For anyone who is interested in an incredibly insightful truly Revolutionary New World View I highly recomend William Day's web site: <a href="http://www.non-newtonianphysics.com/index.htm." target="_blank">http://www.non-newtonianphysics.com/index.htm.</a> Day delievers a fatal blow to Newtonian-Ensteinian world view of discrete bodies moving in a void effected by forces acting at a distance. His elegant and rational world view of a nonmaterial and material universe directly based on casuality is astonishing. For open minds well worth the reading as are his books the Bridge from Nowhere and its sequels.

-DM-

[Moved here from Feedback as being possibly of interest. --Don--]

alek0

Any examples on what "His elegant and rational world view" predicts or describes correctly?

About his claim:
"But without motion, atoms become particles, and particles reduce to the infamous Black Hole. "

Any proof that one can generate a Black Hole by colling down the matter to absolute zero?

Why is he talking only about electromagnetism and gravity? Ever heard of any other forces?

"Matter originated as particles and assembled hierarchically. A hierarchy has the resemblance of a step-pyramid in which the number of units comprising a stage in ascending progressively decreases. Each stage of the hierarchy is made up of units of matter which underwent concentration until they collectively formed a new unit of the next higher stage. Concentration, then, is an essential process in stepwise tier development of a hierarchy. It was probably a process that was as essential in the beginning as at any subsequent stage building."

How does this relate to expanding universe?

BigAl71350

Alek0,
Day's theories correctly explains the behavior of light and resolves the Michelson-Morely paradox.

Quote from the Structure of the Universe link on Days web site:

"The transverse waves of light require a solid medium.

If we assume that space is a medium, then light's velocity is determined by the tension of the medium. And from that it should be possible to calculate the velocity of light. This calculation was made 140 years ago by James Clerk Maxwell when it was believed that an ether filled space and served the role of a luminiferous medium. Maxwell found that to make a coherent account of the electromagnetic equations he had to assume a medium consisting of an elastic solid. The assumption of elasticity suggested that the electromagnetic medium could support wave motion. Any elastic substance with density p and a shear modulus m can transmit transverse waves with a velocity v = (m/p)1/2.

Maxwell found that for a medium having magnetic permeability m equal to unity, v was almost equal to the velocity of light. He concluded that the inference is unavoidable that light consists in the transverse undulations of the same medium which is the cause of electric and magnetic phenomena. From this theoretic approach he calculated the velocity of light to be 193,088 miles per second, within 1% of the measured value of 186,282 miles per second.

The physical analysis indicated that the medium for light waves must be an extremely rigid solid, but this could not be reconciled with bodies moving through it. Maxwell believed initially that light waves were electric deformations in the electromagnetic medium. Later he suggested that it is possible to drop the electromagnetic medium and treat light as alternating electric and magnetic fields propagating themselves through space. Maxwell's suggestion that light can self-propagate allowed the image of space as an unreactive void to prevail. Light was a segment of a broad spectrum of electromagnetic waves moving through space populated by material bodies, and the Newtonian cosmology was preserved.

Then in 1887, Michelson and Morley tried to measure the movement of the earth through the ether by its effect on the motion of light. To their astonishment and everyone's dismay they could not detect any change whatsoever. It was not that the null reading was disappointing, it was was simply incomprehensible. If light and matter both move through space how is it possible for the earth to be hurtling through space at 18.5 miles per second and have no effect on light?

At this point physics took a fateful direction. The Michelson-Morley result meant either of two conditions. Either light and matter have unrelated motions and move to different space references; or light and matter move through space alike as Newton assumed, and light's velocity is always constant because changes in the physical state of bodies in motion prevent measuring any effect on the motion of light.

If the first supposition is correct, then there is a medium for light and we have to readjust the way we think of space. If the second supposition is correct, then space is an unreactive void and we have to change our thinking about the effect of motion on the physical conditions of matter. It was this latter supposition that Einstein followed in developing his theory of relativity.

Einstein kept Newton's physics and his assumption that light and matter move alike through a space void. The difference is he dismissed Newton's universal space as a background reference and made all motion relative. Time was equated to the velocity of light and reality was centered on the observer. In order to account for light's constant velocity, Einstein employed "relativistic effects" in which length contracts, mass increases, and time slows, as objects move faster.

Relativity is a form of dynamics, and dynamics is committed unconditionally to the void. Einstein, therefore, dismissed the ether as unnecessary and followed Maxwell's suggestion that light is self-propagating. This does not, however, account for its wave motion, its constant velocity, or its non-materiality. Light is pure motion, and when it stops moving it ceases to exist. Relativity did not resolve the Michelson-Morley paradox simply because the use of "relativistic effects" to maintain light's constant velocity in the line of motion does not explain why light's velocity coming from all other directions should be constant. The paradox actually suggests that the earth is stationary in the space medium while light moves through it at a constant velocity.

This means that there are two types of motion, two types of space in which they move. There is an extremely rigid space medium through which light moves but matter does not, and there is the space void which is an abstraction from perception in which bodies move, and which physicists have used as their background space for relative motion presumed to occur due to forces between masses. Bodies suspended in the space medium move relative to each while remaining centered because of non-uniformity of the medium by gravitational fields.

There are two kinds of motion; two kinds of space

Eight years after Einstein published his theory of relativity in which he dismissed the ether as unnecessary an experiment was carried out which proved unquestionably that a medium exists. In 1913 Georges Sagnac, a French physicist, modified Michelson's experiment so that instead of doubling the path of the light beam back upon itself a split beam of light was directed around the edge of a 20-inch turn table. When the table was rotated and the light beam was brought on itself there now were interference fringes. The edge of the rotating table did indeed move relative to the light waves, or more correctly stated, relative to the medium of the light waves. In 1925 Michelson with Henry Gale adjusted his original experiment so that it was measuring the earth's rotation, and this too showed the Sagnac effect. Since the Sagnac effect was used to develop the optical gyroscopes that are widely employed in navigation, there is no question of its validity.

There is then a medium. It is the extremely rigid solid-like gel in which light waves travel. It fills the universe and we are inside, but we have been completely unaware of its existence until experiments with light proved it. We couldn't have perceived it simply because, unlike light and electromagnetism, we have no direct interaction with it. It is invisible, non-material, and unreactive. Only the force of electricity can disengage its tension.

Light moves as waves in the medium; matter is suspended in it.

The answer to the Michelson-Morley paradox, therefore, is not the second supposition upon which Einstein developed relativity, but the first which asserts that light and matter have unrelated motions. The motion of light consists of waves through the rigid medium and is absolute; the motion of matter is relative, and matter is suspended in the medium by its gravitational fields."

Actually there are no black holes and the universe is not expanding; there was no big bang. Galaxies are cauldron of matters formation. The idea that the Red Shift 'proves' an expanding universe is erreonous. There are other explanations for shift that does not involve matter flying away from all directions at high speeds. For an interesting discussion see: <a href="http://www.geocities.com/kingvegeta80/cosmology.html." target="_blank">http://www.geocities.com/kingvegeta80/cosmology.html.</a> The evidence for the big bang has been discredited and only faith in the current world view keeps it alive.
Day discusses all the other so called forces in his web site articles particulary the link to 'Particle Structure'

I look forward to future discussions with you if you are so inclined.

Al

Malaclypse the Younger

BigAl71350

True indeed. Under SR, the wave nature of light, its constant velocity, and its nonmateriality (presumably meaning the zero rest-mass of the photon) are held as fundamental assumptions and are not explained. To "explain" these assumptions would require other, unexplained assumptions, so no alternative theory seems capable of satisfying this metaphysical objection in general.

It should be noted that QM does indeed explain (to the degree that QM claims to "explain" anything) the wave nature of light.

Depends on what you mean by "paradox". Formally, the "paradox" of ether theory was the difference between the prediction that one should observe a differential velocity, and the observation of constant velocity. SR resolves this paradox by simply assuming the velocity of light is a constant and compelling one to discard any ontological assumptions that contradict this assumption.

By calling all motion relative, SR removes the need for (indeed it explicitly denies) this intuitively unappealing ontological interpretation of ether theory.

The <a href="http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm" target="_blank">Sagnac Effect</a> measures the effects of rotation relative to the inertial reference frame of the fixed stars. Since rotation entails accelleration, the interpretation of the Sagnac Effect is outside the scope of Special Relativity, and requires General Relativity (and probably Mach's principle). The Sagnac effect thus not directly rebut SR's ontological prohibition on an ether.

It should be noted that Mach's principle is elegantly explained by the <a href="http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~mijp2/transaction/TI_toc.html" target="_blank">The Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics</a> (and by most other interpretations of QM as well).

The Sagnac effect does not compel ontological belief in a medium.

As noted above, this theory assumes and does not "account for" the existence two kinds of motion or the existence of the either, the same metaphysical criticism directed at SR.

This assertion is not supported by Day's arguments, at least those so far presented.

[ February 25, 2002: Message edited by: Malaclypse the Younger ]</p>

BigAl71350

Prefacing my response to Malaclypse the Younger: You are obviously very bright and knowledgeable, probably more so than I in either respect. I would highly recomend reading through Mr Days web site. I am sure you would find it fascinating and probably understand more of the equations than I do.

I am not certain that Einstein accepted the speed of light as absolute; due to the relativistic effects of matter in motion and acceleration we just cannot measure it.

"In 1913, eight years after Einstein published his theory of relativity in which he asserted that no medium was necessary for light's propagation, Georges Sagnac, a French physicist, modified Michelson's experiment so that a split beam of light was directed around the edge of a 20-inch turntable. With a center of rotation, when the table was turned, the edge by necessity would have to move through space. Since light was traveling around the edge, if light were waves in a medium, any rotation of the table would move relative to the light waves, and hence their medium.
When the table was rotated, this indeed happened. The light beam directed back upon itself while the table was turning formed interference fringes. That the light did not come back in phase indicated that the table edge had moved relative to light waves during their circling, or more correctly, relative to the non-material medium which carries the light waves.

"We know, however, that whatever causes gravity is not localized in the object, it is a field extending out into the space around the body. It seems apparent, therefore, that it is the field generated by an object that is responsible for its inertia. A void cannot support a field or offer a resistance to displacement of a field in it. Only a medium can do that"

Forgive this large quotation but it addresses a number of issues raised.

"Physicists, therefore, define everything in terms of force and energy. They still regard motion as a property of matter, and to them the structures of matter are only the fortuitous result of dynamic equilibrium. Their geometry is static, and that is how they think of structures. Because the basic forms of matter have moving components, instead of calling them structures physicists refer to them as systems. This is no trivial issue of semantics, it has blocked physicists from developing a rational structural theory. They think everything is derived from energy, but matter is not structured on energy, it is structured on motion.
Matter is structured on motion, not energy.
Matter is not structured on energy, it is structured on motion. Matter is built on orbital systems where motion, not momentum, is the essential parameter. The mass of the orbiting component is not in the equation. Just as light ceases to exist when it stops moving, so too do the kinematic systems cease to exist without motion.
3. Kinematic geometry.
Newtonian dynamics is an adaptation of terrestrial mechanics to orbital systems. On earth gravity is witnessed in the falling of objects and the trajectory of things thrown. Newton combined inertial motion and gravity as a force to turn orbits into perpetual falls. Since a fall is an accelerating motion he redefined acceleration as any deviation from rectilinear motion. This is simply a contrived model that has no relationship to nature. Inertial motion and gravity as a force do not in reality exist.
When we recognize that matter is structured on motion then we have to change our thinking of motion in space. Before dynamics geometric shapes were regarded in their entirety. A line was a definite length, a circle was a fully formed shape with all points on the line equidistant from the center. During the time of Galileo and Newton a line became endless and circles became lines traced by a point moving equidistant from another point. This analytical interpretation does not reflect the natural condition. There are no half structures, and there are no half motions.
Not only is matter structured on motion, all motion of matter in space is potentially structural. Regarding motion separate from the structure of matter takes it out of its reason for existing.
Motion and the structure of matter are inseparable.
Nature and all forms of matter in it are self-creating. This is especially apparent with the three tiers of the hierarchy. We realize this with atoms, but because of the way physics evolved out of our terrestrial experiences we have not made the direct connection between motion and structure for gravitational systems.
Consider the apple. Newton in the orchard saw things from a very limited terrestrial perspective. If the earth had been a point as he had to assume for his calculations the behavior of the apple would have been quite different. When the apple dropped from the tree it would not have been stopped in its fall. It would have continued to fall at an ever increasing rate, zoomed past the earth-point at an enormous velocity, continued in its flight on the other side, decelerating as it goes, then stopping momentarily only to fall back again to complete an extremely elongated orbit and return to the tree with no net gain or loss in energy. What Newton saw was only a small slit of this potentially much larger action. The reason the apple fell to the ground was simply because the earth bulged out and got in the way.
When an object is thrown, therefore, it does not take on a continuous endless inertial motion. Any object released in space goes into an orbit, or what can be described as potentially an orbit. Any dropped object begins an orbit, and any motion added to it becomes a part of the orbit length. A thrown object adds the length of forced motion across its elongated elliptical fall and widens it on one end. To us it looks like a continuous motion that could go straight if thrown hard enough, but that is a misimpression. No more motion is created or continued than the forced displacement and the spontaneous motion of the fall.
When a batter hits a baseball the ball is propelled against its inertia only for the instant of the hit and the distance it is accelerated. That equation is d = vt, or for the average velocity during acceleration: d = 1/2v2t. To translate this distance to the length it would add to an orbit it is the fraction of the orbital velocity of a circular orbit at that position in the gravitational field: d = v2t/2vo. That is the distance of motion given to the ball.
If that short distance is all that is added to the ball's orbit why then does a slugged baseball take off for center field?
The baseball is propelled against its inertia only for an instant by the bat and then goes into what potentially would be an orbit. Because geometry is thought of as being static, we think of distance as metrical and independent of velocity and time. But in kinematic geometry distance is interrelated with velocity and time by the classic equation, d = vt.
Kepler's second law states that for orbiting planets a line connecting the sun and planet sweeps out equal areas in equal times. In other words, in the kinematics of orbits where distances are related to the velocity and time, distances for equal areas are equivalent. Areas swept by an orbit are comparable because the distance covered is dependent on the velocity and time.
When the baseball is hit it gains a high velocity in a very short time and distance. That span becomes an arc of the ball's potential orbit. The ball then continues on its orbit, slowing down and taking longer. The distance it covers is con-
siderably greater than when it was accelerated by the hit. Both distances, however, are equivalent by the equation d = vt. Our problem is that we think of the distance to center field in terms of static geometry, when in fact it is an arc that is equial in area swept to that when it was being propelled. As far as the ball is concerned, it is in orbit and nothing more is changing.
Structures based on motion have a geometry based on motion. There are, therefore, the following kinematic geometry principles:
Distance is interrelated with velocity and time by d = vt.
All lines of motion in space are closed.
Orbital lengths are absolute and self-contained.
Displacement by force translates to orbital change by F = ml.
4. The course of dynamics
Only in retrospect can we imagine how physics could have taken a different course. After Copernicus the impression developed that space is some vast void. This was strongly supported by perception and no apparent resistance to the moon and planets. After the discrediting of Aristotelian physics the impression of inertial motion seemed apparent. If you throw something it just keeps going until it hits the earth. The concept of gravity was around throughout history as the effect of falling, but no one before Newton thought of it as a force acting at a distance across space. Newton gave a good workable model for gravitational systems, but he put dynamics on a false footing by establishing the idea of inertial motion and force at a distance.
As with most successful answers to problems, Newton's dynamics was formulated to solve a specific situation but has beenextended to explain other conditions beyond its intended application. Newton's abstractions are acceptable for the particular problem of gravity, but they are not universal. His method was so successful, however, that it was difficult not to use it elsewhere.
When physicists encountered other structural levels of matter they found it easier to think of them as the result of other forces in nature. Since electromagnetism involves a field as does gravity, the comparison of atoms to gravitational systems took only slight modification to dynamics. The subatomic structures were a different story. As physicists investigated atoms and particles they added new forces to the list. A strong nuclear force was needed to hold protons and neutrons together against the repulsion of the proton's charge, a weak nuclear force involved radioactive decay, and the quarks theory for particle structure required an intense bonding mediated by gluons. In each case physicists invented specific properties for each force to make the force concept applicable. As a result, we are now encumbered with a staircase of forces, none related to the other, each with its own set of conditions for its particular situation.
Gravity only attracts, electromagnetism both attracts and repels, the strong nuclear is a repulsion at distance less than 10-13 cm, and its attraction drops to zero rapidly at distance greater. The weak nuclear force cannot extend farther than the size of a particle. And in its perverse manner the force of the gluons for quarks is reversed and becomes stronger with distance.
The forces vary in strengths enormously. If gravity is given a value of one, the weak nuclear force would be 1025 times stronger, the electromagnetic force 1036 times stronger, and the strong nuclear force 1038 times stronger. This is an enormous span and there is nothing in the theory of matter to give reason for this huge spread in strengths for forces of nature.
Efforts to unify the forces have been without success. If the force principle were a genuine part of nature there would be no reason for their not being able to be unified. There is apparently something wrong with the original concept of force acting across space that keeps it from being a valid universal principle.
After the discoveries of Faraday physicists discarded Newton's mechanical model and recognized that matter produces fields. But they kept the force concept and called them force fields. They were still in the engineering mode of thinking where motion is the result of force overcoming inertia. They therefore used the field theory as the source of energy to account for motion. This leaves unexplained the origin of fields.
Physicists have created an entanglement of undefined and unrelated terms held together by abstractions and equations. In the course of discovery everything should come together with a feedback from a single principle. In the current theory they do not. The parameters are held together mathematically, but with no rational theory why they should exist.
In physics the world is divided into matter and energy. These two components are interconvertible on the particle level of matter by the equation E = mc2. There is no explicit explanation in physical theory how this happens, only that it does. Energy is left in the abstract.
5. The structural hierarchy
Dynamics leaves physicists without a structure theory. They have tied motion to mass as momentum for their energy concept, and this has prevented their imagining structures based on motion.
By excluding the medium from their theory physicists have stranded themselves from the rational explanation of matter's origin and evolution. They translate everything into energy which defines things as parameters of intervention and obstruction, instead of the laws pertinent to matter's self-creation.
We think of structures as solids and motion as change. A structure, however, is characterized, not by statics but by stability of form. In nature kinematic structures are produced in which the structural motion is self-contained and self-perpetuated.
There is a non-material side of reality from which the material side evolved. The medium, light waves, and fields are non-material. In the formation of matter and its hierarchy, they are all interrelated.
Matter formed and evolved from the non-material side of reality.
The medium apparently is the pre-material condition from which the material universe developed. The single "physical" condition of the medium, and the reason it is recognized as a medium, is its capability to sustain wave motion. Light and fields are manifestations of this wave action in the medium. Motion can be translated to energy for dynamics, but it is motion itself that condenses to matter. Motion has the property of velocity, and this relates to distance and time. When these are self-contained they convert to size, and size is an absolute quantity.
The motion of particle formation is not consumed, it is converted to self-containment. This does two things which are responsible for matter's origin and evolution. Self-containment detaches particles from the medium and shifts interaction to other particles. And the contained structural motion generates fields in the surrounding medium which holds particles in suspension and creates the electric and gravitational field environment from which atoms and gravitational systems evolved.
Fields are from the structural motion of particles.
The physicists have no basis for the multiplicity of fields that they postulate. They are only to justify the force theory. A field is a condition generated in the surround medium by structural motion, and this limits the types that can be generated. There are apparently only two types of fields: the electric field that involves the tension of the medium; and gravitational fields which are deformations or reverberations in the surrounding medium.
Because of their theory physicists have always been astounded and puzzled by the incredible weakness of gravity in comparison to electromagnetism. According to the force concept both forces decrease by the square of the distance, but the span between them is enormous. The electric force between an electron and a proton according to Coulomb's law is e2/r2, while the force of gravity between them by Newton's law is Gmemp/r2. The ratio, therefore, is e2/Gmemp, and the numerical difference is 2.3 X 1039. This is an enormous number. It takes forty digits to write in full. So weak is gravity in comparison to electromagnetism that if a hydrogen atom were held together by gravity it would be nearly as large as the universe.
Both forces follow the inverse square rule, but there is a distinct difference between gravity and electromagnetism. For every positive charge in the universe there is a negative one. The gravitational field, which is neutral and unconsumed, extends indefinitely, whereas the electric field, because it has an opposite counterpart, is always interrupted. Atoms are formed, and the entire electric fields of the electrons and protons are contained within the confines of the neutral atom. Their gravitational fields, on the other hand, being unreactive, extend in all directions to the far reaches of the universe.
Gravity and electromagnetism appear so extremely different in strengths, therefore, simply because of the way they are measured. We aren't measuring whole fields, we are measuring an imaginary attraction on a line between two points. The material world, however, is made up of compositions, not a skeletal frame of forces. The entire electromagnetic field of two opposing charges is contained within a neutral atom, while their gravitational fields extend out indefinitely. To encompass the entire gravitational field the electron would have to orbit out on the edge of the universe. In an elementary particle, therefore, there apparently is no difference in the amount of gravity and electromagnetism is produced. And because fields are produced from structural motion these may be the only fields in actuality.
The structural "forces"
The universe is more rational and self-supporting than physicists have given it credit. Its support frame is a hierarchy of structures ascending from particles to atoms to gravitational systems. When matter originated it had in its formation the potential for its evolution to the immense diversity we witness today. The giant steps of this evolution are the three tiers of the hierarchy - particles, atoms, and gravitational systems.
Evolution follows a path that has the greatest potential for diversity. There are two principal procedures for the structure of matter that give this maximal potential:
Form a structure on an expandable pattern so that a large variety can be assembled from only a few types of basic constituents.
Form a structure which can couple with similar structures to give a variety of combinations.
The result of these procedures is best shown from the structures of atoms. From only three basic constituents - protons, neutrons, and electrons - over 100 kinds of atoms are formed. Furthermore, the orbital structure allows atoms to interact with each other to form the vast number of organic and inorganic molecules.
The formation of particles apparently followed the same pattern with different constituents. Since particles are the initial form of matter in the crossover from non-materiality, the constituents of particles must be without the basic properties of matter: mass and charge. Aside from the pre-material medium itself, only three things are known that have no mass or charge. They are photons, neutrinos, and fields. Since fields seem inappropriate, particles presumably have a structure consisting of photons and neutrinos. In this way particles are in compliance with the same conditions of evolution as atoms.
Without a structure theory physicists have invented a new force for every level of matter, each with its own tailored properties to make the force fit the conditions. That nature created a unique force at each level of its development seems extremely improbable. Instead of nature being held together by a battery of unrelated forces it is more likely that this theory is the result of an over-extension of a particular way of solving problems.
Consider the strong nuclear force. This interaction is regarded by the virtual particle theory as an exchange of pions traveling at the speed of light back and forth between nucleons. The bonding has a maximum strength at the distance of one fermi (10-13 cm). At 1.4 fermi it is one-third the maximal strength, and at a distance of 4.2 fermis its attraction is so small as to be negligible. The force is an attraction up to 1.7 fermis, and a repulsion closer than 0.7 fermi.
The strong nuclear force seems to have no relationship with the electrostatic force or gravity, which diminish by the square of the distance and extend indefinitely. Nor does it seem related to the weak interaction which plays a more subtle role in the interaction between particles. The force is an exchange of pions over a distance approximately no more than the size of protons and neutrons. The attraction decreases rapidly with separation and becomes a repulsion if the distance is too short. This description is not that of an exchange particle bouncing back and forth, but rather a structural particle encircling more than one nucleus.
The circumstances associated with the strong nuclear force have a striking similarity to another bonding condition which is quite common and not attributed to any special force of nature whatsoever. When two hydrogen atoms, each with a single orbiting electron and spins opposite from the other, come together, they combine with the liberation of heat and the formation of the H2 molecule.
At large distances the system consists of two isolated hydrogen atoms which do not interact with each other. But as the atoms come closer they experience an attraction which gradually leads to an energy minimum. At the internuclear distance of 0.74 angstrom the attractive energy is about 104 kcal/mole of H2 and the system is at its most stable state. Any attempt to force the atoms closer results in an increase in the electrostatic repulsion of the nuclei and eventually leads to the repulsion exceeding the attraction.
The existence of the energy minimum is directly responsible for the stability of the hydrogen molecule. When the two hydrogen atoms come together the electron density is spread over the entire volume of the molecule instead of being confined to a particular atom. The nuclei remain separate but the electrons are paired and encircle both nuclear centers. There is no new force of nature involved. The electrostatic attraction of the electron to the nuclear proton is the same attraction each electron has for the other nucleus. Increasing the volume available to an electron decreases its kinetic energy, and in this way imparts stability to the system. But in consolidating the electrons' motions to incorporate both nuclei there is an overall savings of encapsulated space and a reduction in kinetic energy, which is radiated as heat.
The electromagnetic force that is responsible for the structure of the atom is the same force that is responsible for the binding of atoms by consolidating the action of a mutual component of their structures. The fusing of protons is analogous to the combining of hydrogen atoms. Pions form the outer shell of protons and neutrons, and they become the exchange particle by encircling both nuclei of the bonded particles.
The strong nuclear force, therefore, is not a new force to be added for the fusing of protons and neutrons, it is a structure consolidation. Whatever is responsible for the complex structure of protons and neutrons is likely to be the same bonding mechanism used in coupling nucleons. There is in this analogy an important clue to the structure of particles. When protons and neutrons fuse there is a loss in the overall mass, and that mass is converted to energy by the equation E = mc2.
The weak interaction seems to be completely misplaced in the scheme of things. It occurs in beta decay where the emission of an electron is accompanied by the emission of an antineutrino, the emission of a positron by that of a neutrino. In 1934 Enrico Fermi likened beta emission to the photon emission from atoms. This, however, is a questionable analogy. Certainly it has not led to a structural model for particles that is consistent with a hierarchy of matter.
Beta decay is actually analogous to the transmutation of atoms. When an atom gains or loses a proton the element changes. When a particle loses a neutrino or antineutrino the identity of the particle changes. We need now to bear in mind that the weak interaction does not extend beyond the size of a particle. That is to say, the interaction is confined entirely within the confines of the particle. If the strong force in fusing of nucleons is analogous to the coupling of atoms, the weak nuclear force is analogous to neutral atoms having their electric fields confined entirely within the atom.
The properties of the strong nuclear and weak nuclear interactions strongly suggest that they are structural forces. The quarks model for particles, however, bears no resemblance to a structure which would accommodate these forces in a simple arrangement. In the course of reappraising physical theory we will discover that there is a much simpler and more logical model for particles than the one based on quarks.


Life in a Medium
After the discovery of the wave motion of light by Thomas Young in 1903, scientists speculated on the character of a medium that could transmit waves at such an enormous velocity. The earlier wave theorists, including Huygens of a century and a half before, regarded light as longitudinal oscillations along the line of propagation as with sound waves. Young had suggested that light might be transverse waves with oscillations at right angles to the light of propagation as in the case of water waves. The French physicist Augustin Jean Fresnel liked the transverse wave theory and adopted it as a premise.
Fresnel went on to theorize that ordinary light consists of waves oscillating equally in all possible planes at right angles to the line of propagation. The theory received wide acceptance by being able to explain the double refraction of light by Iceland feldspar, a phenomenon that neither the particle theory nor the longitudinal-wave theory could explain. According to the transverse-wave theory light could be refracted through different angles because one ray could consist of waves oscillating in one particular plane, while the other ray could consist of waves oscillating in another plane perpendicular to the first plane.
The transverse-wave theory, however, created a problem for the ether hypothesis. As long as light was regarded as longitudinal waves, the ether could be considered as a very thin gas-like substance undetectable by ordinary instruments. Transverse waves, on the other hand,, are transmitted only through solids. For light waves to be transverse the ether would not only have to be a solid, it would have to be extremely rigid to account for the enormous velocity of its waves. This, of course, was contrary to the fact that the planets move through it without interference.
There are, therefore, two conflicting conditions that are not reconciled by current physics. The double refraction of light by Iceland feldspar indicates that light travels as transverse waves, but this is contradicted by the fact that transverse waves mean that the medium for light must be an extremely rigid solid. There is obviously something wrong with our impression of physical reality. Einstein did not resolve this paradox but simply dismissed the medium as unnecessary and made light self-propagating. This is the position fraught with a host of inconsistencies. It doesn't explain why light should have its particular constant velocity or why its travels as waves. It is important that we accept the experimental evidence for what it is and analyze why our impressions and suppositions are not consistent with it.
The medium for light as transverse waves must be extremely rigid.
If space is a medium more rigid than the strongest steel, how then is it possible for us to live in it? How can matter possibly move, how can we walk about, or even raise an arm?
The resistance of a medium to anything moving through it is determined by the interaction the object has with the medium. If there is no interaction, there is no interference to the medium, and hence no resistance. If we shine a beam of light through air there is no significant interaction between the light and the air, no waves of sound form. Yet the light beam goes through the air. On the other hand, an explosion which forces air outward makes a shock wave that races through the air.
There is, therefore, a distinction that has to be made between traveling in and through a medium. Waves from in a medium by things that interact with the cohesion of the medium. The velocity of wave transmission is determined by the tension strength of the medium. That is the significance of light velocity and it consisting of weaves.
We don't travel through space the way light does. Our interface with the medium is our gravitational field. It consists of a field of reverberations as a disturbance of the surrounding space medium. The strength of the field is proportional to our mass and is the resistance to displacement. When we move, therefore, we don't move against the tension of the medium. We don't form a wave in it. We move against our own gravitational field and its resistance to displacement.
We therefore are able to move through the medium coincidentally with light, despite the fact that it is extremely rigid for light waves while we have no resistance by it to our movement. When we move we skim along the contours of the gravitational fields in the space medium, making no disturbance in the medium, making no waves in it.
Light moves as waves in the medium; matter moves through the same medium without interacting against its cohesion.
For all practical purposes, and as far as we know, the medium must be a stiff, unyielding, non-material solid-like gel. Light is created as a disturbance in it and races through it as waves. We skim through the same medium, changing position in it but, except during forced displacement, being always in the center of our immediate space environment, never moving relative to it.
This is the important distinction between wave motion and the motion of matter. Matter also travels as waves but in a completely different sense than as waves in the medium. When a force is applied to a particle it is given an oscillation and is accelerated in relative motion. After the force, the particle is again immediately centered in its ambient space, but it continues to oscillate. It is the relative motion that makes the wave. And it is the rate of relative motion and the oscillation that makes the electron travel in a de Broglie wave as the electron strikes its target.

The Condensation of Matter
The pre-material medium that is the primal gel of all that exists has the tensegrity to sustain wave action through it. Waves, therefore, as electromagnetism, move out in all directions indefinitely. In the moment of matter formation highly energetic wave motion closed upon itself and detached from the gel. The motion then was no longer waves in the medium but motion closed upon itself as structural motion of self-contained particles.
When matter condensed it detached from the gel.
Matter in the form of particles condensed from electromagnetism generated in the solid-like medium. Matter, however, did not remain confined to its particulate state. It had within its creation the potential for the evolution of more complex compositions. Atoms formed, combinations and aggregates followed, gravitational systems developed.
4. A Universe of Matter and Fields
The condensed particles possessed two types of structural motions, and these generated fields of standing waves in the surrounding medium. The encircling self-containing motion spirals in either of two directions and creates the opposed electric fields with the force of attraction equal to the tensile strength of the medium itself. The pulse of the particles produced the unpolarized reverberations that we know as the gravitational field.
Fields are from the structural motion of particles.
Physicists have always been astounded and puzzled by the incredible weakness of gravity in comparison to electromagnetism. According to the force concept both forces decrease by the square of the distance, but the span between them is enormous. The electric force between an electron and a proton according to Coulomb's law is e2/r2, while the force of gravity between them by Newton's law is Gmemp/r2. The ratio, therefore, is e2/Gmemp, and the numerical difference is 2.3 X 1039. This is an enormous number. It takes forty digits to write in full. So weak is gravity in comparison to electromagnetism that a hydrogen atom held together by gravity would be nearly as large as the universe.
Both forces follow the inverse square rule, but there is a distinct difference between gravity and electromagnetism. For every positive charge in the universe there is a negative one. The gravitational field, which is neutral and unconsumed, extends indefinitely, whereas the electric field, because it has an opposite counterpart, is always interrupted. Atoms are formed, and the entire electric fields of the electrons and protons are contained within the confines of the neutral atom. Their gravitational fields, on the other hand, being unreactive, extend in all directions to the far reaches of the universe.
Gravity and electromagnetism appear so extremely different in strengths, therefore, simply because of the way they are measured. We aren't measuring whole fields, we are measuring an imaginary attraction on a line between two points. The material world, however, is made up of compositions, not a skeletal frame of forces. The entire electromagnetic fields of two opposing charges is contained within a neutral atom, while their gravitational fields extend out indefinitely. To encompass the entire gravitational field the electron would have to orbit out on the edge of the universe. In an elementary particle, therefore, there apparently is no difference in the amount of gravity and electromagnetism produced.
The fields produced by matter form and shape the universe as we know it. The particles of opposed electric fields condense quickly to form atoms, while the gravitational fields spread out into the surrounding medium. There is no void. There are only gravitational fields reverberating throughout the gel from bodies of matter suspended in it. These fields have an effect on the movement of bodies in them, and this is what we witness as bodies move relative to each other in what seems to be a space void.
The universe, therefore, consists of the fields produced by structural motion of matter. The fields are deformations of the gel, but it is the fields with which objects interact, for they make the space environment in which we exist. Only light and other electromagnetic phenomena are in direct interaction with the gel.
From dynamics and its image of a void we have the impression that we can fly through space freely the way we fly through the air, but this is an illusion. Because of the centering compulsion of matter, motion in space is as rigidly controlled as moving through any restricted environment. We can only follow the contours, and the contours of space are around large masses. This is readily realized by the space program. When the space shuttle wants to go to a satellite that is in a larger orbit, it cannot head for it directly. It has to expand or make more elliptic its own orbit so that it intersects that of the satellite at the exact time when the satellite is there. It sounds complicated but there is no other way.
Fields shape the contours of space.
Gravitational fields weaken the tensegrity of the gel, and this slows the velocity of waves in it. Light and the equilibration of other gravitational fields are slowed by a strong field. An object in space is under compulsion to remain centered in its own field. When an object is in a stronger field extending as a diminishing intensity gradient out from a large mass the object moves spontaneously into the gradient. Its own field equilibrates more slowly on the inward side of the gradient so the object moves to equalize its own field by the Doppler effect.
Relative motion of bodies in space is a secondary effect.
This phenomenon can be demonstrated by particles in a material medium. Two oscillating particles in a medium will tend toward each other for the same reason as bodies in space. The field which each generates weakens the ability of the medium to transmit waves and the imbalance imposed on each particle's field causes it to move spontaneously to correct it.
5. The Geometry of Structure
Fields are the environment within the gel in which atoms and gravitational systems form. They are not fields in space, they are the space itself of the material world. Space is the gravitational fields of matter suspended in the gel and moving to remain centered in the non-uniformity of other fields. There is nothing else. This is why space and gravity have the same singular property of being all-pervasive. Neither can be shielded against. They are coincidental with the presence of matter.
The motion of matter in space is in response to the non-uniformity of the environment of gravitational fields. This is the only motion, and it is dependent on the gravitational fields. There is no motion, therefore, outside of gravity. It isn't possible to leave the world of matter because there is no motion without it. There is wave motion independent of fields through the gel, but that is only by electromagnetism.
With this perspective it is possible to gain insight to the relationship between the structure and motion. Dynamics is founded on the impression that inertial motion is a straight-line motion that goes on forever if not diverted by a force. It does not and cannot exist. In reality all lines of motion are closed. And that is why the material universe came into being.
Bodies are suspended by their gravitational fields in the gel, and shift spontaneously to the non-uniformity of its tension weakened by gravitational fields of other bodies. Any movement of a body in space takes it on a course that potentially closes on itself. The effect of matter and its accompanying gravitational field means that all lines of motion in space are closed. Gravity creates the spontaneous motions of bodies in it and all motions of objects in space are potentially orbital. The endless lines of inertial motion postulated by Newton as a part of current physical theory simply does not exist.
Motion in space is potentially closed.
There is a three-tier hierarchy of matter - particles, atoms, gravitational systems - structured on motion and is self-contained. Any motion based on the centering of objects in a field environment localized around larger bodies becomes closed orbital movement. And because the motion is closed, any motion added to it from displacement by an applied force adds to the length of the orbit.
Displacement of a body in space adds to the orbit length.
Orbital motion can be studied analytically as relative motion and be regarded as a balance between inertial motion and an attracting force, but these are mathematical devices and nature is not based on them. An orbit has to be considered in its entirety, because it is the orbit length, not its motion, that is absolute. An orbital system is a structure. It has size, and it has definition only as a whole system. There are no half structures in nature.
Geometry is conventionally static with distance metrical and absolute. This is the geometry to describe buildings and bridges. The structures are static, and so is their geometry.
But in structures assembled on motion, distanceis interdependent of velocity and time. Orbital systems, therefore, are more appropriately described by kinematic geometry. In this geometry distance, velocity, and time are interrelated by d = vt. Force, which in dynamics produces acceleration in relative motion (F = ma), in kinematics translates directly to structure as a displacement span added to the orbit, or F = ml.
Kinematic geometry then makes rational a common phenomenon that has challenged philosophers and scientists throughout history. Why does a propelled object continue to move on a path after its propelling force is removed? In other words, why are we able to throw things?
Why, for instance, is a batter able to strike a baseball and send it sailing out into center field. On close examination we discover that current physics simply does not account for this phenomenon in real terms.
The concept of inertial motion dates from the seventeenth century. Until then it was believed that force was necessary for sustained motion. In his studies of trajectories and falling objects Galileo concluded that motion was a state like being at rest, and it was the change of motion that has to be accounted for. Newton then used inertial motion and gravity as a force of attraction to describe the orbital motions of the moon and planets. Einstein in his general theory dispensed with gravity as a force and curved space-time, but he kept Newton's inertial motion.
Newton's worldview consisted of a cosmic image and objects falling due to gravity. What Newton saw in the orchard, therefore, was an apple being pulled to the earth by the attraction of the greater mass. If, however, we think of the earth as a point mass, as Newton had to do for his calculations, the apple would have behaved quite differently.
When the apple dropped from the tree it would not have been stopped in its fall. It would have continued to fall at an ever increasing rate, zoomed past the earth-point at an enormous velocity, continued in its flight on the other side, decelerating as it goes, then stopping momentarily only to fall back again to complete an extremely elongated orbit and return to the tree with no net gain or loss in energy. What Newton saw was only a small slit of this much larger action. The reason the apple fell to the earth was simply because the earth bulged out and got in the way.
When an object is thrown, therefore, it does not take on a continuous endless inertial motion. Any object released in space goes into an orbit, or what can be described as potentially an orbit. Any dropped object begins an orbit, and any motion added to it becomes a part of the orbit length. A thrown object adds the length of forced motion across its elongated elliptical fall and widens it on one end. To us it looks like a continuous motion that could go straight if thrown hard enough, but that is a misimpression. No more motion is created or continued than the forced displacement and the spontaneous motion of the fall.
When a batter hits the baseball the ball is propelled against its inertia only for the instant of the hit and the distance it is accelerated. That equation is d = vt, or for the average velocity during acceleration: d = 1/2v2t. To translate this distance to the length it would add to an orbit it is the fraction of the orbital velocity of a circular orbit at that position in the gravitational field: d = v2t/2vo. That is the distance of motion given to the ball.
The baseball is propelled against its inertia only for an instant by the bat and then goes into what potentially would be an orbit. Because geometry is static, we think of distance as metrical and independent of velocity and time. But in kinematic geometry distance is interrelated with velocity and time by the classic equation, d = vt.
Kepler's second law states that for orbiting planets a line connecting the sun and planet sweeps out equal areas in equal times. In other words, in the kinematics of orbits where distances are related to the velocity and time, distances for equal areas are equivalent. Areas swept by an orbit are comparable because the distance covered is dependent on the velocity and time.
When the baseball is hit it gains a high velocity in a very short time and distance. That span becomes an arc of the ball's potential orbit. The ball then continues on its orbit, slowing down and taking longer. The distance it covers is considerably greater than when it was accelerated by the hit. Both distances, however, are equivalent by the equation d = vt. Our problem is that we think of the distance to center field in terms of static geometry, when in fact it is an arc that is equal in area swept to that when it was being propelled. As far as the ball is concerned, it is in orbit and nothing more is changing.
6. Why galaxies?
Galaxies are the units of the universe. These stupendous beacons of stellar masses are nearly as numerous as the billions of stars which compose them. As far as the emissions will carry, they are found alone or in groups - clusters, superclusters, long strings billions of light years long - suspended in space and moving in response to the ebbs and flows of the universe.
The origin and evolution of stars is fairly well understood. Apparently stars originate from huge clouds of gases and dust undergoing gravitational concentration. As the elements and dust compact the temperature rises until the thermonuclear fires ignite. Stars, therefore, fit into a narrow size range bracketed by aggregates too small to ignite and conglomerates so large that they are too unstable to persist. There is little reason to doubt this explanation. Galaxies, on the other hand, present a problem.
The initial question concerning galaxies is: Why galaxies? If stars form by the concentration of gases, why have they not formed independently of galaxies? To the contrary, they all seem to be within galaxies, and nowhere else. Apparently, almost all concentrations of matter is contained in galaxies with very little in the intergalactic space.
The current theory is that all energy was originally concentrated in a small volume and burst in the Big Bang from which galaxies spawned soon thereafter. The Big Bang is a rather simplistic concept that has been an obstruction to any rational explanation for the origin of the universe and all the matter in it.
Matter originated as particles and assembled hierarchically. A hierarchy has the resemblance of a step-pyramid in which the number of units comprising a stage in ascending progressively decreases. Each stage of the hierarchy is made up of units of matter which underwent concentration until they collectively formed a new unit of the next higher stage. Concentration, then, is an essential process in stepwise tier development of a hierarchy. It was probably a process that was as essential in the beginning as at any subsequent stage building.
Each tier of a hierarchy is formed from a concentration of units.
Size becomes an important parameter in assessing a hierarchy. There is an extremely large step from one tier to another. At the same time, there is an equally dramatic reduction in the number of units in ascending from one tier to another.
The current theory calls for galaxies to have formed the same way as stars. These huge bodies are believed to have come into being from great clouds of light elements with the stars in them forming either simultaneously or in later evolution of the galaxies. Hydrogen, deuterium, and helium are presumed to have been synthesized in the singular Big Bang to fuel galaxy formation, while the heavier elements came later by enormous pressures and temperatures of exploding stars. Which seems odd because the synthesis would have been even more likely from the more favorable conditions of the Big Bang. It is apparent that cosmologists are trying to apply the information about star formation by reductionism to the formation of galaxies, but in evolution two identical processes seldom follow.
There was no Big Bang. It is a concept that did not originate from scientific rationalism and is being perpetuated by deliberate interpretations of data to support it, instead of viewing each new information that comes in more rationally.
It is more likely that galaxies themselves are the cauldrons of particle synthesis and did not come about the way stars did. One assumption made by proponents of the Big Bang, because it fits their theory, is that the galaxies formed close to the same time But there is no basis for this assumption. Galaxies can be seen in various stages of evolution like the stars, and it is from this that their mode of rotation is determined. What is significant is that they don't rotate like bodies formed from a collapsing cloud.
When a rotating cloud collapses the spin of the inner portions accelerates faster than the parts farther out. Galaxies, on the other hand, rotate like a wheel. All parts turn at the same rate. This is characteristic of the swirling effect of something being spun out from a rapidly rotating center like a pin-wheel.. In this case the material moves outward while maintaining the same angular momentum. Galaxies appear to have been the precursor of matter swirling rapidly and slinging out matter as it condensed, leaving in its wake the concentration and ignition of stars.
Galaxies are the cauldrons in which matter forms.
Galaxies would have been spawned from the primal gel. Transmissions through the gel are electromagnetism. We have then to imagine that in some way these motions concentrated in great swirling vortices so concentrated that particles of matter condensed in stupendous numbers and were slung out to give birth to the material world."


I look forward to comments and contrary views.
Al

ohwilleke

My overall impression is, so what?

Physics is an experimental science. It is an effort to determine how the world works. If it takes four forces or forty to explain it, so be it. If you can find an explanation that explains the phenomena better (as Quantum Electrodynamics did for the field theory of electromagnetism), wonderful. But, it is not the physicists' task to determine "why" the laws of nature are what they are, only to discern what they are.

This supposedly revolutionary theory doesn't appear to make any testable predictions that can be compared against the standard model. If the accepted Newtonian laws of physics as modified by the theories of relativity and quantum mechanics are wrong, then where are the experiments to show that these laws are failing to predict real life phenomena accurately. And, if this theory predicts the same things as the existing models, then the difference is only a matter of semantics.

ohwilleke

This is a 3.65% of measured value difference.

alek0

Care to explain how can I design a Bragg mirror based on his theory of light propagation? Matrix approach based on Fresnel coefficients works just fine, though.

BigAl71350

Basic Math 186,282 divded by 193,088 equals .0964751823.... Care to explain specifically what about Day's theory of the propagation of light makes it impossible to design a Bragg mirror? Define your terms. Matrix approach based on Fresnel coefficients is irrevelant.

As to Mr. So what Mr Day answers:

The material world consists of three fundamentals: matter, motion, and order. Motion became the subject of physics, order the subject of mathematics, and matter, which must have structural order, remained largely empirical. The progression of science throughout history has been to integrate these three factors into a single comprehensive theory.


In Greek science physics and mathematics were separate. Aristotle developed a non-mathematical physics for motion where everything moved relative to the earth, and astronomy was devoted to bringing the celestial motions into mathematical order. There was no theory for the structure of matter.


Galileo's crowning achievement 1,500 years later was to bring motion and mathematics together. In his studies with falling objects and inclined planes he discovered that things in motion followed mathematical rules. Once it was realized that motion could be mathematized the goal of naturalists was to bring the orbital order of the Copernican system into the scope of mathematics. Newton devised a workable scheme for turning orbits into perpetual falls by transforming Galileo's motion as a state to inertial motion and adding gravity as a force of attraction acting at a distance across space.


Dynamics became mathematical physics. It was a method of defining kinematic order by precise mathematics. The procedure, however, has not been able to fully integrate structure. It remains a physics of motion, and any order or structure has been regarded as a result of a fortuitous balance of forces (dynamic equilibrium).


The problem is the way motion has been explained by dynamics. Motion, in Newtonian physics, is not something that is an innate part of the creation of matter. It is a property of matter that is instilled in it by an external force. There is no interaction of an object with its space environment that causes movement and shapes the course of its path. Space is an unreactive void and objects are discrete bodies moving through it by whatever motion they have been given.


The energy concept was the final obstacle that prevented a full integration. When motion was tied to mass as momentum, it became irrevocably excluded as the creating feature of structure. Physicists concentrated on defining everything in terms of energy and reaped the benefits of its application to technology. Matter, however, is not structured on energy, it is structured on motion.

A New Worldview

Nature is organized on simple mathematical order. From our perspective that order often appears complex, as does the seemingly erratic movement of the planets. In order to determine the natural order we have to convert the complex order to the objective order by corrections. Or to be more correct, we have to imagine some simple order which from our perspective shows the complex order that we witness. That is what Copernicus did.


If we make corrections for conditions that skew our image of the order from its objective order, such as corrections for the time delay by light's transmission, then the corrections are valid. If, on the other hand, we invent conditions, such as implied variances, simply to make the description of the motions accurate, then we have a problem. The added conditions can give a practical answer to the problem of correction, but they are not conditions from nature. They are contrived, like having glasses to make right the skewed image of a carnival mirror.


This is what the Greeks did for the motion of the planets. They did not foresee the simple order underlying the planets' erratic behavior. Instead, they kept the image from our perspective and devised a model of circles and epicycles to account for them.


Einstein did the same thing with the time delay of light's transmission. He did not make a theory built from the objective order in nature, he devised equations with added devices, his relativistic effects, to describe the motions as seen from our perspective. It is a procedure for making an accurate description of what we see and measure, but it uses conditions that do not exist in reality. Relativistic effects are no more a part of nature than the circles and epicycles of the Greeks.


Einstein in modern physics played the role of Eudoxos and Ptolemy of antiquity. He did not make the revolutionary advance of an Aristarchos or a Copernicus. Instead of defining natural order on nature's terms, he described the complex order seen from our perspective by whatever means to make the equations accurate and predictive. He continued a physics founded on the Galilean-Newtonian worldview that explains all things from a dynamic image of reality.


The seventeenth century founders of our physics saw the world as discrete bodies moving relative to each other in a space void. There was no sense of the non-material side of reality, no experiments demonstrating light waves and fields in space. We now know they exist. For physics to be complete it must include the non-material with the material in a comprehensive theory. The dynamics developed from the Galilean-Newtonian worldview is inappropriate for the task.


The shattering of the celestial spheres left the moon and planets without support or cause for motion. Newton replaced the cause with Galileo's endless motion and his abstract force acting at a distance in a space void. The support was replaced by a fortunate balance. Neither of these questionable conditions is necessary, however, when the void is discarded for a space of fields in a non-material medium. The support of objects in space becomes the space environments themselves.


When Copernicus moved the center of cosmic order it was a question of position. It now seems obvious that there was no scientific reason to believe that we are at the center of the universe. A reorientation of cosmic order required a change in the parameters responsible for it. That is what occurred three hundred years ago when Aristotle's physics was replaced by Galilean relativity and Newtonian dynamics.


The Copernican revolution occurred because the mathematics to describe the Ptolemaic system became so complex and redundant that it was no longer realistic. It was apparent that it no longer reflected the true order of nature, but rather a distorted image of it as seen from our perspective. Our conception of the natural order had to be detached from our perception and new conditions imagined that would have formed it. That reorientation took parameters of a new physics.


The same problem exists in current physics, not of position but of composition. Like Copernicus recognizing a simpler order because the orientation was wrong, we need to recognize a simpler structural order because the composition is wrong. Matter is not a skeletal frame of components moving relative to each other in an empty and unreactive void. It is composed of structural arrangements of matter formed in a non-material universal medium in a self-creative way from responding to a field environment.


There is a medium. We simply don't experience it directly. Unlike light, we are detached from it. Our contact with it is through our gravitational field. That field suspends us in the medium and offers resistance to displacement. Since fields weaken the tension of the medium they retard the velocity of light and the equilibration of fields in it. The combination of the impulse to remain centered and the slowing of field equilibration is responsible for the spontaneous motion of objects in space. The medium, therefore, does not affect us directly but is nevertheless the fundamental cause of motion of objects in space and the organizing principle upon which the kinematic structures of matter formed.


Including the non-material side of reality shifts the parameters for motion off of those of dynamics as completely as reorienting of position shifted Newtonian physics off of Aristotelianism. It dispenses with inertial motion, the force concept, and space as a void. All motion becomes closed and structural. Structures form directly from motions in the medium, are kinematic, and are absolute.


When we see objects move we see them move relative to each other. We cannot see the space environment but we mentally create it as a background to complete the image. That space is the space of Newtonian physics. Because there is no apparent resistance to bodies moving in that space this was the basis to the impression that space is simply a void. That space, however, doesn't exist. It is a cerebral creation.


The space that exists consists of gravitational fields generated in the universal medium by the structural motions of matter. Because it is invisible we do not perceive it, nor do we see its variations in intensity and shape around material bodies. It is these non-uniformities, however, that are responsible for the motion of bodies in space as they glide along the contours, freely and spontaneously, to remain centered in their space environments.

Why it is important.

It isn't our perception but our conception of reality that needs to be changed. Our mental image is the frame in which we sketch our theories. Copernicus did not change the way we see the world, only the way we know it to be. We still think of the earth as being stationary, of the sun as rising and falling. But the heliocentric image of the world more correctly described the natural condition and shifted thinking to a more creative form of physics.


A physics based on the new worldview is on a firmer foundation than that of dynamics. It gives new insights and interpretations more consistent than have been possible by the current physics. The theories of the structure of matter, the basis of its hierarchy, and the origin of the universe, when reexamined from the perspective of the pre-material medium open up theoretical physics to excitingly new vistas.






Contact Us | The Secular Web
Copyright © Internet Infidels 1995-2002. All rights reserved.