Call for a Paradigm Shift in Fundamental Physics

On Jun 3, 7:07 am, BradGuth wrote:
...........

Unfortunately, here in Google Groups (aka Usenet/newsgroups) you're
lucky if not being shot in the back of your head.

No, that is not the case. The fact is that neither anybody here can
ever shoot me in the back of my head nor anybody is ever going to even
think of shooting me in any way.

Of course, some of them will like to shoot my book out of existence.
But majority of them will simply like to close their eyes and feel as
if such a book does not exist at all.

The mostly
republican Zionist Nazis in charge of most everything that counts, as
such they seem to dislike anyone suggesting a revision (good or bad)
of anything.

~ BG

Isn't it a normal psychological compulsion for most of the mediocre
persons?

It may appear that making sensible and plausible suggestions for any
advancement or revision of the status quo is a tough job; but the
testing and evaluation of such suggestions is in reality the toughest
and most challenging task which most people would like to avoid.

GSS

On Jun 3, 5:46 pm, Benj wrote:
On Jun 2, 1:13 pm, GSS wrote:

I have been discussing related issues on these Usenet groups for the
last one decade or so. Very many participants in these discussions
have confirmed this viewpoint.

Do you believe that current theories of Physics are based on logical
foundations?

Jeez. Do you get paid by the word or something? Your huge essay (which
I presume is a brief summary of your book) really comes down to one
central issue. Physics has been replaced by mathematics. Physics is
defined as the study of phenomena. But today "advanced" physics has
become synonymous with 'advanced mathematics" [in some ways due to the
popular influence of Einstein]. This results in a strange affliction
taking over physics. It is the widespread belief that mathematical
models are more real than reality!

No, mathematics is an essential and powerful tool, which can be used
to analyze the physical concepts and their interrelations with great
precision and conciseness. If some mathematicians misuse mathematics
to dominate and brow-beat physicists, it is not the fault of
mathematics. Physicists must learn to use mathematics as a powerful
tool, just as the engineers do.

Now mathematics is an abstract human construct with no conditions
other than self-consistency. No other limitations exist. Logic,
causality, agreement with experiment are not part of it. Hence once
mathematics is taken as the ultimate test, it opens the door to all
manner of "insane" and non-physical dogma. We find the blind
resurrection of the long discredited "action at a distance" theories
(now called "nonlocal" for marketing purposes) that require
transluminal information transfer. We find field theories which
mathematically require continuous and differentiable functions used to
describe events which are clearly quantized. We find the famous
"spacetime" which is obviously just an imaginative mathematical
construct becoming a dogma that says the construct actually IS space.
This is equivalent to trying to ascertain where the "poles" of Laplace
analysis are stored in networks! Maybe there is a "pole rack"
somewhere in the components?

I have found during my prolonged discussions on these Usenet forums
that most scientists now agree with the notion of spacetime as a
mathematical model - a 4D space-time manifold. Spacetime is no longer
regarded as a physical entity.

In General Relativity, the Riemannian 4D space-time manifold is being
used as a differential scale template for getting the trajectories of
objects as geodesic curves. There is no doubt, what so ever, that GR
is just a mathematical model used for obtaining the trajectories of
objects as geodesic curves! However, the founders of GR did attempt to
elevate this mathematical model to the status of a physical theory by
assuming the 4D space-time manifold to be a physical spacetime
continuum and also assuming that the mass-energy content of a
gravitating body somehow controls the metric of this physical entity.
Once we realize that 4D spacetime manifold is just an abstract
mathematical construct and not a physical entity, then it is quite a
simple matter to understand that GR is just a mathematical model and
not a physical theory.

http://sites.google.com/a/fundamenta...attredirects=0

And of course it gets worse. The university system, insures by
training students to blindly accept the most illogical of assertions
as ultimate "science truth", we have developed not a science but a
religion. I call it "faith-based physics".

And it gets still worse. There is a political side to this as well as
government and especially the military in the post-atomic era have
realized there is power in technology and have taken over the funding
and control of science. This means that certain ideas that may have
too much political or military potential, are withdrawn from public
view and erased from the public record. Often such are ideas are then
replaced by nonsense to act as "placeholders".

GSS if correct, it's a sad, sad, state of affairs in our profession
today. But at least a few are wising up in spite of the shills hired
to make sure everyone stays asleep. There is some hope. Internet
discussion of such issues being one.

Hope sustains life!

On Jun 4, 6:53*am, GSS wrote:
On Jun 3, 7:07 am, BradGuth wrote:
..........



Unfortunately, here in Google Groups (aka Usenet/newsgroups) you're
lucky if not being shot in the back of your head.

No, that is not the case. The fact is that neither anybody here can
ever shoot me in the back of my head nor anybody is ever going to even
think of shooting me in any way.

Of course, some of them will like to shoot my book out of existence.
But majority of them will simply like to close their eyes and feel as
if such a book does not exist at all.

The mostly
republican Zionist Nazis in charge of most everything that counts, as
such they seem to dislike anyone suggesting a revision (good or bad)
of anything.

*~ BG

Isn't it a normal psychological compulsion for most of the mediocre
persons?

It may appear that making sensible and plausible suggestions for any
advancement or revision of the status quo is a tough job; but the
testing and evaluation of such suggestions is in reality the toughest
and most challenging task which most people would like to avoid.

GSS

Most of science and physics expertise will only test if publicly
funded, and then look only for whatever supports their mainstream
mindset. The spendy and time consuming GPB/SR fiasco is a good
example of mainstream cover-thy-butt via obfuscation on steroids.

~ BG

On Jun 5, 4:54*am, BradGuth wrote:
On Jun 4, 6:53*am, GSS wrote:



On Jun 3, 7:07 am, BradGuth wrote:
..........

Unfortunately, here in Google Groups (aka Usenet/newsgroups) you're
lucky if not being shot in the back of your head.

No, that is not the case. The fact is that neither anybody here can
ever shoot me in the back of my head nor anybody is ever going to even
think of shooting me in any way.

Of course, some of them will like to shoot my book out of existence.
But majority of them will simply like to close their eyes and feel as
if such a book does not exist at all.

The mostly
republican Zionist Nazis in charge of most everything that counts, as
such they seem to dislike anyone suggesting a revision (good or bad)
of anything.

*~ BG

Isn't it a normal psychological compulsion for most of the mediocre
persons?

It may appear that making sensible and plausible suggestions for any
advancement or revision of the status quo is a tough job; but the
testing and evaluation of such suggestions is in reality the toughest
and most challenging task which most people would like to avoid.

GSS

Most of science and physics expertise will only test if publicly
funded, and then look only for whatever supports their mainstream
mindset. *The spendy and time consuming GPB/SR fiasco is a good
example of mainstream cover-thy-butt via obfuscation on steroids.

*~ BG

Isn't it a pity that huge amount of public funds have been wasted for
testing the current paradigm when the general public is either being
mislead or being kept in the dark. In this regard let me reproduce an
old message of Leonard Pardin, dated Jul 12, 2004 posted in these
newsgroups.

"Never in the history of the scientific world has so much money been
spent to prove a theory that has provided so little benefit. Almost a
hundred years after Einstein first proposed his General Theory of
Relativity, the theory is still unproved and unproveable. In addition,
the theory has spawned an astonishing array of unproved and
unproveable ******* theories like time warps, vacuum energy, worm
holes, and black holes."

"Scientists have expended and are now expending huge sums of
taxpayer money to prove that all those jumbled mathematical
calculations really do point to something real. For years government
funding of the Einstein legend amounted to more than $2 million per
year just to develop technology that might help to find something. But
then in 1980, funding was increased to cover ground testing of
subsystems. By 1992, funding level had grown to $30 million each
year. When Relativity scientists announced the project had entered a
"science mission" phase, the annual outlay was raised to above $50
million. This is known as throwing good money down a black hole. What
a waste."

In my opinion, it should be possible to convince the general public to
stop wasting money in trying to test the validity of the current
paradigm. In stead, it should be more sensible to test for the
invalidity of the current paradigm by conducting a test for
establishing the Universal Reference Frame as proposed in chapter 5 of
my book. If public opinion is moulded in this direction, then such an
experiment can be actually conducted in the existing LIGO facility at
a very nominal cost.

GSS

On Jun 5, 7:58 am, ASS wrote:
If public opinion is moulded in this direction, then such an
experiment can be actually conducted in the existing LIGO facility at
a very nominal cost.

ASS

Deep delusions.....

On Jun 5, 8:08 pm, Do no wrote:
On Jun 5, 7:58 am, GSS wrote:

If public opinion is moulded in this direction, then such an
experiment can be actually conducted in the existing LIGO facility at
a very nominal cost.

GSS

Deep delusions.....

Well, if you doubt the first part of the statement " If public opinion
is moulded in this direction", then let me assure you that given the
support of right thinking intellectuals, public opinion can be moulded
in this direction in about one to two years time.

On the other hand, if you doubt the second part of the statement "such
an experiment can be actually conducted in the existing LIGO facility
at a very nominal cost.", then let me reproduce the last portion of
chapter 5 of the book, to convince you.

[From equation (5.11), it is clear that the ratio U/c depends on the
ratio of the difference between the up-link and down-link signal
propagation times to the total round trip signal propagation time. The
minimum difference between the up-link and down-link timings depends
on the precision and accuracy of the synchronized time clocks used in
the experiment. For U/c of the order of 10^-8, time transfer accuracy
of 10^-10 seconds, the round trip signal propagation time is required
to be of the order of 10^-2 seconds that corresponds to D of the order
of a few thousand kilometers. But for U/c of the order of 10^-7, time
transfer accuracy of 10^-12 seconds, the round trip signal propagation
time is required to be of the order of 10^-5 seconds that corresponds
to D of the order of a few thousand meters.

With well below a nano-second time transfer accuracy feasible with
modern technology, the net velocity U of the space ship could be
determined to an accuracy of a few meters per second provided the
separation distance Dn is of the order of a few thousand kilometers.
This in turn amounts to the precision with which we can detect and
establish the Universal reference frame. The computation of velocity
components U1, U2 and U3 mainly depends on the isotropic constant
speed of light c in the chosen reference frame XYZ and a sequence of
discrete precision time measurements tn with a set of properly
calibrated and synchronized atomic clocks. Essentially, the
measurement of a sequence of discrete precision time intervals employs
a two way time transfer technique made feasible by modern cutting-edge
technology.

This leads us to the conclusion that we can experimentally determine
the velocity vector U of the observer station A with respect to the
universal coordinate reference frame XYZ. It obviously implies that
with respect to our known position A, or with respect to our local
coordinate frame X'Y'Z', we have determined the velocity (-U) of XYZ
or the Universal reference frame. With this, we confirm the detection
and establishment of the Universal Reference Frame.

Concluding Remarks. For conducting this experiment, we can
actually use the International Space Station (ISS) as our main
observer station A and three communication satellites in geostationary
orbits as the space probes. With the use of currently available front
line technology and special dedicated software, a continuous record of
velocity U of the observer station ISS with respect to the Universal
Reference Frame can be obtained in real time. Further since the
velocity of ISS is already known in BCRF, we can now compute the
velocity U' of the BCRF or the barycenter of the solar system in the
Universal Reference Frame. Possibly, the International Earth Rotation
and Reference Systems Service (IERS) could be the most appropriate
agency for undertaking this project to establish and maintain the
Universal Reference Frame. However, with the development of optical
atomic clocks underway, the time transfer accuracy of the order of
picoseconds (10^-12 s) will be feasible. With this accuracy, a LIGO
type experimental set up can be established on the ground for
determining U with an accuracy better than 0.1 km/second. ]

GSS

On Jun 6, 5:31 am, ASS wrote:


[From equation (5.11), it is clear that the ratio U/c depends...

But your equation (5.11) is wrong, dumbASS. This has been explained to
you countless times in the past, you have conveniently "forgotten" .
Is this why your chapter 5 is not available for free?

On Jun 6, 7:12*pm, Do no wrote:
On Jun 6, 5:31 am, GSS wrote:



[From equation (5.11), it is clear that the ratio U/c depends...

But your equation (5.11) is wrong. This has been explained to
you countless times in the past, you have conveniently "forgotten" .
Is this why your chapter 5 is not available for free?

You are wrong.
Refer to an old thread where this chapter had been discussed but you
did not participate in the entire discussions.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...9c7d0a9efe551?

GSS

GSS wrote:

On Jun 6, 7:12 pm, Do no wrote:

On Jun 6, 5:31 am, GSS wrote:




[From equation (5.11), it is clear that the ratio U/c depends...

But your equation (5.11) is wrong. This has been explained to
you countless times in the past, you have conveniently "forgotten" .
Is this why your chapter 5 is not available for free?


You are wrong.
Refer to an old thread where this chapter had been discussed but you
did not participate in the entire discussions.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...9c7d0a9efe551?

GSS

So since 2005 you have not learned anything. Your equation is still wrong.

On Jun 6, 10:16 am, ASS wrote:
On Jun 6, 7:12 pm, Do no wrote:

On Jun 6, 5:31 am, GSS wrote:

[From equation (5.11), it is clear that the ratio U/c depends...

But your equation (5.11) is wrong. This has been explained to
you countless times in the past, you have conveniently "forgotten" .
Is this why your chapter 5 is not available for free?

You are wrong.
Refer to an old thread where this chapter had been discussed but you
did not participate in the entire discussions.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...sg/1ac9c7d0a9e...

ASS

You are the same idiot as you were 5 years ago and your equation is as
wrong as it was in 2005.