Lasted edited by Andrew Munsey, updated on June 15, 2016 at 1:50 am.
Posted by Congress:Member:Leslie R. Pastor
Models and Physics Laws Are Not Absolute
26 Feb. 2007
In 1931 Gödel proved that no mathematical model is perfect, and none ever will be. There are always foundations assumptions included in any model that are not explainable by that model, and some will later be found to be "false" as science and scientific knowledge progresses. A model is not absolute, in the sense we normally think of. Further, scientific observation (experimental method) does not yield ultimate truth at all, but only the best truth we can arrive at a given time with our available instruments and measurement techniques.
A "model" must be judged on its usefulness and without the question of "absolute" even being raised. All modern scientific knowledge is relative knowledge, not absolute knowledge! Modern and more enlightened scientists thus regard any present model as at best a "somewhat better approximation" than some prevailing model, but far from perfect.
As a fairly simple but little-know example, the conservation of energy "law" is not perfect, but only an approximation! Specifically, it applies to any special relativity situation, where the observation frame is fixed even if rotated – which means almost all the time in "normal" situations, "normal" systems, etc. But conservation of energy can be and is violated by sufficiently strong general relativity situations, and this is already known in modern physics. E.g., shortly after Einstein published his theory, the great Hilbert pointed out:
"I assert... that for the general theory of relativity, i.e., in the case of general invariance of the Hamiltonian function, energy equations... corresponding to the energy equations in orthogonally invariant theories do not exist at all. I could even take this circumstance as the characteristic feature of the general theory of relativity." ['D. Hilbert, Gottingen Nachrichten, Vol. 4, 1917, p. 21.'].
Quoting 'Logunov and Loskutov':
"In formulating the equivalence principle, Einstein actually abandoned the idea of the gravitational field as a Faraday-Maxwell field, and this is reflected in the pseudotensorial characterization of the gravitational field that he introduced. Hilbert was the first to draw attention to the consequences of this. … Unfortunately … Hilbert was evidently not understood by his contemporaries, since neither Einstein himself nor other physicists recognized the fact that in general relativity conservation laws for energy, momentum, and angular momentum are in principle impossible." [A. A. Logunov and Yu. M. Loskutov, "Nonuniqueness of the predictions of the general theory of relativity," Sov. J. Part. Nucl., 18(3), May-June 1987, p. 179].
The noted physicist Roger Penrose explains it very succinctly. Quoting 'Penrose':
"We seem to have lost those most crucial conservation laws of physics, the laws of conservation of energy and momentum!" [Penrose then adds the Killing symmetry arbitrarily, to get conservation again, whenever the Killing vector applies and gravity is separated.]. "These conservation laws hold only in a spacetime for which there is the appropriate symmetry, given by the Killing vector ?…. [These considerations] do not really help us in understanding what the fate of the conservation laws will be when gravity itself becomes an active player. We still have not regained our missing conservation laws of energy and momentum, when gravity enters the picture. ... This awkward-seeming fact has, since the early days of general relativity, evoked some of the strongest objections to that theory, and reasons for unease with it, as expressed by numerous physicists over the years. … in fact Einstein’s theory takes account of energy-momentum conservation in a rather sophisticated way – at least in those circumstances where such a conservation law is most needed. …Whatever energy there is in the gravitational field itself is to be excluded from having any representation…" ['Roger Penrose, The Road to Reality', Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 2005, p. 457-458.].
Note that the "solution" accepted by many general relativists – so they can get on with it! – is to just arbitrarily toss out the gravity and gravitational energy density of spacetime in a given troublesome case, and the problem of nonconservation of energy and momentum then vanishes. In short, separate the spacetime itself from the fields, and there is no problem! However, simply avoiding the problem itself is not solving the problem! Considering the neglected and unaccounted giant Heaviside energy flow that always accompanying every 'Poynting' EM energy flow, the gravity effect is always at least of importance, and this "solution" uses by many relativists for convenience is itself nearly always untenable at root level.
So we never "know" anything absolutely, but only our models and our understanding of them. As 'Hawking' states:
"All we ever know is our models, but never the reality that may or may not exist behind the models and casts its shadow upon us who are embedded inside it. We imagine and intuit, then point the finger and wait to see which suspect for truth turns and runs. Our models may get closer and closer, but we will never reach direct perception of reality's thing-in-itself." [As given by 'George Zebrowski', "The holdouts," Nature, Vol. 408, 14 Dec 2000, p. 775.]
'Hawking' himself formerly belonged to the camp that hopes or believes there is an ultimate theory, but finally he changed his mind very forthrightly. Again quoting him:
"Some people will be very disappointed if there is not an ultimate theory that can be formulated as a finite number of principles. I used to belong to that camp, but I have changed my mind. I am now glad our search for understanding will never come to an end, and we will always have the challenge of new discovery." ['Stephen Hawking', posted on his website in early 2004].
Einstein himself exhorted us along this line, and strongly pointed out that we must continually review all the foundations assumptions of any model, with a view that ultimately (as we slowly discover more and more) we will find things in it that have to be changed to upgrade the model – or else we have to find a new one and a better one.
"...the scientist makes use of a whole arsenal of concepts which he imbibed practically with his mother's milk and seldom if ever is he aware of the eternally problematic character of his concepts. He uses this conceptual material, or, speaking more exactly, these conceptual tools of thought, as something obviously, immutably given something having an objective value of truth which is hardly even, and in any case not seriously, to be doubted. ...in the interests of science it is necessary over and over again to engage in the critique of these fundamental concepts, in order that we may not unconsciously be ruled by them." ['Albert Einstein, "Foreword," in Max Jammer, Concepts of Space: The History of Theories of Space in Physics, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1969', p. xi-xii.].
He also stated:
"Concepts which have proved useful for ordering things easily assume so great an authority over us, that we forget their terrestrial origin and accept them as unalterable facts…The road of scientific progress is frequently blocked for long periods by such errors." ['Albert Einstein and L. Infeld, Evolution of Physics, Simon & Schuster, New York, 1966.']
Add to that statement the fact that "observation" is a "partial with respect to" derivative, and we cannot even observe "absolutely reality." In short, merely to measure or observe something is to directly alter the "thing in itself" and only observe a change in it. We do not really observe "motion", e.g., but we observe a very rapid series of LLL snapshots from d/dt(LLLT) = LLL. By continual mental recall of just-past observations, we infer the motion as change of position in 3-space. Yet the so-called "moving 3-space object" itself is actually a 4-space LLLT object prior to observation, and it is "moving" or "changing" in a spacetime LLLT, not in LLL only.
It is not surprising that the very notion of "energy flow from space" did not even exist in physics until the 1880s and 1890s, when that notion was formulated simultaneously and independently by two scientists, 'Poynting and Heaviside'.
Remember that the Ph.D. means "Doctor of Philosophy" degree. Underlying all our physics models is our current or believed understanding of philosophy – and philosophy and foundations of mathematics have never been able to resolve their own uncovered problems! Such as, "nature of one, nature of mind, nature of being, nature of time," etc. So the philosophers split into various "schools" or "schools of thought" on each major philosophical problem. And each school took a certain "position" with respect to that problem, usually with a clever statement of that position.
And that’s where we are today.
Those who struggled so hard with "philosophy" struggled with such foundations problems. And a few still do, for the problems appear to be unsolvable. Heck, we don’t even yet know what the mind itself is (most Western scientists think naively that we are "meat computers" and that the mind is a rather superstitious notion regarding the electrical wiggles in the brain).
As Nobelist 'Feynman' points out, we don’t even know what "energy" is or what "force" is. Quoting:
"It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge of what energy is." ['Richard P. Feynman, Robert B. Leighton, and Matthew Sands, The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, Vol. 1, 1964, p. 4-2'].
"One of the most important characteristics of force is that it has a material origin, and this is not just a definition. … If you insist upon a precise definition of force, you will never get it!" [Ibid., Vol. 1, 1964, p. 12-2].
E.g., there are no EM force fields (or force fields of any other kind) in space, even though all our universities around the earth still teach such in standard electrical engineering, and have done so for more than a century. Quoting 'Feynman' again:
"…the existence of the positive charge, in some sense, distorts, or creates a "condition" in space, so that when we put the negative charge in, it feels a force. This potentiality for producing a force is called an electric field." ['Richard P. Feynman, Robert B. Leighton, and Matthew Sands, The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, Vol. 1, 1964', p. 2-4].
"We may think of E(x, y, z, t) and B(x, y, z, t) as giving the forces that would be experienced at the time t by a charge located at (x, y, z), with the condition that placing the charge there did not disturb the positions or motion of all the other charges responsible for the fields." [ibid, vol. II, p. 1-3.].
Well, from this knowledge we can model the EM field in space more accurately as a force-free field. This force-free "precursor" EM field-as-it-exists-in-massless-space then interacts with charged matter, and that ongoing interaction creates a force and force field in and of the charged matter itself. In this model approach, the EM force field is not primary, but is an effect in charged matter produced by ongoing interaction of the precursor EM field in space.
Fortunately, there is a little device ('the Fogal semiconductor') that under the proper circumstances can and does interact directly with the precursor EM field in space rather than the effect force field in charged matter (the charged electrons, usually). Hopefully there will be some movement so that the long suppression of 'the Fogal chip' will end, and those chips will eventually emerge onto (hopefully) the world market. If so, then very rapidly we will have dramatic new energy systems, new medical systems, and a whole new approach to EM technology at all levels.
With the precursor fields engineering approach, we can make a new, corrected, CEM/EE model, and dramatically extend and change the present sad old 1880s/1890s CEM/EE model. Then with the new model we will have a much broader and far more powerful model that can lead us into doing a great number of quite new things – such as developing "energy from the vacuum" asymmetric Maxwell systems now once again permitted. Now the new model takes into account the continual interaction between spacetime changes (virtual particle flux of the vacuum changes) and charged matter. We already know from modern quantum field theory that we simply cannot ethically assume the "classically separated" charge, because it is inseparable from its continual and ongoing vacuum interaction. Quoting 'Aitchison':
"...the concept of a 'single particle' actually breaks down in relativistic quantum field theory with interactions, because the interactions between 'the particle' and the vacuum fluctuations (or virtual quanta) cannot be ignored." ['I. J. R. Aitchison, "Nothing's Plenty: The Vacuum in Modern Quantum Field Theory," Contemporary Physics, 26(4), 1985, p. 357.'].
"'Forces, in quantum field theory, are understood as being due to the exchange of virtual quanta...'" [Ibid., p. 372].
This approach also now allows and returns all those asymmetrical Maxwellian systems that Lorentz blithely and absolutely arbitrarily discarded from the already sharply curtailed Heaviside equations in 1892. In doing that dramatic curtailment, Lorentz served the hidden giant cartels who were suppressing 'Nikola Tesla' and his work as their first priority. 'Tesla' was embarked on – and intent on – giving the world free or very cheap and clean EM energy from the active medium (the active vacuum, in the modern particle physics view, or from active spacetime, in the modern general relativity view. But such a system is a priori an asymmetrical system, freely receiving excess usable energy from the vacuum and asymmetrically using it to power our loads, without using half of it to destroy the input flow of EM energy from the vacuum (which is via the broken symmetry of the source dipole inside the generator, not from the input of mechanical energy to the generator shaft).
Under Stalin’s boot, shortly after WW II the galvanized Russian Academy unleashed the best nonlinear scientists on earth on this problem, and in very short order corrected and updated several of the older scientific models – one being the sad old CEM/EE model. As a result, they very quickly got a new but still highly classified science called "energetics," which they then used for developing giant superweapons. They began extensive deployment and employment of such giant superweapons in 1963, and have continued to this day.
Today some 10 nations have the first type development, scalar interferometry. And five of these nations have the full range of superweapons. A sixth is closing fast.
So as to your question on models: There is no perfect model and none will ever be possible. The best we can do at any time is to eliminate known errors in a prevailing model, and always try to have the best model we can.
From the humanitarian view, if we can just get that done by correction and replacement of the horribly flawed old CEM/EE model, we will then very quickly get sharp and precise (and quick and cheap) EM reversal of any specific disease we choose to develop the reversal for. We will also very quickly get cheap, clean energy from the vacuum, replacing our present serious dependence on foreign oil, and changing our present stone-age philosophy from "energy from fuel consumption" to "energy freely from the vacuum." That will also give all the presently desperate nations and peoples of the world a chance to have a modern economy (with jobs, hospitals, schools, medical treatment, and a decent quality of life). It will also allow a dramatic conquering of most if not all our present diseases, including the disease of aging itself.
Immediately one sees that this approach directly threatens the most powerful cartels on earth, those in energy, medical, and control of money. Some of those were the ones who suppressed this anyway, from the time of suppression of Tesla himself.
Anyway, I hope you see my position: There is no such thing as a "perfect" or "absolute" model, and there isn’t going to be one, at least in the foreseeable future. My own conceptual model is far from complete, and is merely an extension and improvement. It is certainly not anything "absolute," but hopefully just more useful, once the up-and-coming young theorists change it into a proper mathematical model.
My personal view is the same as that view so eloquently stated by Einstein and by Hawking. We must continue to strive to always upgrade and improve our models, and never, never, never get into the frame of mind that they are perfect and absolute!
There is always going to be a future, improved version or a totally new and extended model, to replace any model we have today.
But with every such legitimate advance and improvement, we also get new technologies, solutions to old problems, etc.
I’ll be happy if we can just get cheap clean energy from the vacuum, and eliminate the great bulk of the carbon fuel consumption, nuclear fuel consumption, etc. That will dramatically lower the production of nuclear wastes, as well as dramatically lowering the poisoning of our fragile biosphere with harmful emissions and byproducts. It will also dramatically reduce our present production of CO2 and other harmful emissions contributing to global warming.
Just to make any positive contribution to that effort is quite good enough for me!
General Relativistic Violation of The Conservation Energy Law
"'[T]he A field [for the potentials] was banished from playing the central role in Maxwell's theory and relegated to being a mathematical (but not physical) auxiliary. This banishment took place during the interpretation of Maxwell's theory... by Heaviside... and Hertz. The 'Maxwell theory' and 'Maxwell's equations' we know today are really the interpretation of Heaviside... Heaviside took the 20 equations of Maxwell and reduced them to the four now known as "Maxwell's equations.'" [Terence W. Barrett, "Electromagnetic Phenomena Not Explained by Maxwell's Equations," A. Lakhtakia, ed., 'Essays on the Formal Aspects of Electromagnetics Theory, World Scientific Publishing, River Edge, NJ, 1993, p. 11'.]
'Excellent article by Hank Mills:'
Aether Flow -- The True Electric Current? - Could it be that the flow of aether in the form of electric field is the true "electric current", and electron flow is only a byproduct? Some researchers, including potentially Nikola Tesla, seem to think so! (PESN January 27, 2012)'''
Pretty much sums up what I've been presenting to the New Energy Congress via my research papers, along with my collaborated research with Tom Bearden and demonstrated via my applied research via the 30 coil monopole system, designed, engineered and built by Renaissance Charge LLC and paid for by me personally. John Bedini has effectively vindicated Nikola Tesla via the 30 coil monopole system, licensed by him, and paid for my myself, giving Rick Friedrich the right to build it for me.
Tesla’s radiant energy was Dirac’s ‘negative’ energy captured via the mechanism of the ‘monopole.’ Eliminate the current flow within the circuit and the ‘negative’ energy which Tesla termed as radiant energy will flow within the circuit. Structure the circuit, so that the negative energy can be captured, stored within a capacitor (battery), so that it can then be redirected as ‘static’ voltage. Then, re-structure the circuit converting the ‘static’ voltage into alternating current flow.
For those who are not aware of it, the 30 coil monopole system is the upgrade to the original Jim Watson machine from the 1984 Conference at Colorado. Site:LRP:The Thirty (30) Coil MONOPOLE System
I elected to have Rick Friedrich build the 30 coil monopole at Renaissance Charge LLC because of the close proximity to Energenx and John Bedini. I knew that those two gentlemen would effectively permit the construction of my device, under absolute and rigorous protocols of quality control. Since my device contained thousands of parts and involved significant protocols, pertaining to magnetism and timing protocols involving movement, I knew the serious difficulty that could be encountered, which at any time could derail the project. Because of the tenacious persistence of Renaissance, and Rick Friedrich's dogged desire to provide quality results, I knew that eventually they would succeed in providing the result hoped for by myself and Tom Bearden. My hopes were not in vain, they were successful and as a result they have literally vindicated Nikola Tesla regarding his claim of Radiant Energy and the 'wheel-work of nature' Site:LRP:James Clerk Maxwell
All the Best,
'Leslie R. Pastor'