|
|
|
9th September 2009 This is my third reply to the brief email from James Bogle asking me for comment on the article by Tom van Flandern which, although revolutionary, made it past the referee process into a major learned journal.
Not only am I not in contact with 20th century Establishment Physics, or "Modren Physics". I am also out of touch with conventional dissidents. This is because, from my point of view, they fail to divest themselves of all but a small portion of the errors and oversights which make up "Modren Physics". I think it will be useful for me to give a specific. I note that much of "Modern Physics" igonres considerations of energy. My position is that energy and its conservation is fundamental. The concept of no preferred frame of reference (Einstein) ignores considerations of energy, so it is a non-starter. Now probably most dissidents adhere to this spurious idea of no preferred frame of reference. Even those who don't manage to overlook considerations of energy in their considerations of fundamentals. I am set apart from this by my experience, which is unusual. In the 1960s I knew that my basic problem was to del;iver energy/[power from one logic gate to the next, as quickly as possible. Speed was of the essence. While wrestling with this problem, I came up with proof that electromagnetic energy can only travel at the speed of light, no slower. In particular, it could not stand still. The steady electric or magnetic field was an impossibility. I "proved" this mathematically and published it. It recurs in my work, for instance in my book Electromagnetics 1 and also, rather badly in my book Digital Hardware Design . I now know that these "proofs" are dependent on some dubious conventional theory, but the underlying principle, that energy current cannot stand still, and can only travel at the speed of light, remains. I then used Occam's Razor to justify trying to build everything in the universe out of such Energy Cuirrent, or TEM Wave. Since from my point of view energy was fundamental, a point generally overlooked at crucial points by Establishment Science and also by Dissidents, then it behoved me to build up what I could out of it. It remains clear to me that it should be possible to build everything we see in the universe our of Energy Currents travelling at the speed of light. The idea that we seem to see things which are stationary, not all travelling at the speed of light, when in fact everything ifs in motion, is already entrenched in our science with the Kinetic Theory andl also in the fact that a spinning flywheel appears to be stationary. Now a fundamental feature of the Principle of Conservation of Energy is that Energy knows where it is. It necessarily resides in absolute space, so space is absolute. There can surely be nothing relative about this, and the location of energy, and its amount, must surely have nothing to do with an observer. Physical reality, of which energy is the basis, cannot have anything to do with the velocity of passing obsrvers. In my "proofs", we consider the problem presented to energy when it tries to enter a new region of space, as it continually does. It is confronted by space which has physical characteristics, superficially characterised by permittivity and permeability. Actually, these are superficial constructs based on the more basic fundamentals; the impedance of space, 377, and the single permissible velocity through space, 300,000. Again, we go deeper, and find that velocity is not the Primitive. The deeper Primitive is that "Space is the ability to accommodate energy". A region of space accommodates energy for a certaiun period of time. This region is properly one nanosecond of space. Superficially, it can be called on foot of space with a permissible velocity one foot per nanosecond. However, the only measurable factor, and so the more absolute factor, is the period of time for which energy is accommodated by that region of space. The world-view outlined above is very far indeed from that of mainstream science and also from that of dissident science. This is what makes the idea of Catt commenting on mainstream science or even dissident science futile.
| |
|
| |