Fundamental Errors in Physics by John-Erik Persson

Hi John-Erik Persson

The opening sentences in your esteemed essay "This article demonstrates, that theoretical physics of today depends on more than 100 years old assumptions and interpretations of experiments, that are made in error. With the very advanced technology of today we have tools to correct these mistakes. ........ This article illustrates the need for more critical thinking to reveal old fundamental errors."

Ether is one of the excellent ideas to be probed further. But there are some more Fundamental Errors in Physics My dear Persson................ very nice idea.... I highly appreciate your essay and hope for reciprocity.

I request you please consider spending some of the valuable time on Dynamic Universe Model also and give your some of the valuable & esteemed guidance and other some fundamental errors.....

Some of the Main foundational points of Dynamic Universe Model :

-No Isotropy

-No Homogeneity

-No Space-time continuum

-Non-uniform density of matter, universe is lumpy

-No singularities

-No collisions between bodies

-No blackholes

-No warm holes

-No Bigbang

-No repulsion between distant Galaxies

-Non-empty Universe

-No imaginary or negative time axis

-No imaginary X, Y, Z axes

-No differential and Integral Equations mathematically

-No General Relativity and Model does not reduce to GR on any condition

-No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models

-No many mini Bigbangs

-No Missing Mass / Dark matter

-No Dark energy

-No Bigbang generated CMB detected

-No Multi-verses

Here:

-Accelerating Expanding universe with 33% Blue shifted Galaxies

-Newton's Gravitation law works everywhere in the same way

-All bodies dynamically moving

-All bodies move in dynamic Equilibrium

-Closed universe model no light or bodies will go away from universe

-Single Universe no baby universes

-Time is linear as observed on earth, moving forward only

-Independent x,y,z coordinate axes and Time axis no interdependencies between axes..

-UGF (Universal Gravitational Force) calculated on every point-mass

-Tensors (Linear) used for giving UNIQUE solutions for each time step

-Uses everyday physics as achievable by engineering

-21000 linear equations are used in an Excel sheet

-Computerized calculations uses 16 decimal digit accuracy

-Data mining and data warehousing techniques are used for data extraction from large amounts of data.

- Many predictions of Dynamic Universe Model came true....Have a look at

http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/p/blog-page_15.html

I request you to please have a look at my essay also, and give some of your esteemed criticism for your information........

Dynamic Universe Model says that the energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation passing grazingly near any gravitating mass changes its in frequency and finally will convert into neutrinos (mass). We all know that there is no experiment or quest in this direction. Energy conversion happens from mass to energy with the famous E=mC2, the other side of this conversion was not thought off. This is a new fundamental prediction by Dynamic Universe Model, a foundational quest in the area of Astrophysics and Cosmology.

In accordance with Dynamic Universe Model frequency shift happens on both the sides of spectrum when any electromagnetic radiation passes grazingly near gravitating mass. With this new verification, we will open a new frontier that will unlock a way for formation of the basis for continual Nucleosynthesis (continuous formation of elements) in our Universe. Amount of frequency shift will depend on relative velocity difference. All the papers of author can be downloaded from "http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/ "

I request you to please post your reply in my essay also, so that I can get an intimation that you replied

Best

=snp

Satyavarapu

Thanks for good words about my article. You seems to have many ideas in common with me. I think that there is too much science fiction in physics now.

Yes, I will read your article and comment.

From ___________________ John-Erik Persson

Dear Fellow Essayists

This will be my final plea for fair treatment.,

Reliable evidence exists that proves that the surface of the earth was formed millions of years before man and his utterly complex finite informational systems ever appeared on that surface. It logically follows that Nature must have permanently devised the only single physical construct of earth allowable.

All objects, be they solid, liquid, or vaporous have always had a visible surface. This is because the real Universe consists only of one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light.

Only the truth can set you free.

Joe Fisher, Realist

John-Erik,

I can't seem to find my post of 26th. That's no the fist to have disappeared, Cristi reported one. Bizzarre!?

To answer your question above; the energy doesn't 'disappear'. The amplitude reduces at one angle matched by increase at the orthogonal angle. Best visualise it as measuring a thin ellipse in orthogonal directions. Simply rotate or phase shift it and the major & minor axis reverse.

I hope that's helpful. Wiki is also quite helpful on quantum optics & phase shifts.

Perhaps my previous post was rotated 90 degrees so became as thin as a piece of paper and is no longer detectable!!??

Best. Peter

John Eric.

That's QM for you! However logical consistency depends on starting assumptions, so try this (as my reply to you on mine but expanded)

I show you a spinning sphere. I ask you to touch it and judge the clockwise or anti-clockwise rotation. You touch the south pole and clearly say 'Clockwise'.

Now I can make your result disappear to ZERO without removing the spinning sphere!

I simply rotate the sphere half a turn on either the y OR z axis. You find 0!

Now stay there and start again. I ask you if it's spin UP or DOWN. Easy! But then rotate 90 degrees and THAT ALSO goes to zero! (there's no up/down or left/right momentum at the equator) We can rotate either the sphere or just YOU! (and at 180 degrees you find the opposite).

The energy does not disappear! The spinning sphere is still there. It's all about at what angle we measure things. It's then entirely logically consistent once you use the correct starting assumptions. Exactly like QM in fact! Remember a two channel photomultiplier has orthogonal channels each with rotatable field electrons 'requantizing' input & amplifying to get a 'click'.

In 'superposition', if one path had one polarization and the other was at 90 degrees a 'complete' result is found if 'in phase'. A full range of detector findings is then possible subject to phase and orientation. i.e. if 2 identical states are combined at one angle the result is twice the amplitude, but at 90 degrees it will be found below the detection threshold.

It's all about understanding how detectors really work!

Peter

John-Eric,

That's a very original approach, and I agree we should test all options. Indeed I have no issue with the 'sub-matter' medium being particulate as it must be discrete 'vortices' (motion) to exist at all! However it's not condensed 'matter' at that smaller scale so needs differentiation.

And we mustn't forget the 'transverse' wave quality of light, so fluctuations over all 3 axes as it translates. So is the helical path of a 3D orbit a 'wave' or a 'particle'! It certainly travels as a wave of increasing circumference but must be made 'particulate' by any interaction. I also posted the response below on my string;;

..

There's also a simpler way to test if 'destructive interference' is real. Move the back board of a 2 slit or similar interferometer experiment slightly forward or rearward. The light fringes become dark and vice versa. Huygens construction helps rationalise but modern quantum optics does even better.

The 'build up' of 'single photon' events to a fringe pattern does however also show the retained 'particulate' characteristic on interaction ('requantization'). Richard Feynman thought 'duality' was just confusion, but things are now far less confused.

(I'm sure the '1' applied to mine at the time of your last post wasn't you John-Eric.)

Very best

Peter

John-Eric,

It does. It depends on polarization type and direction. Just turn the slits by 90 degrees and the fringes are transverse.

Best

Peter

John-Eric, (copied)

I'm not sure what 'proof' ever is, but rotation has three degrees of freedom not just two. Ellipticity change can be from rotation on any axis.

Don't you agree the changes found when changing the backboard distance seem evidence enough of longitudinal change? (If plotted progressively it describes the same fluctuation pattern).

The 'impact' axis energy in beams such as Bessel beams & lasers is quite well known. And what of the photoelectric effect?

Best

Peter

John-Erik, I can agree the following; (also re your post on Josephsons and mine)

1. Nothing can 'prove' anything in physics.

2. Energy is found from interactions with light. Precisely how? we don't know.

3. As 'meters' are part of the system they DO influence detected values.

4. Dark energy does exist, not as 'matter', but can condense to pairs.

You don't explain what 'potential' and 'real' forces are. I could rationalise them as 'dark' and condensed particle energy (with all 3 degrees of freedom not just 2) but I suggest we can't say more.

Best

Peter

Greetings John-Erik, | I have started to read your essay, because I notice from the abstract and comments that there is some similarity to ideas I presented at FFP15 which are partly summarized in my current essay, talking about gravitation by condensation. I point out that the various entropic and emergent gravity schemes are equivalent to recent ideas that there is an analogy between the quantum critical point of BEC formation and the event horizons of Schwarzschild black holes, which are purely gravitational massive objects so make a good arena for studying gravity. | The notion of gravitation by condensation also fits well with ether-based gravity models such as what you are describing - though I have not digested that description yet. You would likely find greatly interesting also the Sink Drain model of Bayarsaikhan Choisuren, so I'll include a link to his essay as well. I am using the vertical bar character in place of carriage returns, which a glitch in the FQXi system is turning into the letter n - very annoying! | All the Best, | Jonathan

Hello again John-Erik...

I found this essay enjoyable to read, and I am somewhat in agreement with what you are trying to say, but I think there are some exaggerations where for example you say 'proves' when 'shows' or 'may show' would pass without raising an eyebrow. It is wise to learn, in the arena of theoretical Physics, that having a clear explanation for the facts considered does not mean having a better theory which considers all of the known facts. Part of the reason is that many alternate models can explain many pertinent facts, in a field like quantum gravity for example, without there being a single model that is clearly superior to the rest.

I heard perhaps 40 lectures on different flavors of quantum gravity at GR21, and every speaker talked about important advances being made using their chosen model - and the advantages thereof. Beverly Berger spoke up saying that, and Lee Smolin later reaffirmed that progress would be better served if people found ways to use advances in one model as a springboard for progress in another. That kind of cooperation or collaboration is what I live for or thrive on, because I don't see this whole competing models thing as helpful. But some of your ideas have a rather good pedigree you seem to know nothing about.

Are you familiar with the book "The Evolution of Physics" by Einstein and Infeld, which presents Modern Physics concepts in a very ether-centered view, because it was largely written while those ideas were still considered valuable insights rather than a side trip? You should also check out papers by Reg Cahill who wrote "Process Physics," which talk about infalling ether in terms of a fractal vacuum. So what you are referring to is not without merit, nor is it a dead idea, but you are overreaching a bit. I agree that MMX are widely misinterpreted as ruling out the ether hypothesis, but the reason that falls apart is rather technical.

Regards,

Jonathan

(copied reply from mine) John-Eric, Yes I see the link is dead. Try one of these;

Vimeo 100 sec video.

Youtube 100 sec Classic QM.

As foor your model, I've agreed it's novel and interesting and we must test all. But the QM test is like a complex jigsaw puzzle we're told can't be solved. There is only ONE solution (be it describable in many ways).

Your theory don't yet derive such a solution. Our classical mechanism DOES do so, and unarguably because its classical mechanics. So if you suggest our solution is 'wrong' it's the same as saying the completed jigsaw puzzle is wrong! (it also produces non integer spins, remarkable in itself!)

You may still be right if a flaw in the puzzle solution is found. Nobody has yet but you might. OR a modified s description may be consistent. Our model also works with a plane wave from a 'photon' emission interacting with detector electrons. Could you not say in a way that's not inconsistent with yours?

Very Best

Peter

John

I can't stand to see your work so low on the rankings, and although I don't have time this minute to explain why, I'm not going to delay giving you a bump in the up direction. I'm looking forward to explaining why I appreciate your work. I will return

Steven Andresen