| The Special Theory of Reality
Nachstehend bringe ich Ausz?ge aus folgender Arbeit aus dem Jahre 2006:
Robert F. Beck: The Special Theory of Reality
An heuristic paper on the true meaning and nature of time, energy, mass, space and space-time (with consequential solutions)
My paper is based on extracts from my book (ebook and paperback ? see
www.einsteins-revolution.com) of the same title with further clarifications that will appear in my second book to be published soon. They are thus of an informal nature, but written primarily for the scientific community. My theory stems from a logical analysis of the true meaning and nature of the concepts of time, energy, space and mass.
This is approached in a quite similar way to Einstein, with thought experiments, but I conclude that Einstein was wrong in his assumption that mass increases with speed, and that for radiation, the reverse is true; and that the constancy of c and time dilation have simple explanations without paradox when time is understood correctly as no more than relative spin. I also conclude that relativity is universally misinterpreted now because energy has to be relative and thus a property of matter as opposed to a separate entity, and because dimensions do not change. It is rather that considering them to change is a useful way of describing curved or relative motion. They thus describe the rotation of the universe and the galaxy, which are components of all orbits and either in part or in whole, are responsible for the illusion of expansion.
But at the smallest level, such curvature of motion in neutrinos, which gives helicity, together with the understanding of a basic component of mass dependent on spin, give a clear and simple view of mass/energy equivalence, quantum general relativity, and the current notion of curled up extra dimensions. This leads to an explanation for the very nature of quantum mechanics and aspects of string theory in a way that offers clear visualization of the structure and behavior of particles, forces and radiation, all based on rings and spirals of neutrinos (or possibly even smaller particles). For string theorists this means the unthinkable: strings are made of particles! For gravity, the emission of gravitons in the form of spirals of neutrinos, quite similar to the emission of photons, provides a mechanism to confirm and explain Newton?s inverse square law. This means that singularities are impossible and that black holes are self-regulating and quite probably the source of BMR. Explanations for star, galaxy and solar system formation are suggested. One very important aspect of my findings and related research is that antigravity has to be possible, which has huge implications for climate change and the energy crisis.
This work is supported by experimental and observational evidence related to twisted light, the gravitational effects of eclipses, WMAP, SOHO, the relativistic heavy ion collider at Brookhaven, the Hutchison effect, records of human levitation and by computer simulation.
Peter Marquardt, in setting out the ?Minimum Consensus? of the Natural Philosophy Alliance, starts off as follows:
?Scientific modelling should and must be consistent and free of internal contradictions. This begins with the very first step: Analyse the vocabulary used in order to define the problem in question. Many a discussion is bound to remain fruitless if there is no consensus even about the basic terminology.?
This is the precise basis of my theory as set out in my book of the same title (Ebook and paperback published in 2004 and 2005 respectively), and the prime reason why physics has gravitated into confusion. Indeed David Gross, at the last Solvay conference admitted:
?We are in a period of utter confusion? and ?We are missing something fundamental?
The reason is simple. The use of the words ?time? ?energy? ?space? and ?space-time? has been so careless that nobody can be sure what is precisely meant. And many who use these terms appear to have no really clear idea of the precise meaning that they are intending to convey. This does not just apply to careless students or science writers. Consider for instance what even the great Richard Feynman had to say about energy:
In Volume 1 of his Lectures on Physics (1963) Richard Feynman states:
?It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge of what energy is?.
This seems to imply that it has some sort of independent existence, which is going to be very hard to understand. Yet he then goes on to say that it is an ?abstract thing?. A ?thing? cannot be abstract if it is conceived to have some sort of existence. If something is abstract it is just an idea. This leads me to think that the consideration of energy has not been completely logical. If it is abstract we can say with confidence that it is just a useful idea. What, however, is an abstract thing which we do not understand?
If it is some thing, which remains to be understood, it is not abstract. This confusion seems to have remained unrealised, even in great minds such as Stephen Hawking?s and many others I suspect. How else can they talk of ?strings of energy? and ?pure energy? and yet not define what they mean by ?energy?.
The fundamental thing that has been missed is the principle of impotence, which can leave no doubt that energy has to be relative. This means that it has to apply to something real in motion By carefully analysing the most fundamental terms used in physics and applying them logically to the apparent contradictions and paradoxes of relativity and quantum mechanics, I appear to have answers of amazing simplicity to this long-standing dilemma, which demystify both and explain the very nature of the latter. These answers are easy to visualise and extend from the structure of particles, through exclusion principle and apparently mysterious quantum phenomena, including the apparent constancy of c, duality and double slit experiments, and gravitational anomalies, up to alternative explanations for the solar system, galaxies, black holes, background radiation, and explanations for apparent expansion.
Although my book suggests explanations for various paranormal phenomena and that God may be the source of some of my answers, I do not consider that this is an appropriate forum for discussion on these matters, except insofar as the supposedly paranormal phenomenon of human levitation is concerned, because this is linked to the true nature of gravity and the possibility of anti-gravity.
Lesen Sie bitte weiter unter:
The Special Theory of Reality
Beste Gr??e Ekkehard Friebe
Dieser Beitrag wurde schon 1 mal editiert, zum letzten mal von Ekkehard Friebe am 13.10.2008 10:25.