit 120 (6) times.
3 mile sphere = 5*9=45 (125) snipers shoot (24) times with 100/9% (0.1)% accuracy = Hit 120 (3) times.
4 mile sphere = 5*16=80 (625) snipers shoot (24) times with 100/16% (0.01)% accuracy = Hit 120 (1.5) times. And so on…
My example wasn't trying to provide an accurate theory of sniper accuracy, it was merely to show that just because you have infinite terms in your calculation, it doesn't necessarily result in an infinite answer.

In reality I was overstating the accuracy of the stars in question. Our star has an accuracy in its first sphere of hitting its nearest star of about 0.000002% (surface area of 4.2ly radius sphere compared to surface area of the sun) and that’s in a relatively dense part of the universe so after multiplying out and adjusting for the vast space between galaxies, ultimately the amount of light received is statistically nil even with an infinite amount of stars.
The sniper model can be used two ways, without tired light, & with tired light. The critical way is "without", which is what i did, & which is what others did earlier in this thread. Without sets up the start of the argument, ie it shows that the temperature must be infinite if there is no extinction. Even if only one photon from each shell hits the target, then an infinite number of shells must give an infinite temperature. Therefore we need proper extinction of energy, & the present tired light models don't do the trick.

Your sniper model is a "with" model, ie it includes tired light. But the tired light in your model has proper extinction. Where did the energy go?

And its worth repeating. An infinite temperature can be given by one photon with infinite energy. And it can be given by an infinite number of ordinary photons. But i don't think that Olber's Paradox needs an infinite temperature, a very hi temperature would do, ie 3000 K instead of 3 K.
There is no tired light in my model. I'm demonstrating that the amount of light given out by a star is insignificant. For our nearest star we only receive about 0.000002% of the light we should receive due to dispersion not tiredness. Unfortunately you fail to understand the significance of this.

Aardwolf
Posts: 1368
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 2:56 pm

Re: Hello!

Unread post by Aardwolf » Thu May 28, 2020 1:13 am

crawler wrote:
Wed May 06, 2020 9:38 pm
The critical way is "without", which is what i did,...
No, you just increased the accuracy so you had a favourable result. Use the real accuracy of 0.000002% per 4.2ly sphere and see if it adds up to infinity.

crawler
Posts: 501
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 5:33 pm

Re: Hello!

Unread post by crawler » Thu May 28, 2020 4:28 am

Aardwolf wrote:
Thu May 28, 2020 12:48 am
crawler wrote:
Wed May 06, 2020 9:38 pm
Aardwolf wrote:
Wed May 06, 2020 5:49 pm
crawler wrote:
Wed Apr 29, 2020 12:55 am
If the first sphere/shell is 1 mile radius, & if there are 5 snipers on the first sphere, then the next sphere will have 20 snipers, etc. If the 5 snipers on the 1 mile sphere have a 100% accuracy then the 2 mile sphere is likely to have a 25% accuracy, etc. If the 1 mile sphere has 120 hits per day then the 2 mile sphere will have 120 hits per day, etc.

This results in an infinite number of hits per day, if an infinite number of spheres. And if per eternity instead of per day then the number of hits is still an infinite number of hits per eternity. The numbers go like this (your numbers are in parenthesis)………….

1 mile sphere = 5 (5) snipers shoot (24) times with 100% (10)% accuracy = Hit 120 (12) times.
2 mile sphere = 5*4=20 (25) snipers shoot (24) times with 100/4% (1)% accuracy = Hit 120 (6) times.
3 mile sphere = 5*9=45 (125) snipers shoot (24) times with 100/9% (0.1)% accuracy = Hit 120 (3) times.
4 mile sphere = 5*16=80 (625) snipers shoot (24) times with 100/16% (0.01)% accuracy = Hit 120 (1.5) times. And so on…
My example wasn't trying to provide an accurate theory of sniper accuracy, it was merely to show that just because you have infinite terms in your calculation, it doesn't necessarily result in an infinite answer.

In reality I was overstating the accuracy of the stars in question. Our star has an accuracy in its first sphere of hitting its nearest star of about 0.000002% (surface area of 4.2ly radius sphere compared to surface area of the sun) and that’s in a relatively dense part of the universe so after multiplying out and adjusting for the vast space between galaxies, ultimately the amount of light received is statistically nil even with an infinite amount of stars.
The sniper model can be used two ways, without tired light, & with tired light. The critical way is "without", which is what i did, & which is what others did earlier in this thread. Without sets up the start of the argument, ie it shows that the temperature must be infinite if there is no extinction. Even if only one photon from each shell hits the target, then an infinite number of shells must give an infinite temperature. Therefore we need proper extinction of energy, & the present tired light models don't do the trick.

Your sniper model is a "with" model, ie it includes tired light. But the tired light in your model has proper extinction. Where did the energy go?

And its worth repeating. An infinite temperature can be given by one photon with infinite energy. And it can be given by an infinite number of ordinary photons. But i don't think that Olber's Paradox needs an infinite temperature, a very hi temperature would do, ie 3000 K instead of 3 K.
There is no tired light in my model. I'm demonstrating that the amount of light given out by a star is insignificant. For our nearest star we only receive about 0.000002% of the light we should receive due to dispersion not tiredness. Unfortunately you fail to understand the significance of this.
I might have already agreed with that. What i mean is that my later postings admit that an infinite brightness & temperature are not possible with only 2 pillars (eternal universe)(infinite universe), it needs the third pillar (continual creation of energy)(ie new hot stars replacing old burnt out cold stars). So without the third pillar i could only argue that the whole sky should be the temperature of the Sun, ie in effect the conventional Olbers' Paradox.

In that conventional paradox the dispersion &/or tiredness & the temporary or permanent nature of any extinction are still critical to the explanation, even if we are looking for 6000 K rather than an infinite K. Even if there is no redshifting, ie if it is all due to dispersion (ie due to sniper bullets missing the target), & if only 0.000 002% of bullets from a particular nth shell hit the target, it means that 99.999 998% of bullets from that shell are still flying around. So, no matter how many bullets hit the target from all shells, all bullets that miss are still flying around, & hencely the whole sky must be at 6000 K.

So, if the sky is little more than 3 K then that means that some kind of permanent extinction must be happening, which is not explained by dispersion nor by ordinary tired light, it needs a special kind of redshifting (which i think i have explained, if not here then in new insights & mad ideas).
Aardwolf wrote:
Thu May 28, 2020 1:13 am
crawler wrote:
Wed May 06, 2020 9:38 pm
The critical way is "without", which is what i did,...
No, you just increased the accuracy so you had a favourable result. Use the real accuracy of 0.000002% per 4.2ly sphere and see if it adds up to infinity.
The infinite brightness & infinite temperature argument adds an extra layer of complexity, which i have already explained in full i think, & relates to a different version of the paradox, & i suppose that we can go there (again) once we have sorted out my above comments that relate to the conventional paradox.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest