Einstein's Laws?

I'm not sure the first law should be credited to Einstein. It doesn't really say anything differently from Newton the way its worded above. F=MA and things in motion tend to stay in motion unless acted on by a force.

The Second Law seems like it should be the first law. This law for me was the one that produced the "Ok....wait, that can't be right" moment when I first heard it.

The third law seems reasonable, captures the whole "rest mass" thing.

For a Forth Law I might have gone with "gravity is a curvature of space" or something about Energy curving space. That also struck me as the ultimate point of relativity. Other than that and law 2 and 3, everything else seems to be consequences.

Jorrie, I expect corrections (when you have time) since I know for a fact I'm on thin ice for a bunch of my statements above.

I have no objection to rename the 4 Einstein's propositions. But not as "laws".

I would either rename Newton's one.

What we do, is observe and measure the universe. Our measurements are then compressed in a mathematical form: we just modelise. This model has a domain which is generally larger than what we have measured.

When this model is recognize by most of the scientists ( and this allways happen because old scientists die before the young ones) we move from a theory to a recognized model: not a law.

What do you think?

Simply put you are reading the wrong meaning into the word "law". It is an archaic term applied in that way. (And "we as physicysts" should understand that) Strictly speaking, the modern scientific method assumes we can never "prove" something, rather, we can only fail to disprove it. Former scientific methodology/philosophy assumed that theories could be proved ...... for all time, in all circumstances.

That is why all current "theories" remain named as such even though very many of them including the "theory of relativity", "the theory of evolution", etc etc would, in earlier times been accepted as "laws". Scientists are constantly coming up with new ways to test the theory of relativity, and so far it has always passed. But it is understood that tomorrow a test may be devised or data may appear that contradicts it in some previously untested area.

The more a theory is tested and not disproved, the "stronger" it becomes ... but we never call it a law. "Theories" that include other "theories" are often referred to as "models".

By today's logic, it would have been "Newton's Theories of Motion" or "The Theory of Conservation of Mass" etc.

If "we" were really physicists we would not be asking this question, and if it originated with a physicist then shame on him.

Let us not go backwards. There is enough bad science in the world already.

Laws...? My read of history is that toward the end of the 19th century science reached the ends - both ends - of it's yardstick. Scientists being human, and being employees, sought to justify their keep and perhaps add some to it. Hence we entered the age of theoretical physics. It's happened before.

If gravity is the Law, why are there no tides in the atmosphere? And don't get me started on spectroscopy.

It's not about law it's about making money.

Bob

Your reading of history is bizzare to say the least.

Since we have yet to fully understand gravity or find the graviton (the postulated mediator of the force) it is often referred to as Gravitational Theory. But Bob, no tides in the atmosphere? Are you joking? (If you are, you have succeeded) Next you will tell me there are no tides in the land.

In reality of course there are very measurable tides in the land and the atmosphere .... but then its all about money I guess.

Tides are caused by both the mass of the moon and its gravity. That is why high tides occur simultaneously on opposite sides of the earth. You see Bob, the moon doesn't go around the earth in strict terms (at least not the center of the earth). The earth and the moon both revolve about the center of mass of the earth/moon system and this is thousands of miles from the earth's center, on the side facing the moon.

http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/sci/A0859764.html

...earth and the moon both revolve about the center of mass of the earth/moon system...

Which is still dynamically evolving and subject to surrounding gravity fields, in their still-evolving dynamics. The whole universe is a Russian-doll of tides. Light-Shift of revolving galaxies show stretching.

There are tides in the atmosphere. It's just that they aren't obvious because of other relative sizes of the effects (mainly due to the expansion properties of gases).

The First Law: Darkness cannot smother light no matter how concentrated it is. Light can remove darkness anyhere it goes.

The Second Law: The speed of light is a billion trillion times faster then receiving your tax refund check.

The Third Law: The momemtum of p is directly proportional to the pressure on your bladder.

The Fourth Law: The force of gravity needs to be with you when you're traveling great distances.

Stand back there's a jenius at work!

Makes sense to me.

Happy New Year!

I don't mind, one way or the other, but if C in a constant - why in Law 2 is it necessary to qualify it as 'in a vacuum'. Does it mean that C has a different value for different observers if not in a vacuum?

horace40, you wrote: "...why in Law 2 is it necessary to qualify it as 'in a vacuum'. Does it mean that C has a different value for different observers if not in a vacuum?"

I think if it not qualified like that, it would mean c is constant, irrespective of the medium that it passes through, which it obviously cannot be. Since the speed of light in a medium depends on the medium's refractive index and the refractive index depends on the frequency of the light, light at different frequencies travels at different speeds through the same material.

AFAIK, light with a specific frequency travels at the same speed in a specific medium for all observers. I'm not sure if the observers must be 'inside the medium' or not!

Jorrie

They have to be in the same frame of reference as the medium.

Ouija board anyone?

Fyz

Fyz, you wrote w.r.t. the constancy of the speed of light through a medium, as observed by different observers: "They have to be in the same frame of reference as the medium".

Does this mean that if the wind blows over the experiment, the observed speed of light relative to a fixed point on Earth is not isotropic?

I know this is splitting hair, but it's a nice point to talk about!

Jorrie

Jorrie

I'm not quite certain what you are saying, but I'll try to clarify my statement.

In order for the speed of light as observed (without recalculations for movement of the medium effects) the observer and the medium need to share the frame of reference.

To be specific, if you take a material with a positive refractive index, the observed velocity of the light will in general have an added component that is in the apparent direction of movement of the medium. This would apply to the velocity of light in moving air, but the effect here becomes very small (because of the low refractive index)

A special case that has applications is the Sagnac effect as implemented for fibre-optic gyroscopes. There are other ways to interpret the basic effect, of course (e.g. Doppler on reflections), but you don't get the correct results unless you also consider the velocity in the material and transform appropriately.

Regards

Fyz

Fyz, thanks for the reply (on isotropy of light in moving air).

I agree that for air, with a near unity refraction index and the slow velocity of wind, the effect would be extremely small. I'm not knowledgeable on the effects and will study it a bit in due course.

Jorrie

Jorrie - .... the speed of light in a medium depends on the medium's refractive index...

Does 'vacuum of space' have a refractive index ?

This might cause the 'red-shift' rather than the Doppler effect.

As Jorrie hasn't got round to this, I'll have a go. First, my answer:
'Empty' space is the reference against which refractive indices are nominally measured, and the refractive index of 'empty' space is defined to be unity. (This begs plenty of questions about what I mean by 'empty' space, but it's clear enough for this purpose.)
The closer the refractive index of a medium is to unity, the smaller effect relative movement between the medium and the observer is predicted to give - and when the index is equal to unity, the effect becomes zero.
So it's not just empty space that has this problem - any medium with an effective refractive index of unity would give the same result. (N.B. until the advent of meta-materials, this would have been seen as a pointless statement - and it may still be)

Now, some additional comment:
A constant speed of light in vacuo ('c') as seen by any observer is one of the pillars of present-day physics - to the extent that c has its value defined, rather than being considered as a measurable value. Therefore, if c is not the same for all inertial observers, a large amount of present-day physical measurement falls apart.
Like all these things, there are always physicists in observatories and standards laboratories who check the correlation between theory and practice to the maximum accuracy of available tools. Suffice it to say that no problem has yet been identified where explanation with reference to a variable or non-homogeneous speed of light looks to be appropriate (that is not to say there aren't areas have not yet been modelled with good accuracy - just that attempts to use systematic variations in c to improve models have so far proved unfruitful).

Fyz

Replay to post 23

Thank for your question!

In my work (www.adslexpress.ro/soma), the vacuum of space is named "QuantField" (please see my replay to post 22), and its refractive index is calculated thus:

k_q=1-πα+α/2π =0.97842807(24) (6.13.4)

where α is the Sommerfeld's constant, and π=3.14.............

Hi horace40, your question on the refractive index of space has been efficiently answered by Fyz, so I will only comment on: "This might cause the 'red-shift' rather than the Doppler effect."

I'm not sure which redshift you refer to: local or cosmological?

Local redshift is caused by relative velocities and is well understood.

Cosmological redshift is not strictly caused by relative velocity, but rather by the stretching of space between observers and distant objects. The objects may be stationary relative to the universe at large and still sport significant cosmological redshifts.

The observed redshift normally includes components of both types; at 'small' distances like tens of millions of light-years, velocity redshift (from so-called peculiar velocities) dominates the observed redshift, which is distance dependant. At hundred of millions of light-years, the cosmological redshift starts to dominate.

So, IMO, redshift is not influenced by the refractive index of empty space.

Jorrie

Replay to posts 23(continuance), 24, 28 and 29

About may replay(1) of post 23: the refractive index k_q=1-πα+α/2π =0.97842807(24), is the unified spinoid refraction factor of the QF toward the mobile electrons, but not for photons.

In my work (5.2. Neutrons in the DAC model), the following statement exists:

"The completely formed neutron has the structure of a kinetic cluster in which cuantoms move at the same average speed (r_nω_n) in a perfectly symmetric layer, of an r_n radius, called a spherical globular membrane.

Each crash with the free incidental cuantoms causes an excitation-relaxation cycle to the neutron, between two energetic layers, mutually separated by the exchange energy m_cc² = ĥ. The globular membrane executes n_n excitation-relaxation cycles per time unit".

But experimentally, we all established that the Neutron placed distant from atomic nucleus, it is unstable, i.e. it desintegrates itself (during approximately 3 seconds), becoming one or multiple photon.

The cap.5.3. Photon Radiation , informs us:

The gravitationally accelerated neutron to the c speed (in a fix reference) behaves as an extrahard photon…Photons are structures resembling the neutron, meaning they are globular membranes that vibrate, simultaneously with the spins around its three mutually perpendicular axises.

By attributing a unitary value to the coefficient of interception (to the opacity) neutron-free cuantoms of QF, Ø_n =1, the photon- QF coefficients of interception are subunitary and vary according to the frequency

Ø_γ =1-v_γ/v_n=1-λ_n/λ_γ=1-r_n/r_γ=1-n_γ/n_n=1-m_γ/m_n <1 [5.3.1]

At photons, parts of the free cuantoms go through the cluster without meeting the inner cuantoms…

By applying the DAC model to the photon, we have the following characteristics in the both its complementary existence zones:

C_z-Corpuscular Zone ( Kinetic Cluster):

m_γ= m_n(1- Ø_γ) [5.3.3]

n_γ = m_n(1- Ø_γ)/m_c [5.3.4]

r_γ = r_n/(1- Ø_γ) [5.3.5]

E_γ =n_nm_cc_c²/α ²(1- Ø_γ)= n_n ĥ/(1- Ø_γ) [5.3.6]

P_γ = ĥc_c(1- Ø_γ)/2πr_γ [5.3.7]

U_z-Undulatory Zone ( Kinetic Medium):

v_γ = c_c(1- Ø_γ)/2πr_n [5.3.8]

λ_γ = c/v_n(1- Ø_γ) [5.3.9]

E_γ = n_nm_cc²(1- Ø_γ)= hv_n(1- Ø_γ) [5.3.10]

P_γ = ĥv_n(1- Ø_γ) [5.3.11]

c_s- Cohesive Stability (QF-GF):

(m_cc_c²/(λ_γ/2π))λ_c=k_s(5/2)(Gm_c²/πr_c²) (1-Ø)²λ_γ [5.3.12]

m_cc²/(1- Ø)²r_γ= n_γGm_c²/r_c² [5.3.13]

m_gc_c²/r_c³= n_γm_cc²/(1- Ø)³(4π/3)(λ_γ/2π)² [5.3.14]

where k_s= c/c_g =0.9997210778, is the Smithe's factor experimentally measured (please see my replay to post 13)

But Photon having a similar structure as the Neutron, it is similarly unstable, i.e. it dezintegtates itself continuously, with a constant shift to red.

This effect can't be a classic refraction!

To post 28:

"At small' distances like tens of millions of light-years, velocity redshift (from so-called peculiar velocities) dominates the observed redshift, which is distance dependant" (see post 28), is explained with a supplementary effect given by the "Einsten's effect".

To post 29: O.K, but reciprocally!

Iulian Somacescu

Iulian

Your brief reply to my post #28: ""At small' distances like tens of millions of light-years, velocity redshift (from so-called peculiar velocities) dominates the observed redshift, which is distance dependant" (see post 28), is explained with a supplementary effect given by the "Einsten's effect"." makes no sense to me.

I presume you are referring to "Einstein's effect", which is about gravitational redshift and does not explain cosmological and/or velocity redshift! Where do you see the connection?

BTW, like Greg (post #32), I'm also a little perturbed by what seems like a 'hi-jack' of this thread, which is about Einstein's laws, to peddle some theory of your own. This is fine in moderation, but if you want to do it seriously, open another thread, or much better, do so on the "alternative theory" blogs and physics forums.

Engineers generally have enough trouble trying to keep up with mainstream physics theory. We do not have time (or the insight) to really study and comment on somebody else's variation to mainstream physics.

Regards,

Jorrie

Replay to post 33

Jorrie

Question: I presume you are referring to "Einstein's effect", which is about gravitational redshift and does not explain cosmological and/or velocity redshift! Where do you see the connection?

Answer: Between "Einstein's effect" and cosmological redshift is no connection, because the cosmological redshift is not "velocity redshift", but "dezintegration redshift" according to the global unified theory presented and demonstrated in my work.

Light photon having a similar structure as neutron (but more transparent/mellow), outside of matter is unstable, like to the neutron. After its expulsion from star, the light photon begins to dezintegrate constant in time, up to stage of basic photon, i.e. "Wilson and Penzias photon". When it knock of matter either is reflected or is absorbed being recomposed as caloric photon.

Example is light from Sun, which 40% is reflected and 60% is absorbed by matter of Earth (at an average albedo of 0.4, with a solar constant of 1.36 x 10³J.m^-2.s^-1).

In quantities, throughout a year, the absorbed energy by the tri-mode cluster (Earth together the biosphere - a solid material cluster, surrounded by two other kinetic/fluid clusters: water and atmosphere), is in average equal 3.28 x 10²⁵ J.

From the point of view of energy absorption, Earth is like an animal on a grill with an equivalent burning power equal approximately to 2x10¹⁷ J.s^-1.

The temperature of Earth's atmosphere can remain constant on average, if during a year the tri-mode cluster radiates and uses, as mechanic work or other process consumptions (photosynthesis, photochemistry, photobiology, photoelectricity, etc.), a cumulated energy equal to 3.28 x 10²⁵ J.

The dezintegration shift has been observed by Slipher in the 1912 year, Hubble, Humason, Mayall and Sandage between 1929 and 1958 years, Adam in 1948 and Brunn in 1950 year.

In the 1948 year, Miss Adam has measured a relative velocity/gravitational redshift of 2x10^-6 at photons arrived on Earth from Sun.

A concentrated mass in a single point can't act gravitationally on the photons. Because stars and Sun have big dimensions atransversal to the photon's path, a little gravitation act on photon as proiective transversal gravity (please see e-book's reference [5]: Somacescu I., Corpuscular-Undulatory Theory on Gravitation and Electricity, Physics and Chemical Bulletin, XII-XIII, 138 , 1988/1989, where the Global Unified Theory confirms quantitatively all relativistic effects).

We can name Einstein's effect a "gravitational refraction", because it act on velocity of the photon, but a refraction variabil with distance, not classic refraction.

Regards,

Iulian Somacescu

__________________
God given the Nature to the Man, but its laws He let to be found by Man for survival, if he merits!

About the 1,2 and 4 proposed "Laws": the observation in which is implicated a direct Observer can logically be only "observation", not a Law of the nature!

About the 3 "Law": any momentum p is expressed by the three physics dimensions: kg.m.s^-1, where kg expresses the mobile mass. The idea that the Photon has the momentum expressed only by two dimensions (m.s^-1), can be only a strange speculation, not a Law of the Nature (please see www.adslexpress.ro/soma).

Iulian Somacescu

The only problem is that you've omitted the constants of multiplication that occur in the accepted laws of nature. Once you omit the dimensions of fundamental constants, you can apparently express almost anything in almost any dimensions. For example:

Photon momentum = h/lambda
dimensions apparently 1/m, but actually kg.m/s

Photon momentum = h/c*frequency
dimensions apparently s, but again kg.m/s

This is not to say that the laws of nature as presently understood are perfect (hopefully, there will be refinements as we learn more), only that this attack is not valid.

He seems to add, remove or modify to his own purposes dimensions to form his "supernatural mechanical" (my words) "model".

We have seen many hypotheses based on "mechanical" or quasi- mechanical "models" involving vibrations and/or resonance. They are not without at least some attractiveness to our yearning for simplicity and understanding but so far at least are way "out there".

I think his last few sentences sum up where he is coming from (Newton, his earliest cited source wrote at some length of his philosophies, including alchemy and the supernatural so I suspect this is where he got some his original ideas.)

I quote:

"As long as the GF is eternal, so will be the superior levels of the matter, born from it.

Ephemeral seem to be only the individual material structures organised at the super-atomic level, whose stability is conditioned by the evolution of the equilibrium between the movement energy, accumulated in the cluster nodes of the cell, on the one hand, an the density of thermal energy of a kinetic cloud formed of photon-atom, on the other.

The DAC model used as instrument for the research of nativity and death of the live structures and their kinetic waves, may lead off bewitching expectations for the comprehension and protection of the life on our Planet.

It is in fact the main punt of this work."

(Bold & underline were added)

Not science as we presently understand it, for sure.

Repay to 17

The value of my work consists in the new physical results (prior experimentally rigorously validatred): over 50 new unified equations, over 150 new unified concepts, not in the end part with some philosophycal preliminary considerations.

We all know that any speculation on insignificant collateral expresion can't cancel the patent results.

Iulian Somacescu

Replay to 14

Thank for you intervention!
But we all know that Planck's constant h, has the three phisics dimensions:

kg.m².s^-1 . Please try to remake your argument, but with rigour phisics.

You will find that I have right.

h/lambda => (kg.m^2/s)/m = kg.m/s as I stated.

Hopefully, you will now do the second one for yourself.

Replay to post 22

O.K. Now you can remember that Planck's constant has always (in any equations) only the three elementary phisics dimensions: Kg.m².s^-1. Your expressions 1/m, or s, are only strange unsubstantial speculations. Without physics dimensions we can't speak about logical physics.

In my engineer method, for each physics entity (greatness, constant, etc.),
a set of elementary physics dimensions is attributed.

The above three phisics dimensions inform us that behind Planck's constant exist a mass m (Kg) at a speed c (m².s^-2) and an oscillation/vibration period (s) normalized at the conventional time unit (second).

It results immediately an elementary quantum particle with m mass (named "Cuantom" in my work), and an elementary energy quantum ĥ=mc² expressed by Joules (ĥ with circumflex, distinct of h, as physiscs dimensions ).

The ĥ energy is not a "mechanical energy", i.e. a "body energy", but it is a kinetic energy inner a superfluid kinetic medium named "QuantumField-QF" in my work, i.e. the place for all quantum phenomena.

Please keep it polite. Especially as you should know perfectly well that I had the dimensions correct in the first place

You say that the "expressions 1/m, or s, are only strange unsubstantial speculations". Are you saying that the idea that light has wavelength (or alternatively frequency) is a "strange unsubstantial speculation"? Or is it that the problem is with the unit of wavelength being in metres (or frequency being in 1/s)? Please answer in terms of physics that Einstein would have recognised so I can understand (also because it is the theme of this thread).

Replay to post 1 and 38

Dear Jorrie,

I congratulate you for the idea to define several laws from Einstein's very large and important scientific creations.

But Einstein's creation does not limitted at the four your disputable proposals.

We toghether, must to do a comprehesive list with proposals (up to a dead line which will be established by the team Jorrie - Greg).

Each participant shall have right to propose any motivated Eistein's law.

After dead line, and after elimination the repetitions, the list shall be considered as "complete" by Jorrie and shall be presented such as "List for analysis".

From that stage, it will be lucrative to begin dialogues pro and contra, for each item of the Analysis List.
As researcher & consultant engineer in the terrestrial and spatial radiocommunications, I am very busy and do have not time for collateral or insignificant debates like that are proposed in the post 38 (with all my respect!).

Best Regards,

Iulian Somacescu

In reply to post 12

I read your manuscript/paper. It is a compendium of accepted "facts", famous names in science over the past several centuries, algebraic manipulations, new terms that you yourself coined and some "odd" concepts.

ie:"

• Living cells were born from clusters of molecular structures.
• Organs and Living Systems, hard and soft psycho-senzorial systems were born from clusters of living cells, in specific kinetic media.
• Gravity is the attraction between a cuantom, on the one hand, and any other one, on the other hand, caused by the kinetic pressure from the GF into the translation movement layer."

You state in an earlier section that the GF corpuscle has velocity slightly higher than the speed of light, if I am understanding you correctly. That may conflict with your early disclaimer that your "theory" does not contradict any current discoveries or knowledge and you offer no evidence to support that it exceeds "c". (I'm not saying it couldn't, just that it seems pure conjecture ... which is fine as far as it goes but means little.

The fact that you rely so much on your own work and work done many years or even centuries ago does not bode well.

Bottom line:

An interesting hypothesis for a "Theory of Unification", but not a single prediction that can be tested so what are we to think of it? If you want it to be taken seriously, that would be a big step in that direction. Without a means of testing it will remain in the domain of hypotheses rather than theory. You cleverly avoid any means of outright disproving it, which of course would remove it from even being a hypothesis. So ... Peddle it somewhere else please!

Replay to post 13

Happy New Year to all!

Thank you very much for comment about my work.

But you avoid any reference to very precise comment about interesting proposal which you submitted now in debate, and thereupon I am understanding that my comment is the one correct.

It seems too simple? I am waiting to be contradicted by somebody!

About my work (Global Unified Physics Interactions and Particles): your comment seems to be not enough fair play, using expression as "algebraic manipulations" without at least one exemple, or citation of three new isolated terms from end of work (among over 100), without their prior explanation existing in the work.

You abstracted the abbreviation "GF", and "Cuantom", without the prior explanations: "Gravitational Field (GravField-GF) = Superfluid kinetic medium populated by gravitons (as primary indivisible matterial particle) at speed c_g>c , which transmits gravitation, where c/c_g =0.9997210778, is the constant measured by the Smithe, which allows the conversion the chemical masses (at quantum speed c), to the physical masses (at speed c_g)"; "Elementary quantum particle, named Cuantom = Superfluid kinetic cluster composed of gravitons at speed c_c=αc=2.18769126332x10⁶ m.s^-1, having the mass m_c=ĥ/c²= 7.37249639)x10^-51 kg; α is the Sommerfeld constant", and "Energy of the cuantom, ĥ (with circumflex)=m_cc²= 6.6260693(11)x10^-34 J".

With an engineering method, instead of stating a hypothetic function and then look for experimental points to confirm it, we go the inverse way: we place on the board all our known experimental points, then look for one or more functions/ecuations that could satisfy all of them simultaneously, in a global unifying system.

Applied a such method I have obtained more than 50 new equations, and over 150 new physical constants, integrated in a global, unifying system, able to explain, in both quantity and quality, some physical phenomenon met in nature, such as: gravity, inertia, relativity effects, quantic effects, electricity and magnetism, strong nuclear forces and weak electro forces, photonic radiations/light, heat, subatomic particles, the birth of the Universe, the progressive heating of Earth's surface, etc.

With engineering method, all new results are priori experimentally validated.

Now I try to do a CD with an animation film for a very easy undestanding of new phisics concepts, equations and results.

Thank you very much for your suggestions.

Iulian Somacescu

And a Happy New Year to you Iulian!

The problems I had with your referenced "work" was that you mix standard current definitions with definitions from the past and your own definitions, redefining the current definitions in the process.

Further you pick and choose the experimental points you use, going hundreds of years back in some cases, in your so called "engineering method" then proceed to setup an internally logical framework which, as I said earlier conveniently circumvents any straightfoward way to test it (at least within my limited ability). The key words are "internally logical". Not to imply in any way you are mad, but the unsettling thing in talking to those who are, is that they can be so logical within their own framework.

The original post here regarded a "scientific" issue, and by and large has been treated that way. Politics and mindset inertia of the scientific community aside, the scientific method is rigorous in what it accepts as a viable theory. It must be "verifiable" in some way initially. There are presently many, many versions/variations of string and membrane "theory" (the loose definition of the word because while they like your work meet the internally logical threshold, none have been verified externally in the smallest way as yet, let alone tested over time.) While Einstein was involved in some engineering (his patent on a version of absorptive refrigeration for one), we were discussing his scientific contributions and whether some wording of them should be called "laws". His work is constantly being tested, as we speak.

In other words you can't prove anything by your "method". You are employing a modern version of the interpretation of Aristotlean Logic which held back the advancement of science for many centuries. In the event anyone might not understand that reference: This interpretation of Aristotle stated more or less that things were as they seem, and couldn't be anything else, so it was therefore pointless to search for "hidden" causation. The classic example was rotting flesh always soon contains maggots, therefore maggots emanate from rotting flesh as a natural consequence of decay (and it couldn't be otherwise).

Make at least one prediction based on your ideas that can be externally tested.

Regards,

Greg G

Replay (1) to post 21

Greg,

I show here from the outset, one from many experiments, which validate all new results presented in my work (www.adslexpress.ro/soma).

The phisics equation

E_γ = n_γĥ = hv_γ [2.6]

can be validated in the same Planck's experiment, where he measured both the radiation energy during one second E_γ (using a calorimetrical method and regarding 1 cal= 4π/3 Jouls; π=3.14...), and the frequency v_γ of the same radiation (using a spectrometer). He established that ratio between the two entities remains identical for diverse frequencies of radiation.

It is first interpretation of the obtained result, which has been expressed by Planck through h constant.

Other interpretation of the same experiment, may be the ratio between the radiation energy E_γ , and the number of oscillation periods n_γ during one second (mathematically equal to v_γ).

This interpretation is valid too, because the measurements have been performed on an oscillating process with frequencies, wavelengths and periods.

In this second interpretation the constant ĥ is an energy quantum during a single oscillating period, being identic for all radiations at different frequencies.

The same experiment validates the mass of the elementary quantum particle (named Cuantom in my work)

m_c = ĥ/c² = 7.37249639x10^-51 kg [2.8]

based on the Einstein's valide equation: energy=m c², given 5 years after Planck's measurements.
You see: here is nothing from Aristotelian philosophy.

Best Regards,

Iulian Somacescu

Iulian:

With all due respect, you have spent years of your life on this work of yours. I do not claim to understand it, and nor do I claim to understand all the fine points of currently accepted nuclear, quantum, or astro physics. I do not work in these fields, but then apparently, neither do you except to the extent that your own work impinges on them or is derived from earlier work in them.

The fact that some of your ideas parallel my own speculations notwithstanding, I will not engage in a point by point debate within a framework and set of definitions of your own making.

My criticisms have for the most part been confined to your overall methodology which to my understanding relies heavily on variations of circular reasoning, which is what I meant by my reference to a form of Aristolelian logic.

That you present your work in this forum, rather than the professional scientific forums of people actively involved in the fields, and rely so heavily on citing your own earlier works and only on work done by others typically decades or more ago rather than current work by others is cause for concern as to the validity of your claims. Further that you are attempting to tie your work in to explaining some "life" force or after-life phenomena, while intellectually interesting, puts it outside the realm of most (but not all) current scientific inquiry even though I am well aware of the speculated upon connections between living systems and "oscillations" or "resonances" and possible likenesses to the so called Josephson effect (and others) in or amongst living cells.

Consequently, I absolutely cannot rule out the possibility that you may be "right" or at least "on to something". But, I am asking that you attempt to offer some means of validation other than previously done "work" by yourself, and selecting among work done by others that happens to support you or enables you to incorporate it.

Can you explain, using your work, some phenomena that is currently unexplained by scientists at large, in a way that would enable predictions to be made, in say for instance superconductivity? Can you explain why your work has been for all intents and purposes, basically ignored by mainstream science over the time you first started developing it, until and including the present? (And I understand something of the politics and inertia of the scientific community.)

The test of a valid "theory" is its very ability to be tested, rather than its ablilty to explain only past and even present observations in a some way. History is replete with internally consistent "theories" that explained observed phenomena but crumbled to dust when actually tested. (The "Phlogiston Theory" leaps to mind.)

Once again: Can your work or equations be used to make any (new) predictions which may be tested experimentally or observationally?

Regards,

Greg

Replay to post 32

Greg,

1-Your Question: I am asking that you attempt to offer some means of validation other than previously done "work" by yourself, and selecting among work done by others that happens to support you or enables you to incorporate it.

1- My Answer: Not. The classic research method means stating a hypothesis on the researched phenomenon, then performing numerous experiments, in order to prove that hypothesis valid (Lottery Method).

My method aims to the research of all quantity results obtained by scientists (through the lottery method), irrespective of time and place, and their integration in a coherent and unitary value system, according to the laws of nature, aprioristic validated through experiments, without making an appeal to various hypotheses (Engineer Method).

The two methods are not mutually exclusive, they are complementary. Chronologically speaking, the engineering method can only be used after the gathering of enough experimental data (i.e. a critical mass of them), obtainable only through the lottery method.

With the engineer method, instead of stating a hypothetic function and then look for experimental points to confirm it, we go the inverse way: we placed "on the board" all our known experimental points, then look for one or more functions/equations that could satisfy all of them simultaneously, in a global unifying system.

I have began from Planck's measurements.

He have "dug a tunnel with aim to find scientific gold, but at several cm distance run of gold", he shifted direction through h(J.s) constant, and millions of researchers have found to this day the "scientific gold" (i.e. answers to questions: wat is really the gravity, inertia, relativity effects, quantic effects, electricity and magnetism, strong nuclear forces and weak electro forces, photonic radiations/light, heat, subatomic particles, etc).

I have kept on Planck's initial direction, and through ĥ (J) constant, obtained more than 50 new equations, and over 150 new physical constants, all experimentally validated and integrated in a global, unifying system, able to explain, in both quantity and quality, all physical phenomenon met in nature.

In order for science to make a progress, we need to eliminate as fast as possible out of the collective mind, the confusion made between research (as a seeking with hypothesis and scenario) and science (as a real knowing with exact/engineering data).

There is a crucial difference between research and science.

Research is an activity based on hypotheses and scenarios, much like digging for gold or like playing the lottery. We all know that hypotheses and scenarios are, at best, uncertain solutions to an undetermined equation.

Science is most of all exact knowledge, with no hypotheses or scenarios.

Science in its essence is not research, but knowledge, only representing the exact result between the numerous results of research. It is the nugget found by only very few gold diggers – researchers; it is the winning lottery ticket for very few out of the millions lottery players.

Research is only the means to reach science. Out of millions of researchers, only a few get to be science makers in the end.

A society hungry for science has allowed to researchers to set up a very powerful network of censored publications, enterprises, closed organizations and research institutes, which absorb huge pieces of the public funding, under the ambiguous name of "scientific -publications, -enterprises, -organizations and -institutes". The so called scientific literature is actually a literature of research, abundant in hypotheses and scenarios, one stranger that the next (see the "Big Bang" theories in cosmology, or the theories called "standard" in physics, etc.).

It is becoming more and more obvious that the time is here to instate self-regulating mechanisms of the market economy, for the development of science. It is necessary to start financing research activities through bank credits that can be reimbursed from results. Only results that can add new knowledge, accurate knowledge (without hypotheses) should be paid for from public money, as newly created science.

All the conditions are met, to gradually make "research" become a genuine "investment" in the market economy, with all the risks and advantages taken by the investor.

2-Your Question: Can you explain, using your work, some phenomena that is currently unexplained by scientists at large, in a way that would enable predictions to be made, in say for instance superconductivity?

2- My Answer: Yes. My work explain with physics rigour, all phenomena that is currently unexplained by scientists at large, such as: gravity, inertia, relativity effects, quantic effects, electricity and magnetism, strong nuclear forces and weak electro forces, photonic radiations/light, heat, subatomic particles, the birth of the Universe, etc.

With respect to superconductivity, my work demonstrates and inform us that the medium dimension of the oscillating caloric photon is of 4.5444010(79) x10^-9 m

(the equation no. 8.5), that all free photons in nature dezintegrate themselves being finally absorbed by bodies in the stage of caloric photons of nanometre dimensions, and that all caloric photons become stable inner bodies, in structures of kinetic clusters (thermic cloud) around electrons.

Each mol of matter contain a number of electrons equal to Avogadro's number (Faraday's constant) and a number of caloric photons equal to electrons number, but for each K degree.

Superconductivity is given by the multi-mode resonanace of both electrons and caloric photons, on the one hand, and the rest nucleons, on the other hand.

My new phisics results are aprioristic validated. They do not need other experiments or acceptance from "mainstream science", i.e. other mainly successless researchers.

3-Your Question: Can you explain why your work has been for all intents and purposes, basically ignored by mainstream science over the time you first started developing it, until and including the present?

3- My Answer: The monopolizing of funding from guvernments, institutions and sponsors. First example: experiments on fusion.

After 45 years of costly Russian experiments with negative results, after just the recent Chinese experiment regarding the EAST reactor fusion, called "the artificial sun", where deuterium and tritium atoms fusioned for just 3 seconds, at 10 million Celsius degrees, obtained with high power lasers, the science managers in the European Union made public, the allocation of many billion Euros to European experiments on fusion.

In my work the importance of both simultaneous fields: gravity and thermal, is demonstrated.

An "artificial sun" needs, beside the Sun thermal field, a quasi-constant artificial gravity field, of about 330 m/s², equal to the one on the surface of the Sun.

Nobody has ever rigorously proven that they could generate at the surface of Earth an immense quantity of Hydrogen and keep it at million degree temperature, to put it in the fusion process, and simultaneous a gravitational acceleration field that could compare to the one in the Sun (30 times bigger than the gravity on Earth), under economical circumstances.

Other example: experiments on Big Bang Hypothesis.

In the word are keeping on very costly spatial experiments with aim to validate the famous Big Bang Hypothesis about birth of the Universe (experiments recompensed with 14 Nobel Prizes up to present). My work demonstrates rigurously that Hipothesis is a Big Speculation.

In order for a proton or another matter structure, with an m_ex mass, to be able to leave the periphery of the initial plasma, at the moment of the hypothetic explosion, surpassing the opponent gravity, it needed a launching speed, v_ex, thousands times bigger that the speed of light c.

Let us presume, for the sake of reason, that the mass of the hypothetic plasma equaled only 2% of our galaxy's mass, M_cp=2x10⁴¹kg, [1] then the relation between the movement energy of the emitted/radiated mass (½)m_exv_ex², and the energy of the (capture) gravity field, at an R distance reported to the center of the plasma at the moment of the explosion: (1/2)mex.vex2>G.Mcp.mex/R, [2] may be written as:

(vex/c) 2>2.G.Mcp/c2R, [3] where G=6.67x10-11 N.m2/kg2 , [4].

The following table (which obviously proves the inconsistency of the Big Bang theory) shows, for a few values of the R distance, what the speed of the emitted proton should have been in ratio to the speed of light, in order for the proton to leave the plasma at the t=0+ moment, of the hypothetic explosion.

R [m] : 10⁴, 10⁶, 10⁸; (v_ex/c>1.72x): 10⁵, 10⁴, 10³

Regards,

Iulian Somacescu

__________________
God given the Nature to the Man, but its laws He let to find by Man for survival, if merits!

Iulian, you wrote in a reply to Greg: "In order for a proton or another matter structure, with an m_ex mass, to be able to leave the periphery of the initial plasma, at the moment of the hypothetic explosion, surpassing the opponent gravity, it needed a launching speed, v_ex, thousands times bigger that the speed of light c."

The BB theory and its inflation scenario do not require particle speeds exceeding the speed of light! It says that space itself is stretching very fast and that particles may be stationary relative to space, while the distances between them grow rapidly.

Question: do you understand the BB theory that you are "debunking"? From what you've written here, it looks like you do not understand it, which means your attempt lose all credibility.

Regards,

Jorrie

Replay to post 37

Dear Jorrie,

My demonstration is based on gravitational phenomenon experimentally measured many times during thousands years on our Planet.
My equations in demonstration are used dayli by NASA, and they expressed a physics objective reality, being resulted from rigorous experiments.

Can you show us a single human experiment which have validated the BB hypothesis where "space itself is stretching very fast and that particles may be stationary relative to space, while the distances between them grow rapidly"?
You have right. I do not understand what it is not experimentally validated, and supplementary, it violates the laws of the nature resulted from human experiments.

Engineers as me, can't project and built up buildings, edifices, bridges, roads, cars, trains, radio & television systems, communication systems, spatial rockets, etc, after hypotheses and scenarios unvalidated by human experiments, which violate laws of the nature.

The engineers can explain all spatial phenomena, including redshift effect, based only on the experimental validated laws of the nature. No other wrong way like BB hypothesis and inflation scenario.

But this dialogue has no relation with interesting and very inportant title submitted by you yourself into debate!

Best Regards,

Iulian Somacescu

__________________
God given the Nature to the Man, but its laws He let to be found by Man for survival, if he merits!

Replay to post 1 and 37

Hello Jorrie!
To post 1:

My proposal for first Einstein Law is with respect to equation E = mc², which is enough experimentally validatet at all types of radiations, but expressed thus:

"The energy taken by a radiation from its source and given to its absorbent receiver is equal to the product of its inertial mass multiplied with square of the its speed in the space free of discernable bodies".

To post 37:

You wrote me:

The BB theory and its inflation scenario do not require particle speeds exceeding the speed of light! ... do you understand the BB theory that you are "debunking"? ... it looks like you do not understand it, which means your attempt lose all credibility.

For save my credibility, please observe that the photons absorbed by Black Holes and Dark Matter/Clusters in our Galaxy are not partially reflected or re-emitted (for exemple like from the Earth and the MOON), because for that move they need a speed more than c value, according to the experimental validated equations used in my argumentation.

When you will understand this physics reality, I hope you will undrstand my work, and supplementry, that BB ipothesis and inflation scenario are only speculation and a simple scenario, not science.

Best Regards,

More straight thinking plurality, more useful results plurality!

Hi Iulian, I afraid your "Einstein's 1st Law": ""The energy taken by a radiation from its source and given to its absorbent receiver is equal to the product of its inertial mass multiplied with square of the its speed in the space free of discernible bodies"." will not go down well with the community!

E = mc² does not apply to radiation! Why? Because the proper mass of a photon is zero, yet a photon has energy...

I repeat what I have said before: if you have a theory that differs from standard, accepted physics, kindly go and present it where physicists hang out - or where 'dissident' physicists hang out - or in 'alternative physics blogs'... Engineers won't be of much help to you. We don't do physics - we use standard physics to do engineering!

Jorrie

Replay to post 45

Hi Jorrie !

First comment: As creative engineer, I never will submit to debate a law or a equation which does not result from realy experiment. You, together with impressive components of the scientific community can, I see this in many your papers and books.
Second comment: About photon's mass compared to physics reality resulted from experiment, the science hystory says:

In 1887 Hertz discovered the external photoelectric effect, thus showing that light is made up of very fine corpuscular particles [10- please see www.adslexpress.ro/soma].
In 1889 Lebedev, stimulated by Hertz's experiments, as well as the theory of light pressure published in Maxwell-Bartoli's works (1876), measured the corpuscular pressure of light, demonstrating that photon's mass and momentum, can't be null, both being a physics experimentally reality.

Third comment: If you try to speak about Einstein's laws, with all my respect, I please you to be more attentively and rigorous !

Second Einstein's law, which I propose is that expressed by the relation E_i-E_et>0, where E_i is the photon's energy, and E_et is the minimum/treshold electron's energy necessary for its expulsion from crystalline surface, but expreseed rigorous thus:

"When individual knocks between free photons, on the one hand, and bound electrons in a crystalline surface, on the other hand, happen, then, a photoelectric effect occurs, if the individual photon's energy is bigger than the minimum energy required to remove an electron from its atomic binding."
Third Einstein's law, which I propose is that expressed by the relation E_pe=E_i-E_et=(m_ev_pe²)/2, where is energy of the photo-electron, i.e. the ejected electron, and m_ev_pe are photo-electron's mass and speed (law validated experimentally by Millikam in the 1915 year), but expressed thus:

"In a photoelectric process, the energy of the ejected electron is equal to difference of the individual photon's energy and the minimum energy required to remove an electron from its atomic binding."

Best Regards !

Iulian Somacescu

Interest conflict of the impressive authors of papers/books as against new descoveries, which contradict them idea, is a lethal danger for science and Man !

Jorrie

As you already gathered, this is not really my field*, but I had always assumed that the description of the rate of dilation under these conditions was a pseudo-Newtonian interpretation of observations. I.e. that, once we fully allow gravitational and (special) relativistic considerations, the dilation even of space does not exceed c. I also thought that light (not information) could perfectly well escape from a black hole - from whatever depth, and however large the hole - but the propagation direction for which this is possible becomes more and more constrained (for equilibrated black holes this results in a limited output, and I assume the level is consistent with Hawking radiation). Is all this misconception?

Thanks for your tolerance

Fyz

*As well as being somewhat of a diversion from whether Einstein's theories should be reclassified as laws

Hi Fyz,

You wrote: "… i.e. that, once we fully allow gravitational and (special) relativistic considerations, the dilation even of space does not exceed c."

We surely do not observe anything cosmological that recedes at >c, but according to the FRW model, there must be many things outside our particle horizon that recedes faster than c, depending on what coordinate system one uses. It is true in light-travel time distance coordinates, but not in co-moving coordinates. In co-moving radial (distance) coordinates, all galaxies are stationary in terms of Hubble flow and only sport peculiar movements <c relative to us. The expansion of space is responsible for light travel time distances to increase at a rate >c.

You also said: " I also thought that light (not information) could perfectly well escape from a black hole - from whatever depth, and however large the hole -".

No, I do not believe that is true. In a sense, space itself is falling into a black hole, reaching the speed of light at the event horizon; so light moving outwards at the speed of light will be 'stationary' relative to the black hole (ref: "Parable of the ants" in Kip Thorne's "Black Holes and Time Warps").

Lastly, your "- but the propagation direction for which this is possible becomes more and more constrained (for equilibrated black holes this results in a limited output, and I assume the level is consistent with Hawking radiation)." is also problematic.

Hawking radiation happens from just outside the event horizon. The particle-antiparticle pair has to be born there and then one is absorbed and the other one flung away, to conserve total particle momentum. AFAIK, the event horizon is a one-way membrane.

Regards, Jorrie

Jorrie

Many thanks for this very clear response to an uninformed question.
(As a theoretical Luddite, I'm hoping an alternate explanation of observations will emerge - but I won't hold my breath waiting)

Regards

(from a purely terrestrial) Fyz

Replay(2) to post 32

Greg,

4. Question: presentation of work "in this forum, rather than the professional "scientific forums" of people actively involved in the fields…

4. Answer: I inform you that my work under name "Subatomic Universe", is accesible for all "people actively involved in the fields", being publisched from the 2004 year (ISBN 973-0-03716-7), and put up online on Internet (free downloadable .pdf and .doc) at www.adslexpress.ro/soma, as event of the WYP2005.

During the 2005 year, I received 86 replays from: 1 phisics professor (author of physiscs books), wrote that he does not understand nothing; 2 professors (1 biologyst and 1 chemist), congratulated me and ask to continue research, but after obtaining funding for them (from 60,000 $ to 90,000 $, yearly), because they want to work in my research team; 16 professors congratulated me and ask to send for each, 3 books by post; 67 academicians and professors, congratulated me and wrote that my thory is "fascinating and plausible". About content of the book, nothing. All those people are researchers, not science makers.

If you know a forum composed of science makers, not researchers, please advertise me.

I know the physics forums, where each participant can assert anything without commitment of to demonstrate it. Those forums are not superior of this forum, I think

5. Question: the speculated upon connections between living systems and "oscillations" or "resonances" … in or amongst living cells.

5. Answer: I inform you that my work means a new domain of science with its new concepts, equations and laws, which need both will and time to be learned.

The initial manuscript contains over 500 pages, bat firstly I published only the part I (subatomic universe) with new concepts and equations, because without this alphabet, it will be not posible to understand part II (energy universe), part III (atomic-molecular universe) and part IV (live universe). You will be surprised that all live structures are oscillating/pulsating structures.

Any repetable structure (cell, gene, tissue, etc.), is based on multi-mode resonance of oscillations. Disturbance of those resonance means malady.

6. Question: The test of a valid "theory" is its very ability to be tested, rather than its ablilty to explain only past and even present observations in a some way.

6. Answer: Procedure of validation which you propose is applicable only for hypothesis-researchs, in the lothery method, not for scientific results which have been validated with aprioric experiments, in the engineering method. Please do diference!

Thank your again for very interesting and useful questions put in our debate!

Best Regards,

Iulian Somacescu

__________________
God given the Nature to the Man, but its laws He let to be found by Man for survival, if he merits!

Nice...