Perceptions updateIndex of PerceptionsPerceptions site mapsearch Perceptions
UEF Theory
comment + criticism welcome
`Perceptions' ITEM
Copyright © 2012 Ray Dickenson
Welcome - Chinese Peace - Arabic
Dream - Russian Soul Duty - Sanskrit
"REASON  WHY"
pages

Why're
Scientists Scared?

a universe?

  PROBLEMS?     -     SPACE     -     MATTER     -     PHOTONS     -     TIME     -     SOMETHING ELSE?  


Hey - Like to help fix some problems?

Well - s'pose I'm handy with tools.  What's wrong?

We've got problems with the Universe.

C'mon!  OK - tell me.

Well, we were certain about everything.  Because we didn't really know anything.

For instance, we acclaimed Newton's `laws of gravity & motion'; then along came Einstein's `Relativity' - maybe adapted from Leibniz - which said Newton's `laws' were merely circular arguments, besides needing undefined `forces' to make them work.

And now we have a `crisis in fundamental physics', because we're finding more facts which don't mesh with Einstein's `Relativity' theories or the Planck / Heisenberg `Quantum' theory, taken together.

So you've got problems understanding physical things - right?

True - we don't know what space is, except that it exists between material bodies, i.e. keeps them apart.

But worse, we don't know what holds material bodies together and gives them `mass & inertia'.

[On Earth a 50 kilo mass has the same `weight'.  Away from Earth's gravity or in free fall that mass can be weightless, but it still takes the same effort to move it, or to stop it moving.  That's its inertia, note 1  due to it still having the same `inertial mass'.]

Additionally, as Einstein and others more recently have note 2 admitted, we still don't understand the light spectrum - that's all the vibrations we call `electromagnetic radiation' - low heat in space, radio waves, a human body's infra-red output, ordinary sunlight, ultra-violet, X-rays, gamma rays etc.



SPACE



We'll sort it - just keep it simple.

OK.  The matter and inertia problem can be illustrated in a little thought-experiment of Einstein's (even Newton sort-of considered it).

Say you've got two identical balloons filled with water floating in space (away from gravity) and you leave one alone but you make the other one rotate - what happens?

The stationary one remains spherical but the rotating one immediately bulges out at the equator and the poles move in a bit.

That's what Einstein and others called an `ellipsoid of revolution' because if you see it from the side it's become oval-shaped, an ellipse - although looking along the axis (thru the poles) it's now just a fatter circle.

Einstein asked "What influence is causing the difference in shapes?".

[Not familiar with `space' conditions, Newton had to think of buckets of water, one left alone, the other stirred or swirled around, so the revolving water swings up the side of the bucket and dips down in the center; same phenomenon really.  To explain this `centrifugal force' - which is actually an effect of `inertia' note 3 - Newton had to refer it to `absolute space',  which he also needed for his non-qualified `motions' and `forces'.]

And what did Einstein make of it?

He decided the inertial `influence' note 1  - whatever it was - came from elsewhere, that it couldn't reside in the two balloons themselves.  That is, he went along with Mach - who said that only relative motion exists, therefore `inertia' note 1  was given to mass by the background influence of the rest of the Universe.

"The only satisfactory answer must be that the physical system ... reveals within itself no imaginable cause to which the differing behavior ... can be referred.  The cause must therefore lie outside this system. ... distant masses... The laws of physics must be of such a nature that they apply to systems of reference (the balloons) in any kind of motion"
[from `The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity' - A. Einstein 1916]

And more explicitly the next year -

"In a consistent theory of relativity there can be no inertia relatively to "space," but only an inertia of massses relatively to one another.  If therefore, I have a mass at a sufficient distance from all other masses in the universe, its inertia must fall to zero."
[from `Cosmological Considerations on the General Theory of Relativity' - A. Einstein 1917]

So Einstein - to justify `Relativity' - blamed distant masses for inertia, note 1  as Mach had theorized earlier, defining the masses as `the fixed stars').

How do the `fixed stars' know the water-balloon (or water-bucket) is rotating?  And how can they reach out and change things?



SPACE & MATTER



Beats me - but we can do a simple experiment here and now, with a coin or a spinning-top, and maybe put a different slant on things.

Go ahead.

Right - spin the coin or the `top' on a table and watch it stand upright while it's spinning - apparently defying `gravity'.

It doesn't change shape - 'cos it's rigid - it just refuses to fall down.

By simply spinning it's somehow gotten increased inertia note 1  - so it's harder for anything, including `gravity', to force it to lie down.

Don't tell me some `distant stars or galaxies' did that!

Who's to say?  It happens everywhere, close to large planets - as you've just seen - or in space.  Earth itself does both things; its equator bulges out a little and it also stays `upright' rather than tumbling around; and, like most of the planets, that's mostly due to its rotation.

So that extra inertia could come from the spinning material interacting with `space'.  That is, `space' contains energy, or a force, that can be captured by a spinning body, or maybe even by just moving fast in a straight line. note 5

Hey, I know that `moving fast' part's true.  A soft candle can cut through an oak plank - if I fire it from a shotgun.

Quite so.  And, because Occam's Razor says we shouldn't needlessly multiply causes, it's that same force which holds ordinary, non-rotating masses together, giving them mass and `ordinary' inertia. note 6

[BTW - that space-force's got to be where the otherwise unexplainable energy needed for permanent magnetism comes from. note 7]

And, listening to Occam again, it's most likely that space-force is responsible not only for for the mass-inertia attributes of matter but also `gravity' and what the scientists think of as the opposite of gravity: `dark energy'.

That's a fudge they use when pretending the Universe works by lots of `magic forces'.

However the evidence more likely says: "there is only one `force' - which a tiny proton feels as enormous compression but which, over a threshold, pushes apart larger things like gas molecules, and, over another threshold gently pushes together macro-sized bodies (when we call it `gravity'), and which, over yet another threshold, expands much larger structures (when we call it `dark energy')."

Hey - how does it flip from `pull' to `push'?

OK - looking through a telescope at a sphere of matter in space, it's being penetrated from all around by that radial space-force, giving it mass and inertia.  We could think of a hail of invisible bullets coming from all sides.

Now, let's make the sphere out of cubes of ice, like an igloo, only there's regular gaps between all the ice-cubes.  If we make the cubes fairly big we can say the space-force will push against their surface areas and will compress the sphere.  What's actually happening is the space-force is attenuated by passing through matter so there's greater pressure from the outside.  However, from the POV of the cubes, they're being `pulled together'. note 8

Now, you can widen the gaps betweeen the cubes (or make the cubes smaller w.r.t the gaps) to the point where more of the space-force is coming in through those gaps (radially, from all around remember) - so hitting the opposite inner surfaces - than is pushing against the reduced outer areas of the cubes.  As a result the sphere now gets expanded, the cubes are `pushed apart'.

So the same force will produce opposing offects - only determined by the scale and structure of the mass it's acting on.  Which is why most gas molecules `repel' each other, then bigger things like us, and the Earth and stars in galaxies feel a `pull' of gravity, while much bigger things - like things larger than galaxies, those bigger structures or super-clusters of galaxies, separated by huge distances - will again feel the same force acting as a `push' away from each other. note 9

Those facts - of matter getting its coherence, mass and inertia from the space force which also creates `gravity' and `repulsion', allied to the forecast decreasing energy-level of that force - are the real reasons why the Universe's actions move only forward in time. note 10

Although mainstream scientists, who don't yet understand that, still think the laws of physics are time-reversible.  You can hear - and read - them waffling about that all the time. note 11



PHOTONS



So we've solved our problems then?  Space, matter, mass & inertia - all explained?

Well, we still haven't decided why radiation, consisting of photons - light quanta - sometimes acts like waves, like particles or neither or both - sometimes seeming to have mass and sometimes not.  Nor why those quanta normally travel at the speed `c'.

What about your pal Occam and his razor?  How fast does that space-force operate?

Hey that's right!  Keeping that space-force in mind, if it holds us together at a rate of say a billion3 times a second (so fast we wouldn't notice it happening), then electro-magnetic radiation could really be just `distortions' or `bunchings' in that force. note 12

That can explain a lot.  Not only the wave - particle dichotomy but the other `unexplainable' problems of photons apparently disappearing and re-appearing while traveling in a straight line.

First, the photon exists intermittently, as `more - average - less - average - more' of that space-force.

So it's then obvious why a moving photon has energy but no `rest mass' - soon as that pattern of `bunching distortion' stops moving (effectively through the space-force), it ceases to exist.

And d'you really believe anything can be traveling at a fixed speed relative to two different folks traveling at two different speeds?  Try that Occam and his razor again.

Right - OK, if radiation itself is being held together at a rate of a billion3 times a second, then `c' is merely the speed - as demanded by Maxwell's famous note 13 equations - at which that space-force allows radiation to move with respect to instantaneous foci of that force.   So, as unshielded matter travels at mundane velocities it's continually arriving at foci and finding light moving at the speed c, relative to its own position.

So, that's the reason for super-luminary phenomena note 14 and also explains the relative speeds of light as seen by differently traveling observers.

And it might also explain some `red-shift' problems. note 15



TIME



Right - we finished?

Nope.  Have you got time?

Everyone's got `time' - even folk in a hurry.  What's time got to do with the Universe?

Well, first, some people worry about time maybe being different in different places in the Universe.

Now we can see that can't really be true:  the `passage of time' is just long-term change in that `space-force'.  Presumably more or less evenly all over the universe.  The change is felt by organic beings - they get `old', and it's detectable by self-conscious beings as `time passing'. note 16

But some folk say time passes at slower rate if traveling at high speeds.

Well yes, we can see that an apparent slowdown-of-time is only a material cell's appreciation of `passage-of-time' (rate of change in the space-force) getting swamped by traveling head-on into the space-force when moving really fast.

So fast-moving cells don't `age' so much; and any exposure to higher intensity of the space-force will have a similar effect. note 17

Which is why clocks go faster or slower - differently - in planes & satellites, depending which way they're moving. note 18




Fine - We've sorted out space, matter, mass and inertia, and photons / radiation and finally time.  We've solved the Universe then?

Well - as far as anyone living in our universe would know - Yes, we have.



OTHER



But there's something a little unsettling behind what we've found.

What's unsettling?

We've suggested that space-force operates, for example only, at maybe one billion3 times per second - right?  Which would confirm Einstein's fears of non-continuous physical structures. note 19

Actually, the likeliest speed involves the Planck time - which is very small indeed.

But knowledge of whatever speed it really works at isn't available to us.  We can only see apparent `matter' & `forces' (and their events) inside a Universe that's really held-together - or created - by that space-force. note 20

We - and our whole visible protonic Universe - might only exist for one second per external `year'.  On the other extreme, we might be living our lives, or generations of lives, in `fast-forward' mode. note 22

In between those extremes, if we said only our Universe exists, then it could be clicking along at that rate of say one billion3 times per second due to some basic `law of nature'.

Which of those three is most likely?

If we don't ask "Why?" - we can just opt for the one in-between and close our eyes to the others.  Psychologically that's the `safest' answer.

Safe maybe - but is it sure?

Well, that depends on hard probability statistics.  Maybe they'll indicate the unthinkable, like they did when `Bell's Inequalities' analysis was applied to Alain Aspects' `entanglement' experiment.

Those results said that matter in the Universe is either `unreal' (no `cause and effect') or linked together by an `instantaneous' force.  Mainstream scientists can't handle that, even a generation later they still haven't made their choice.

Hey - we've shown that an instantaneous space-force does exist!  So the Universe is real.  Mainstream science needs a boot up the backside!

You can see why they're scared though.  They were already stuck: too frightened to choose between a universe-wide `Instantaneous Force' - which they didn't want, or `Unreality' - no cause and effect - which they also can't accept.

Now we're telling them they don't have any choices - that the material Universe is `timed' and held-together by a basic over-riding Force.  Worse, it's just possibly an externally applied Force.

So what?  We've got to live with it, so the scientists have to.  Or they'll get that boot up the backside!



Here's "space force explanation" outline

(not the reason)






UPDATE 25-11-2011
  TED Talk Video - Jacques Vallée seems to agree. - 15 min YouTube
 



UPDATE 06-12-2007
  LOOKS LIKE A HASTY CATCH-UP TRY BY `BIG SCIENCE'
 



  AND SEPARATE SPECULATION IN MYSTERY AREA  




[new window]
"REASON  WHY"
pages


[ Google ]


Perceptions MAIL

can we

take off the blindfolds?


WEB-MASTERS
Visit W3Schools
NEW PAGE TIPS
Help build the largest human-edited directory on the web.
Submit a Site - Open Directory Project - Become an Editor



happy?

struggling editor ?

`Perceptions'

HOME


broken link? - please tell
mail Perceptions

Copyright © 2012 Ray Dickenson

this page
http://www.perceptions.couk.com/timeprob.html
PRIVACY POLICY

Map IP Address



Share This

FACEBOOK TWITTER GOOGLE+ TUMBLR PINTEREST REDDIT EMAIL