We should first start to understand how the EM-force called gravity really works.
So what is your objection to changing states of matter being the EM-force called gravity? Doesn't the energy produced by burning a fuel ( change of states) come from relativity? Isn't relativity what most of us associate with gravity?
So what is your objection to changing states of matter being the EM-force called gravity?
Just physics. As we can write down the equation for the gravity constant based on SO(4) physics form factors only -no fudging.
But I'm open for any philosophical interpretation!
So what is your objection to changing states of matter being the EM-force called gravity? Doesn't the energy produced by burning a fuel ( change of states) come from relativity? Isn't relativity what most of us associate with gravity?
I think the theory of relativity should be ignored.
There are two types of gravity, and ground gravity is electromagnetic mass.
In solar sails, when light hits the sail, an electric field is generated and acceleration occurs.
On the ground, the Schumann resonance irradiates the object.
The Schumann resonance is ELF and has high permeability.
The reason gravity cannot be shielded is due to ELF.
The other is the gravitational force in outer space, because most substances have electric charges, so electric attraction and repulsion are mixed to create very weak attraction.
But I'm open for any philosophical interpretation!
If physics loses philosophy, it becomes magic using mathematics.
We should return to Descartes mechanical world view.
also, I found 4 mistakes in modern physics.
Universal gravitation → The gravity of the ground and space is different.
Mass does not produce gravity. Cavendish experiment is wrong
Electric field lines are not neutralized. Maxwell misunderstood Faraday's lines of electric force
Space does not exist. Einstein introduced the mathematical concept "space" without verification
It is necessary to review these mistakes.
Cavendish experiment is wrong
Stephan Schlamminger at NIST writes about Cavendish's G..(1797)
More impressive still is the fact that the error in GC, relative to the CODATA 2014 recommended value, G2014 = 6.674 08 × 10−11 m3 kg−1 s−2 [46],
is only 0.34 %.
G was of no concern to Cavendish, and neither did Newton introduce it in thePrincipia [50].
More than 70 years would have to elapse after Cavendish “weighed the Earth”,
Cavendish wasn't even trying to calculate G.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1905.09551.pdf
Display MoreStephan Schlamminger at NIST writes about Cavendish's G..(1797)
More impressive still is the fact that the error in GC, relative to the CODATA 2014 recommended value, G2014 = 6.674 08 × 10−11 m3 kg−1 s−2 [46],
is only 0.34 %.
G was of no concern to Cavendish, and neither did Newton introduce it in thePrincipia [50].
More than 70 years would have to elapse after Cavendish “weighed the Earth”,
Cavendish wasn't even trying to calculate G.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1905.09551.pdf
Faraday discovered that lead was a diamagnetic material 50 years after the Cavendish experiment.
Faraday's last experiment was to measure the atmospheric current that creates gravity.
Although the last experiment failed, Faraday is convinced that gravity is an electromagnetic force.
Big G fluctuates considerably.
Faraday is convinced that gravity is an electromagnetic force.
Faraday probably doesn't experience gravity any more
but he would not be surprised to find that it is electromagnetic
and that it depends on
the speed of light ( which Maxwell mentioned)
and some 20th century things...
the mass of the electron, the mass of the proton
radius of the proton and the radius of the electron
the fine structure constant..
as detailed here
https://www.researchgate.net/p…context=ProjectUpdatesLog
Big G fluctuates considerably
Experimental techniques are at the 5 digit precision level.. any periodic variations finer than that that will not be picked up..
The 1 sigma sinusoidal variations by Anderson et al are a possible but not probable fit to experimental variations.
Faraday probably doesn't experience gravity any more
Faraday is experimenting with special coils.
30 August 1849, Diary, 5:167, par. 10129.
Michael Faraday. Faraday’s Diary. ed. Thomas Martin, 7 vols. London: G. Bell and Sons, 1932-1936.
W: QM is [not] somehow a fundamental theory. Fact is that QM only works together with a good base measurement and only for e.g. orbits states n >1. Thus QM is not basic and explains nothing fundamental about physics. It's a good math. engineering tool not more.
QM - and its elaborations all of which depend on the basic ideas - have proven correct over tens of thousands of measurements, and made many many correct predictions. They have never been shown incorrect, except in the limited way that they do not unify with GR.
I have no patience for subjective, almost mystical, complaints that it "explains nothing fundamental". Here are the extraordinary and counter-intuitive experimental results that it explains:
I can accept that a more fundamental theory might exist from which all the maths of quantum mechanisms could be derived. It would then equally explain all this stuff and would be interesting. It might (in principle) be philosophically more satisfactory. I have not seen any such attempt to show how all of QM and QFT, as experimentally validated, can be proven from something else. Many people have given different interpretations of QM (Pilot wave etc) which are essentially identical, and I don't mind, as long as they are close enough to predict all the positives that QM does.
...I have no patience for subjective, almost mystical, complaints that it "explains nothing fundamental". Here are the extraordinary and counter-intuitive experimental results that it explains:
- double-slit experiments...
OK Huxley, tell me how quantum mechanics explains the double slit experiment.
QM - and its elaborations all of which depend on the basic ideas - have proven correct over tens of thousands of measurements, and made many many correct predictions.
You obviously don't understand QM. It has always, since Schrödingers time, been used based on measurements. And it noway is exact as it cannot predict the energies of e.g. hydrogen lower states.
Your weird claims are based on high level orbits, that are not influenced by magnetic perturbations.
As said: QM is an engineering method - approximative only - the lower the potential the better the result!
You obviously don't understand QM. It has always, since Schrödingers time, been used based on measurements. And it noway is exact as it cannot predict the energies of e.g. hydrogen lower states.
Your weird claims are based on high level orbits, that are not influenced by magnetic perturbations.
As said: QM is an engineering method - approximative only - the lower the potential the better the result!
W - I await your comment on the (many) experiments with quantum entanglement I referenced, and how your "better-than-QM" theory predicts those experimental results?
......these dead-ends continue to represent the fields in which the leading theorists and experimentalists cluster to investigate. These blind alleys, which have borne no fruit for literally two generations of physicists, continue to attract funding and attention, despite possibly being disconnected from reality completely. In her new book, Lost In Math, Sabine Hossenfelder adroitly confronts this crisis head on, interviewing mainstream scientists, Nobel Laureates, and (non-crackpot) contrarians alike. You can feel her frustration, and also the desperation of many of the people she speaks with. The book answers the question of "have we let wishful thinking about what secrets nature holds cloud our judgment?" with a resounding "yes!"
......these dead-ends continue to represent the fields in which the leading theorists and experimentalists cluster to investigate. These blind alleys, which have borne no fruit for literally two generations of physicists, continue to attract funding and attention, despite possibly being disconnected from reality completely. In her new book, Lost In Math, Sabine Hossenfelder adroitly confronts this crisis head on, interviewing mainstream scientists, Nobel Laureates, and (non-crackpot) contrarians alike. You can feel her frustration, and also the desperation of many of the people she speaks with. The book answers the question of "have we let wishful thinking about what secrets nature holds cloud our judgment?" with a resounding "yes!"
Great recommendation Alan!!! Ms. Hossenfelder nails it. Got the book now thanks to your recommendation. Loved the name of chapter 6...
“Chapter 6: The Incomprehensible Comprehensibility of Quantum Mechanics
In which I ponder the difference between math and magic.”
https://b-ok.cc/book/5206282/54a7f0
Solution: back to the '30s with Stark and Lenard, far away from Hilbert spaces and anticommutative groups.
back to the '30s
Stark got the Nobel Prize for experimental science... not for ethics.
W - I await your comment on the (many) experiments with quantum entanglement I referenced, and how your "better-than-QM" theory predicts those experimental results?
As a spin doctor you always distort the arguments. I said QM can be a great engineering tool - but not more.
You failed to remember that you posted QM papers based on measurements not on basic models and thus still claim QM being fundamental ( - nonsense!)
......these dead-ends continue to represent the fields in which the leading theorists and experimentalists cluster to investigate. These blind alleys, which have borne no fruit for literally two generations of physicists, continue to attract funding and attention, despite possibly being disconnected from reality completely. In her new book, Lost In Math, Sabine Hossenfelder adroitly confronts this crisis head on, interviewing mainstream scientists, Nobel Laureates, and (non-crackpot) contrarians alike. You can feel her frustration, and also the desperation of many of the people she speaks with. The book answers the question of "have we let wishful thinking about what secrets nature holds cloud our judgment?" with a resounding "yes!"
If these three are recognized, quantum mechanics will return to the original thermodynamic domain, and new mechanics representing atoms will be born.
Proton oscillations due to neutrinos create a standing wave of gamma rays.
Can you present us the physics of the neutrino particle & how it connects to the SO(4) magnetic flux structure of the proton?
One approach to interpret neutrinos is to associate them with the relativistic flux "nodes" inside a proton. A change in node numbers can possibly free neutrinos.
But for this we need your neutrino particle structure. (check Mills 39.12 ! )
Can you present us the physics of the neutrino particle & how it connects to the SO(4) magnetic flux structure of the proton?
One approach to interpret neutrinos is to associate them with the relativistic flux "nodes" inside a proton. A change in node numbers can possibly free neutrinos.
But for this we need your neutrino particle structure. (check Mills 39.12 ! )
Neutrinos are not particles. The shortest electric field pulse. It is evidence that it is not particles that fly away at the speed of light when it occurs.
Neutrinos are transmitted using charged particles as a medium in the same way as other electromagnetic waves. Think about why neutrons decay beta in 15 minutes. On Earth, 66 billion neutrinos pass per second per square centimeter.Enormous neutrinos pass through nuclei in matter.
The neutrino electric field that collided with the neutrons knocks out the electrons attached to the protons.
In the tritium nucleus, protons are bonded by three electrons, but if high-energy neutrinos enter here, they may eject electrons when they pass through the bonded electrons.
Beta decay correlates with the distance between the sun and the earth.
Evidence for Correlations Between Nuclear Decay Rates and Earth-Sun Distance
