Saturday, 13 April 2013

Answers to questions about my book part 1

I recieved some questions regarding my book and my theory and so I am posting them here.

Hello alan. let me just start by asking that the photon field expansion that u speak of causing black holes in spaces (nothing), have u ever taken or considered relativistic phenomena that concerns with photons (those having a velocity that no object can physically reach)

Hi, First let me say that I appreciate your interest in my work. I am not fully satisfied with it and I believe I have a few typographical errors. It could be much better and I believe that if someone takes the time to fill in the missing parts that a good solid theory will develop: possibly a theory to change the face of science. I spent many years working on this theory that I know appears very simplistic. I have read a huge volume of books, theories and other sources.

I have of course considered relativity, string theories (so many of them) as well as multiple dimensions, alternate worlds and just about everything else. I have struggled thru some of the most complex theories to some of the most bizarre. I believe that the simplest explanation is usually the best.

To begin with please understand that one of my main points I am trying to make is that words and how scientists use them are the main problems with linking relativity with other theories such as quantum mechanics. Newton's second law of motion says Force is equal to Mass times Acceleration. It is represented by F = M x A. So if we say that if a mass of 1 kilo is lifted at 2 feet per second then it takes x amount of force. For the purposes of engineering this is a perfect formula that has good use.

Scientists then say that because it takes x amount of force to lift this 1 kilo 2 feet per second that we therefore have a “force” acting upon the mass. Scientists then applied this concept of force to everything. For the most part it serves well. There is a major problem with using the term force. If we are studying physics, especially gravity then we have to look at things without including human interaction. Put simply, the kilo of mass is not going to move unless it enters into a state of disequilibrium.  Notice I didn’t use the word force as Newton would have.

We can easily link every scientific theory together in terms of equilibrium, disequilibrium and transitory states between the two. We can link gravity with the strong, weak and electromagnetic “forces” by simply stating that they are all merely different forms of equilibrium or disequilibrium. Working upon this we look at gravity as merely a form of dis/equilibrium. A rock lying on the Earth is in a state of equilibrium. A mass falling towards Earth is in a state of disequilibrium until it lands into a state of equilibrium.

If we theorize the concept of a black hole in terms of “gravitational force” we end up unable to really explain the possibility of such a phenomenon unless we start theorizing other more complex states or theories. If however we look at a hypothetical black hole as merely a form of equilibrium or disequilibrium then the concept can be understood so much better.

If we read a theory that postulates an “infinite” mass (with infinite gravity) then we end up with nothing but paradoxes. A mass with infinite gravity would be a mass that would have to be infinite in size. It is a common hypothesis that I just dismiss as being un-workable. It just doesn’t make sense. If we accept that while there are photons all around us and there are parts of the universe that have no photons then the idea of photons “falling” into this hole in space as some would say makes much more sense.

The Morley-Mitchelson experiment is the biggest reason for most current day views including relativity. What MM do not account for in their experiment is the fact that the photons that surround us are actually the “aether” that they were trying to detect. The photons around us have to be the Aether or medium that transmits “information” such as light and radio vibrations.

I could go into more detail but I am not sure what you want me to answer. Please try this for a while. Look up any theory that contains the term “force” and substitute force for equilibrium or disequilibrium depending on the case. Try to ignore theories that involve consciousness. Stick to looking at scientific theories that look at pure chemical and physical reactions or phenomena. Pretend life does not exist. Do not concern yourself with what an observer would see but rather what actually does happen. Einstein said he thought of relativity when he wondered what things would look like if he travelled at the speed of light. It is a very good question. The answer of course is that it is a hypothetical question to an impossible situation.

Einstein could never connect relativity with the other theories. To me it was simply because he was using the word force incorrectly and like MM he assumed that there was no Aether and failed to recognize that the photons around us are the Aether. 

I like your concept of equilibrium and disequilibrium, especially the way you have explained things with it. However my question was whether the disequilibrium in space (nothing) that you have pointed out, which you say might be the reason for the formation of this universe, do think the photon distribution that you speak of having gone on expand and has resulted in blackholes, requires a relativistic explanation as it concerns photon field and not the classical viewpoint of the field's expansion only? And I also have a thing to say about GUT after this

As far as any theory of how the universe formed I am going on the general agreement that the universe is expanding and supposedly came from an explosion of some sort. A big bang as they say. It is impossible to actually prove what exactly occurred because we always have the  “what happened before that” question. It is very possible that the universe expands, collapses and then smashes and expands again. We have the paradox of how can space end and yet how can it go on forever, hence the spear thrower analogy I have mentioned in the book.
I am not exactly sure what you are asking but I will make a guess. Einstein’s theories are based on things such as mass distorting space. Einstein assumes Morley Mitchelson was correct and that no Aether exists. If we take his theories and say that his concept of space is actually the photon field then we can appreciate his formulas more and they in fact make more sense. Instead of trying to visualize an empty space being distorted all we need to do is visualize that all of the photons that surround us are what gets distorted by mass.
If you look at the commonly known photo of a planet such as Earth or the Sun sitting on a rubber mat that has a grid on it you see that the grid is distorted supposedly because the mass distorts the “space” around it in the same manner. It is an excellent representation. If we assume that the distortion is of space and not of any aether or in my view the photon field then we have a huge number of paradoxes and inconsistencies that we are forced to answer. Einstein answered these of course with relativity and at the time the greatest minds objected but they couldn’t explain for MM experiment. Einstein was a very good mathematician but not the greatest one. In his theory of space being warped he forgot that you cannot divide by zero or nothing. You can only add to it. You cannot distort nothing.
Relativity says that nothing can travel faster than light. What this means is that disequilibrium cannot travel faster than the value c as we understand it to be. I say as we understand it to be because it is entirely possible that at the point of a big bang everything could have originally expanded at a rate faster than c. Expansion of the Universe would have been a simple matter of disequilibrium. It is no different from any other discussion on thermodynamics. Heat moves from a higher value to a lower one until a mean is achieved. In the same way a mass that is surrounded by “nothing” it is in a state of equilibrium within itself but in an extreme state of disequilibrium with its surroundings. At some point the mass expands to fill in the nothing. It expands according to the laws of thermodynamics. Are there relativistic phenomena during the expansion to a human viwer? Of course.
As the universe is expanding the laws of inertia would dictate. In other words the direction of travel outward would be maintained until some other factor came into play. Some say it expands and collapses while others say the expansion will go on until there is true heat death. For the purposes of your question I say that as the universe expands more and more mass turns into pure energy in the form of photons.  Understand I am leaving out stars “dissolving” into atoms etc but I am sure you can imagine the process. As the universe expands the density of the photon field remains pretty much constant as long as you have stars producing more photons that fill in the gaps as we say.
The distribution of stars will of course not be uniform throughout the universe. Because of this as the universe expands there will be areas where the photon field density is thinner than in other areas. We can therefore go on to assume that in some areas there will become spaces of such a low density of photons that any photons traveling into the area  become stuck there simply because they fill in a purely empty space to meet the laws of thermodynamics and equilibrium. Light waves would not penetrate this area but because of the pull of this empty space on its surroundings the effects that it has is equivalent in concept but much stronger than a huge mass. Light waves from distant objects would be distorted around it in the same manner as if it were a huge planet or mass.
There would be an accretion disc around the black holes because once matter or photons reached the edge of the “nothing” there would be at some point a balance between the expanding universe and the “nothing”. Keep in mind that in this area of space there is a condition in which stars are not present to fill in the gaps made by the expanding universe.
Do you understand the concept of oscillational essence that I have made in the book to replace time as a fourth dimension? I think that the debate between classical and relativistic is a debate that came into existence because of the results of the Morley-Mitchelson experiment that failed to understand that the photons that surround us are in fact the Aether or medium that transmits disequilibrium in the form of radio and light waves. Einstien’s concepts of space just need to be replaced with the concept of a photon field “aether” and then it is so much easier to understand what is really going on and how relativity applies to classical explanations.