Monday, December 30, 2019

Three Great Imbalances

There are three great imbalances in the universe. They are:
  1. The difference in size between electrons and protons
  2. Gravity, with no apparent anti-gravity
  3. The twisting motion of electric currents
These phenomena appear at first glance to have little in common. However, at closer inspection, we see a common denominator. If there is even a tiny difference in affinity between positive and negative charged particles so that the repelling force between two negative particles is stronger than the repelling force between positive particles, we get a single answer to all three phenomena.

Protons are bigger than electrons because protons will under certain circumstances accept additional matter, while electrons reject any attempt at material increase.

Gravity is an imbalance in the electric force. Attraction between different charged particles is a tiny bit stronger than repulsion between equally charged particles.

Currents twist because charge separation is skewed towards negatively charge particles. To compensate for the difference in momentum received in the charge separation process, electric currents twist.


Charge separation

The full explanation for this can be found in my latest book. In particular the chapters on four stable particles, gravity and magnetism.

Saturday, December 28, 2019

Everything is of the Aether

The strict particle model presented in my book of physics leads us to the conclusion that everything is in some way derived from the aether. In the final analysis we get that even space is a substance, and that matter is created out of this same substance.

We arrive at this conclusion from the position taken early in my book. The aether is so dense that every particle in it is in contact with every neighboring particle, and this aether exists in a void that has no properties whatsoever. From this, we get that dimensions, distances, time and energy are directly or indirectly derived from the aether. We also get that space and aether are two words for the same thing. Nothing exists outside of the aether.

Later, when we discover that the aether is a mix of low energy photons and neutrinos, we end up concluding that electromagnetic radiation, such as light, is energized space. Every photon has its origin in the aether.

At very high energies, light becomes matter through electron-positron production, and since light is energized space, we get that matter must be space as well, energized to such an extent that it has become the stuff that we are made of.


Electron-positron pair production

From this we end up with a holistic world view. Although separated into tiny fragments, everything in the universe is of the same substance. The great varieties in manifestation is merely a result of differences in energy levels. Fundamentally, everything is of the aether. There's no exception.

Friday, December 20, 2019

Coulomb's Law of Colliding Rockets

Imagine two spherical space stations with a limitless supply of rockets. Each space station sends out rockets in straight lines in all directions. The rockets are all of equal size and cruising at constant and equal speeds. The space around the space stations is soon full of rockets moving in straight lines.

Let's say we want to calculate the total number of collisions happening between these rockets over a period of a year. The way we do this is to first consider the size of the rockets. Big rockets will have more collisions than small rockets. Let's call the size factor k.

Next thing we have to recognize is that anything related to probability is calculated by multiplications. If the rate at which rockets stream out of space station one is q1, and the rate at which rockets stream out of space station two is q2, then q1 times q2 reflects the number of collisions happening.

We now have k times q1 times q2.

Finally we have to keep in mind that it matters a great deal how far the space stations are from each other. If they are far enough from each other, there are hardly any collisions at all. If they are close together, we get a lot of collisions. The way this tapers off with distance is the inverse square law. We have to take our probability equation and divide it with the square of the distance between the space stations to get the final result. If that distance is r, and the result is called F, we get:


Coulomb's law

We have arrived at Coulomb's law of colliding rockets!

Power and Humiliation

Humiliation is a central part of any philosophy of power. There is even a religion dedicated to this, expressly commanding its followers to humiliate the unbeliever. It is not enough to steal, kill and destroy, the unbeliever must be humiliated as well.

However, this is not something that is confined solely to religious texts. This is intuitively understood by any psychopath. In their striving for power, they recognize the importance of humiliation as a tool. Humiliation puts the one in power at a higher moral position than the one being humiliated, and this is especially true when the ones being humiliated appear to humiliate themselves out of their own volition.

This goes a long way in explaining why state commissioned art is full of degrading and right out disgusting works, because such art firmly places the commission above both the artists and the tax payer. The commission for performing arts in Norway hands out money to whoever manages to degrade themselves the most. Among performances being commissioned these days, we have a man who dumps his naked butt in paint, and proceeds to paint on a canvas on the ground by sitting on it. Another performance explores the concept of the glory hole as philosophical ideal. There's also plenty of performances where people simply squiggle around helplessly, while shouting and mumbling incoherently.

Artists are most likely to succeed in Norway if they present projects that are both degrading to themselves and disgusting to watch. This is because most art in Norway is heavily subsidized, so artists are dependent on hand outs from central commissions in order to make a living. The alternative is to produce excellent high quality stuff that people are willing to pay for, which involves much more talent and genuine dedication than most artists can muster. Most artists are faced with a choice between humiliation or starvation.

Interestingly, the few Norwegian artists who manage to make a living outside state controlled art circles are universally scorned. They are also targeted for tax audits, and sometimes even sent to jail for spurious reasons related to the complex tax code governing the arts. Odd Nerdrum, a contemporary Norwegian painter, was so badly treated in jail that he never recovered. I have no idea what they did to him, but it must have been bad.

So, next time someone suggests that the state should take a greater role in the arts, remind them just what sort of people the central commission will be staffed with, and ask them again if they think it's a good idea.

William Pyne- The Costume of Great Britain (1805) - The Pillory.JPG

Humiliation

Public Domain, Link

Wednesday, December 18, 2019

Experiment to Detect Dipole Gravity

Andrew Johnson has just published a new book, this time about Earth and the possibility that it might be hollow. It's a good read, freely available as a PDF on his site. I get a mention in it due to my work on gravity and its possible relationship with capacitance. For reasons that I explain in Universe of Particles, I suspect that charged matter has stronger gravity than neutral matter.

This suspicion can be partially validated, or roundly refuted, with a simple experiment. There's no need for a huge, fully charged capacitor. All that's needed is an aircraft capable of smooth flight, a sensitive scale for gravity measures and a good altitude meter. Gravity readings can then be made at different altitudes.

If gravity is a mono-pole as Newton suggested, we should see no deviation from Newton's predictions. However, if gravity is even a tiny bit dipole, we will get deviations because Newton's theory is predicated on a mono-pole model of gravity. Importantly, any deviation would be especially noticeable near the surface of our planet. At great distances, there are little to no expected difference between mono-pole and dipole gravity. We are therefore primarily interested in aircraft readings.

If we get a deviation from Newton's predictions, we can conclude that gravity has a dipole component. This would give support to the capacitance model of gravity because charged capacitors have dipole properties. However, there are other dipole theories out there, such as Peter Woodhead's suggested solution, and the dipole model promoted by Wal Thornhill.


Uncharged and charged capacitor

Either way, the experiment proposed here should be of interest as it will clarify unresolved issues related to gravity. To the best of my knowledge, there has been no airborne gravity readings with the express purpose of verifying Newton's predictions. We are still assuming that Newton was right about near surface gravity because he was right about orbits.

The Void, the Aether and David Hilbert's Infinity Paradox

The void is not space. Space is aether, and aether is particles. The void is an infinity of nothing, something we don't ever experience because all around us we have space, radiation and objects of inertial matter.

However, the void is not merely a philosophical starting point. If we are right in assuming that everything, including space, are particles, we must also accept the void as real, because we need a bit of nothing in between aether particles to keep things going.

If we stick with our assumption that aether particles are spherical, we can imagine them as tiny steel balls, and we know from experience that balls of equal size leave little gaps between them when stacked. There is no way we can stack spheres without leaving a lot of gaps. At the aether level, these gaps are voids. Every one of them is a tiny infinity of nothing.


Aether particle

Furthermore, every aether particle moves at the speed of light. The neat packaging that is possible with stationary balls is not possible with the aether. The gaps between the particles are constantly changing in size, and the particles themselves hardly touch their neighbors as they zip past each other.

But the weirdest thing of all is that our definition of the void is such that there never is any separation between the neighbors, in any direction. The gaps are all infinities of nothing. While these gaps are bigger in some directions than others, they are all nothing. This leads us to David Hilbert's infinity paradox, in which some infinities are bigger than other infinities.

A consequence of this is that we'll need to use some really exotic math in order to describe the aether completely. It might be that this is where we find a reason for why all aether particles inside a given reference frame must move at the same speed as all other aether particles. It may give us better ways to describe surface textures of particles. Maybe they span the gaps? I don't know. However, I do know that things get seriously weird when we go down to this level of detail.

Monday, December 16, 2019

Neutrons are not Fundamental Particles

Standard textbook physics tells us that the neutron is a fundamental particle. However, it's well known that this particle cannot exist for more than about 15 minutes outside an atomic nucleus. Furthermore, when it falls apart it produces a proton, an electron and a neutrino in the process. This alone should put to rest the idea that neutrons are fundamental. Yet the idea persists.


Free neutron decay

The neutron is considered fundamental for obscure reasons that are difficult to grasp. I must admit I haven't been able to follow the reasoning myself. However, I don't see that as a failure on my part. Rather, I find it suspect that something so trivial as free neutron decay should be difficult to explain. Shouldn't it be easy to explain what's going on and why the neutron is fundamental, despite its fragility?

Seen in light of the theory presented in my book, the neutron is most definitely not a fundamental particle, and this can be explained in simple terms:

Neutrons are bits of inertial matter, and as such they must be hollow, as explained in my book. To stay inflated, particles of inertial matter have to have a repelling electrical force inside of them. This in turn requires the walls on the inside of particles to be electrically charged. If the neutron is fundamental, and not merely an assembly of a proton and an electron, it would have walls of neutral charge inside of it. This would not produce any electric repulsion. The neutron would collapse even before it was properly produced.

Not only do we have free neutron decay as experimental proof that neutrons are composite particles, we now also have theoretical reasons for this to be so. Neutrons are not fundamental particles, they are assemblies of one proton and one electron.

Thursday, December 5, 2019

Why electric currents come with a twist

Magnets can be used to induce currents in wires, and separate charges in gases. Conversely, charge separation results in electric currents, and electric currents induce magnetism. What we have is a fractal relationship between magnetism and electricity. Small currents, with correspondingly small magnetic fields, self organize into larger currents and fields. Grand currents with enormous electric fields fall apart into smaller currents with smaller electric fields. This is going on everywhere, from the minutest of cells and microbes to galaxies and galaxy clusters.

There is no top or bottom in this hierarchy. It's all part of one giant cosmic whole. However, there is a small imbalance in it. When magnetized photons separate charges, sending positive ions one way, and electrons and negative ions the other way, the tiny attraction between two abrasive textures comes into play. We find that the mechanism that explained the relative size difference between electrons and protons, and also the gravitational force, can be used to explain why electric currents twist.

To understand this, let us first apply our theory to the phenomenon of charge separation and induction of electric currents by the use of a magnet:


Charge separation by swiping a magnet forward

The photons in the illustration are oriented according to the north seeking pole of a magnet. When swiped away from us, into the paper, the photons' negative orbs drive positively charged particles to the left. Correspondingly, the photons' positive orbs drive negatively charged particles to the right. This is due to the combined effect of the photons' spin and the direction of the swipe. The resulting current is in this case to the left, as can be confirmed by applying Ampère's right hand grip rule.

All of this conforms precisely to reality, confirming that our theory is valid. However, positively charged particles will be pushed a tiny bit less hard to the left, compared to negatively charged particles to the right. This is because abrasive surfaces do not rub as smoothly against each other as woolly surfaces. The abrasive orb of photons interfere destructively in the transfer of energy from the swipe to the positively charged particles.

With no corresponding destructive interference in the transfer of energy onto negative particles, we get a tiny imbalance. To compensate for this, positively charged particles move in straighter lines than negatively charged particles, and it is this compensation that induces an overall twist.

Due to self-interference through magnetism, even electric currents constituted of electrons alone twist. The induced magnetic field around wires reflect back to the current of electrons, which in turn start to twist due to the tiny difference describe above.

Again, we are talking about a trillionth of a trillionth degree in difference. This isn’t something that is easily detected directly through measurements of force. However, it becomes visible on grand scales.

Magnetic force

When discussing magnets and magnetism, it's important to keep in mind that there is no net flow anywhere. What we have is coordinated spin, orientation and alignment of photons in the aether. Photons that happen to pass trough a magnet, come out polarized. This rubs off on neighbouring photons as they pass by. They in turn, rub off their polarization on other photons. The whole space around a magnet gets polarized in this way, with the strongest polarization above each pole of the magnet.

The entirety of the field does not come directly from the magnet, but by a relatively small number of photons rubbing off their polarization onto neighbouring photons after first having passed through the magnet. This is visibly evident in ferro-fluids, with their peaks and troughs.

The fact that photons do not have to pass through a magnet to be polarized has been known since Faraday performed his famous experiment:


Polarization of light by magnet

Uncoordinated photons passing through a magnetic field comes out polarized. This happens to low energy photons present in the aether in the exact same way as it does for visible light.

By introducing a second magnet, we can now play around with the magnetic force that arises between magnets. This force is also due to particle collisions. However, in this case we're talking about photons, not neutrinos as was the case for the electric force and gravity. But the general mechanism is the same.

Photons passing through magnets come out well coordinated and spinning. In the case of two magnets facing each other with opposite polarity, we get abrasive head on collisions. This has the overall tendency of pushing photons out of the field. The density of the aether between the magnets is reduced. This in turn draws the magnets together.


Magnetic attraction due to photons vacating the field

On the other hand, when two magnets face each other with same polarity, we get non-abrasive collisions. Photons will tend to stay in the field, building up pressure in the aether, which in turn pushes the magnets apart:


Magnetic repulsion due to photons staying in the field

Wednesday, December 4, 2019

Electric currents, magnetism and light

Electric currents can be defined as charges in motion. We can induce electric currents in wires by setting electrons moving. There are electric currents in our atmosphere, because our atmosphere has charge gradient as well as motion in the form of winds. For the same reason, we have electric currents in space. There are currents of charged particles everywhere.

A strange feature of electric currents is that they always come with a circular magnetic field around them, and this circular field is in the same direction regardless of how the electric current is constituted. A positive ion moving from right to left produces the exact same magnetic field around it as when a negative ion of the same size moves from left to right.

From this fact, we have established a convention in which the direction of current is defined as the direction a positive ion would have to travel in order to produce the observed magnetic field. As a consequence of this, all electric currents caused by electrons in motion are by definition in the opposite direction of the electron flow.

The established rule is that if we curve the fingers of our right hand in the direction of the magnetic field, our thumb points in the direction of the current. Conversely, if we point our right hand thumb in the direction of a current, our fingers curve in the direction of the magnetic field. This rule is called Ampère's right-hand grip rule in honour of the rule's inventor.


Ampère's right-hand grip rule

Seen in context of our theory, the magnetic field must be a product of the aether, which is constituted of low energy photons and neutrinos. Furthermore, the complexity of the behaviour strongly suggest that we are dealing with photons, rather than neutrinos.

Adding to our suspicions, we have the discovery by Michael Faraday in 1845 that magnetic fields polarize visible light. Magnetic fields are therefore demonstrably a phenomenon associated with the photon. We can even go so far as to suggest that magnetic fields are photons polarized in such a way that they all line up with their orbs pointing in the same direction, because if we apply this assumption to our theory, we get an explanation for Ampère's right-hand grip rule. All that is required is one more assumption about the photon. The two orbs of the photons must be connected in such a way that when one spins in one direction, the other one spins in the opposite direction:


Proposed model of photon

With this in mind, it is now possible to arrive at Ampère's right-hand grip rule directly from our theory. To do this, let us first consider what happens when we move a positive ion from right to left through the aether, and then compare this to what happens when we move a negative ion from left to right.

The aether is so dense that every particle in it is always in direct contact with all its neighbours. This means that our positive ion will constantly brush into low energy photons as it travels from right to left.

Our positive ion has a predominantly abrasive texture to it, so it tends to grab onto the woolly orb of photons, setting these orbs spinning while simultaneously aligning the photons in parallel with itself:


Effect of positive ion on photons in the aether as it moves from right to left

The negative orbs of the photons are set spinning in such a way that if we look at them from above, they spin counter-clockwise.

Let us now compare this to a negative ion moving in the opposite direction:


Effect of negative ion on photons in the aether as it moves from left to right

In this case, it is the abrasive ends of photons that are set spinning. Seen from above the positive orbs, the spin is counter-clockwise. Since the spin of the negative orb is equal and opposite, we get that the spin of the negative orb, as seen from above the positive orb is clockwise. But if we flip our vantage point to be above the negative orb, we see the negative orb spinning counter-clockwise, exactly as was the case for our positive ion moving from right to left.

From theory, including our assumption about the photon, we have arrived at Ampère's right-hand grip rule.

We can conclude that magnetism is polarized photons in the aether, with spin, orientation and alignment fully coordinated.

Tuesday, December 3, 2019

Gravity and light

According to our theory, gravity is a force that operates on neutral particles made up of dielectric matter. Also according to our theory, photons are compact assemblies of 3 positive and 3 negative particle quanta. This makes them a special type of dielectric matter, and hence sensitive to gravity. A photon travelling past a massive body will experience a tug. There will be a tiny angular acceleration. This will have no impact on the energy of the photon, nor will it have any impact on its speed. It will simply make the photon curve around the object.

From theory, we can also note that photons moving in towards a massive body retain their energy, as do photons moving away from such a body. While massive bodies tug on incoming and outgoing photons, gravity does not change their energy. However, a local observer on the surface of a massive body will register the energy of photons as greater than what is reported for the same photons by an observer in space.

To understand this, we have to keep in mind that the aether is made up of a mix of neutrinos and photons. Since gravity pulls on photons, but not on neutrinos, we must conclude that the aether close to massive bodies are richer in photons than the aether farther away. This is because gravity pulls on photons, but not on neutrinos. Neutrinos are not dielectric while photons are.

With more photons in the aether, there must be correspondingly fewer neutrinos. The aether is after all so dense that no particle can be introduced without other particles being expelled. This in turn affects the electric force close to massive bodies. Observed from space, the electric force is reduced due to fewer available neutrinos.

With a reduced electric force, the size of electrons and protons goes down. The reduced number of neutrinos inside these particles reduce their internal pressure, and hence their diameters and circumferences.

All of this can be detected by an observer in space. However, it cannot in any way be detected locally. This is because a reduced circumference of the electron corresponds to a reduction in the local unit length, and hence also a speeding up of local clocks.

Since everything in our physics relates back to particle quanta with 3 dimensions, size and texture, all measurements related to speeds, distances, forces and energies remains constant when we try to measure them, regardless of whether me make our measurements in space or on the surface of a massive body.

This is not a trivial philosophical observation. It is an observation about reality itself. The laws of physics remain everywhere the same when measured locally.

The speed of light will be measured to have the exact same value everywhere. This is because the reduced size of our rulers on the surface of massive bodies are correspondingly matched with faster clocks. There is always and everywhere exactly 1 tick of unit time for every unit distance traversed by light. It cannot logically be anything else. This in turn, affects processes of energy transfers in such a way that they too are locally measured to be unchanged.

A similar effect kicks in when we try to measure the electric force with a local set of measuring tools. The number of neutrinos in the local environment will always and everywhere affect unit length in such a way that the constant k remains constant. It is only when an outside observer looks at the measurements, using an outside ruler and outside clock that differences can be detected.

However, with two observers, one in space and one at the surface of a massive body, we can detect differences. If we beam in some light from space of a given energy intensity, it will be registered by a local observer as somewhat bluer on the surface than in space, not because any energy was accumulated on the way in from space, but because photons are measured to be bigger and more energetic by local rulers and clocks at the surface.


Photons measured by two observers, one in space and one at the surface

Photons are not hollow. They do not change in size in response to the composition of the aether. However, our unit length is the circumference of an electron, which does change in size, depending on the composition of the aether. This makes photons appear bigger to an observer at the surface, where neutrinos are fewer and rulers are shorter as a consequence.

Consequently a photon can do more work on Earth than in space. All inertial matter is smaller on the surface of our planet, and hence easier to accelerate than out in space. While this effect is tiny in the vicinity of Earth, it is relatively easy to detect close to the Sun.

Mercury, located close to the Sun, makes its rounds around the Sun faster than expected when measured with a clock on Earth. This anomaly has been known for centuries. It was a great puzzle until Einstein came along with his suggestion that clocks run faster on Mercury than on Earth, and that the anomaly is only an anomaly because of this difference. Measured with a clock on Mercury, it's all the other planets that are moving a little too slow.

This is the same conclusion we arrive at from our independent line of reasoning. We have in other words discovered an alternative to Einstein's theory. Instead of curved space-time, we have an aether with a difference in composition close to massive bodies, relative to out in space.

Monday, December 2, 2019

Free falling objects

A free falling object does not pick up any energy despite accelerating at a constant rate. This is different to objects accelerating due to constant pressure or tension, because such objects do pick up energy as they accelerate.


Acceleration due to tension adds energy

There is in other words something fundamentally different between acceleration due to pressure or tension and free fall acceleration. This may at first seem strange. However, it is easy to explain in light of our theory.

Let us first consider a steel ball at rest on a floor of wet sand. To suspend it from a steel beam directly above this floor, we push the ball up. This process involves pressure and therefore some distortion to the ball. Energy is transferred from us to the ball.

Then we attach the ball by wire to the steel beam, and we get a situation as follows, again grossly exaggerated for the purpose of illustration:


Suspended steel ball before and after the wire is cut

There is tension in the ball, there is tension in the wire, and there is tension in the aether between the ball and the floor. However, there is no acceleration. No energy is being transferred. Things are merely distorted.

The energy we added to the ball as we lifted it up is illustrated as a dark grey area. This energy equals the potential difference between the situation on the floor and the situation when the ball hangs above the floor. In the real world, of course, there's no segregation between this potential energy and the rest of the ball. Energy does not come in different flavours. All energy is size. When we talk about the difference between potential and kinetic energy it is purely for calculation purposes. What we can calculate in this case is the exact amount of energy that can and will be transferred to the wet sand once we cut the wire.

When the wire is cut, all tensions disappear. There is no longer any tension in the wire, ball or aether. The ball accelerates towards the floor, not because of any pull or push, but because the aether is able to exit freely from the field between the floor and ball.

Keeping in mind that the aether and space are two words for the same thing, we can say that the ball accelerates toward the floor due to a rapid rearrangement of space. The ball is not in any way distorted in this process. Sine distortion is a requirement for energy transfers, we have a situation in which no energy can be passed onto or off of the ball.

Energy in the ball remains constant until it hits the floor. The entirety of the energy we pushed into the ball in order to attach it to the steel beam is then released as a displacement of the wet sand.

It should be noted that this very same logic applies to all field forces, be it electrical, gravitational or magnetic. In cases where acceleration happens without distortion of the object under acceleration, no energy is added or removed. There is no transfer of energy, only a rearrangement of space.