Monday, September 14, 2009

Physics: The Problem With Motion, Part IV

Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV, Part V

Abstract

Previously, I argued that the physicist’s understanding of motion is fundamentally flawed because it denies causality. What's even worse is that physicists are still talking in this day and age about continuity as if it were a possibility. It's annoying, to say the least. In Part III, I wrote that an analysis of the causality of motion leads to the inevitable conclusion that we are moving in an immense sea of energetic particles. In this post, I explain why a discrete universe means that there is only one speed in nature, the speed of light. I give a new explanation of what Newtonian force really does to a particle and I explain why the sea is organized like a 4-D lattice. Finally, to keep things in perspective, I say a few things about the size of and the energy contained in the lattice.

Only One Speed: Jump Speed

Previously, I defined inertial motion as a macroscopic phenomenon that consists of a series of minute discrete jumps at equal intervals. I claimed that, at the microscopic level, all motion is acceleration. So where does this leave Newtonian acceleration? I think that it can be defined simply as a series of jumps occurring at progressively shorter intervals. Consequently, a discrete universe must have a macroscopic speed limit. It is the speed reached by a moving particle when the interval (temporal difference) between discrete jumps is decreased to exactly one fundamental discrete unit. In other words, it occurs when there are no more wait periods between the jumps.

It follows that jump speed is the only possible speed. Why? Think about it. This is not rocket science for propeller heads. It is simple logic. What we call smooth macroscopic motion actually consists of a series of jumps interspersed with wait periods. At half the speed of light, there are an equal number of jumps and waits. At one-third the speed of light, there is one jump for every two waits, etc. At ordinary speeds, motion consists almost entirely of wait periods with a few jumps sprinkled in. Moral of the story: at the micro level, there is only one speed in nature, the speed of a jump. In terms of what we observe at the macro level, it is the fastest possible speed, and that is the speed of light.

Forces and Wings

Assuming the motion hypothesis that I defend in this article is correct, we can deduce that there are two types of forces involved in causing a particle to move. The first force accelerates the particle while the second keeps it moving at the last speed reached when the first force is removed. The first force is identical to the Newtonian force while the second force is the force impressed on the particle by the lattice.

What exactly does the Newtonian force do to a particle? We know that it causes the particle to accelerate (jump at a faster pace) but how? Obviously, it modifies some property that is intrinsic to the particle because, if the force is removed, the particle does not revert back to its original state. Obviously, whatever intrinsic property was modified by the force changes the way the moving particle interacts with the lattice particles. My hypothesis is that there are three properties common to all particles that are responsible for their direction of motion and their average or macroscopic speed. I call these properties wings. Most of you will immediately guess that they are associated with the three dimensions that we observe and you are right. I’ll get back to wings in my next post.

Why Four-Dimensional?

Why is the sea of particles arranged as a 4-D lattice? Why not just 3-D? Part of my thesis is that there are only four dimensions, no more and no less, but this is something that I am not prepared to write about at this time. I just want to approach the subject from a less philosophical angle. The lattice must be at least 3-D since we can observe three dimensions. Why is there a need for a fourth dimension? The reason is simple: if the lattice was 3-D, it would quickly run out of energy because the lattice particles interact with normal matter and are jettisoned from their positions of origin and sent flying in all directions. Empty areas would be created everywhere and this would drastically diminish movement. This is not observed. Therefore, in order to keep the observable 3-D universe moving and doing its thing, it must be refreshed with a new lattice at every instant!

All right. I know what you’re thinking. You’re thinking that this is getting to look like the very magic that I have been railing against in this article. Hold on to your horses because this is not what I am proposing. I am proposing that the lattice has four dimensions and that the entire visible matter of the 3-D universe is moving at the speed of light along the fourth dimension. At every new discrete position in the fourth dimension, it encounters a new 3-D slice of the lattice filled to the brim with wall-to-wall particles. There are tantalizing consequences to this hypothesis. More on this in my next post.

Hell or Paradise

How big is the lattice, you ask? I have no idea. All I know is that it’s not infinite but it’s huge, many orders of magnitude bigger than the 3-D slice of the universe that we can observe. How much energy is stored in the lattice? Let me just say that it can provide enough energy to keep every particle of matter in the visible universe moving at the speed of light. To bring it into human perspective, let’s just consider the motion of the moon around the earth. There is a tremendous amount of invisible energy being expanded just to maintain the moon in orbit. Much more than humanity will ever need; even to sustain a life of wicked luxury on earth for everybody and their pets, with legions of robotic servants zipping around the planet and the solar system attending to our every need and whim. If we knew how to tap into just a tiny weenie bit of this energy field, we would be sitting pretty indeed. Earth could turn into a paradise, at least for those of us who enjoy kicking back with friends by the pool with lots of good wine, assorted hors d’euvres and delicacies. But then again, it could all turn into hell. As a species, we’re going to come face to face with very important decisions to make in a hurry, species-survival type of decisions! Yikes!

In Part V, I will explain why there are four types of lattice particles and why they always move at the speed of light once dislodged from their original position. I will argue that they are responsible for all electrostatic and magnetic phenomena, including light.

19 comments:

jim-gagnon said...

There are a few problems with your premise. In particular, it assumes a fixed, rigid 4D lattice yet there is no evidence for that to be the case, and much to suggest the lattice is not fixed but flexible and of a dimensionality greater than 4D. Also, I don't understand your reluctance to accept relative motion; all of our perceptions, including the symbols we use to discuss them, are relative and subjective. I see no need to force physics into the absolute.

Louis Savain said...

jim-gagnon wrote:

There are a few problems with your premise. In particular, it assumes a fixed, rigid 4D lattice yet there is no evidence for that to be the case, and much to suggest the lattice is not fixed but flexible and of a dimensionality greater than 4D.

Rigidity or the lack thereof does not apply to the lattice. Rigidity is a property of molecular matter, which is at a much higher level of abstraction than what I am proposing. Besides, having a semi rigid structure permeating all of space does not explain how it can move and you're back to square one.

Also, I disagree that there is any evidence for a universe with more than 4 dimensions. That's just a bunch of voodoo nonsense from superstring physics, and it's no better than crap like time travel, acausal motion and parallel universes. Pseudoscience masquerading as legitimate science, that's all.

Also, I don't understand your reluctance to accept relative motion; all of our perceptions, including the symbols we use to discuss them, are relative and subjective. I see no need to force physics into the absolute.

Suit yourself. I have already said enough about this topic and I am not going to repeat my arguments here. Just follow the link that I give in the article. If my arguments do not convince you, then let's just leave it at that. Sorry.

Brandon said...

Maybe you can collaborate with this guy:
http://www.anti-relativity.com/

Sorry, couldn't resist. :)

Lauri said...

I just had to stop reading here.

The two most glaring flaws:

You present no credible evidence for a discrete universe. [Einstein once wondering about it in a letter in an off-hand way is not credible evidence.]

You say all motion is acceleration and then say all motion happens at the speed of light. For something to "jump" as you describe, the acceleration should be infinite for an infinitesimally short period, the result of which is undefined.

You talk about logic and arguments, but pretty much all of your text demonstrates a serious lack of understanding either of these concepts.

I simply could read no further. I was initially very interested in your ideas, but you presented no proof or evidence in your support. Well, at least nothing amounting proof or evidence in any sense that I understand those words.

Louis Savain said...

Lauri wrote:

You present no credible evidence for a discrete universe. [Einstein once wondering about it in a letter in an off-hand way is not credible evidence.]

The evidence for a discrete universe is simply that continuity leads to an infinite regress. We can't have that.

You say all motion is acceleration and then say all motion happens at the speed of light. For something to "jump" as you describe, the acceleration should be infinite for an infinitesimally short period, the result of which is undefined.

Acceleration is a Newtonian term that is only applicable at the macroscopic level. I use it at the microscopic level for want of better terms. I realize that I should not have done so since it is such a stumbling block for some. A jump is simply a change in position. It requires a cause, i.e., a force or interaction.

Since I don't accept the existence of space and since I believe that position is an intrinsic property of a particle, a jump is just a change in a positional property.

I simply could read no further.

Suit yourself.

Joel said...

Interesting article, but also, you are getting very close to religion. There is a Jewish philosophical idea (not mainstream, but also not discounted) that G-d recreates the world at every instant. Kind of parallels your idea of a 4th dimension replenishing the 3 dimensions.

Lauri said...

"The evidence for a discrete universe is simply that continuity leads to an infinite regress. We can't have that."

Could you please be more specific. In other words, could you show your logic or reasoning why continuity necessarily (!) leads to an infinite regress. All you say on the topic is:

"A correct understanding of motion is impossible unless one first realizes that nature is discrete. Why is nature discrete? Simply because continuity, the opposite of discreteness, leads to an infinite regress. I realize that there are those of the math persuasion who choose to disagree but I don’t care. From my perspective, the discreteness of nature is beyond argumentation."

Hmmm... Where to start?

Let's take the modern psychiatric definition of the word "delusion":

"A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everybody else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary. The belief is not one ordinarily accepted by other members of the person's culture or subculture."

Now, I have to say I like radical ideas, I really do. But if you do take a radical position, you need to show your logic, reasoning and evidence. Putting yourself on a pedestal and saying that your position is "beyond argumentation" and therefore you are not being required to argue your point, is not going to convince anyone, especially when everyone thinks the opposite as you. Please, do show me the light - not just insist it does exist because you know it exists. Preferably do so in very small, simple steps that anyone can understand, but if you can't then more complex formal logic or math is welcome:

Lauri said...

First, I'd like to see why a continuous universe would *necessarily* lead to an infinite regress.

Then I would like to see how this leads *necessarily* to the universe being discrete.

It is a fallacy to assume that if something is not A, then it must be it's opposite, B. If I told you my coffee mug is not black, you cannot deduce from this statement that it must be white. It might be brown or any other colour.

It is even more a fallacy to assume that if you cannot prove A (eg. continuous universe), then A must not exist. A lack of evidence is not evidence of a lack. Just because one set of arguments does not prove something, doesn't mean something else doesn't. I am guessing that you are trying to divide the universe into ever smaller bits in your head and realising you are not getting anywhere. Maybe that would be because you have the wrong approach to begin with?

For example, I could say that since my mother called me yesterday, you must be male. No, no, that is a wrong argument. Therefore you must be female. Aha! Now I can prove cars can make right-angle turns at 100'000 mph!

It would be best for you to show from basic principles in a straight forward way why the universe must be discrete. If that is not possible, then you could show why the universe can only be continuous or discrete (with definitions and why they are so *logically*) and then show why it cannot be continuous.

Anyway, we should be talking physics here, not philosophy. Physics, like all science, is a tool: it tells you that if you do A, B is likely to follow with probability X. It doesn't deal with truth; in science, nothing is proven. You just observe over and over again and if you see the same things repeating, then you might try to describe this pattern.

I am not aware of any observations of a discrete universe. But I am no physicist either.

Lauri said...

If you are going to develop pages long fanciful and elaborate theories, then I suggest you make sure the foundation on which you are building your castle is solid. In logic and philosophy it is enough to make one wrong turn and everything beyond that is going to be wrong - and if you don't notice your wrong turn, you can end up arguing anything and make it seem logical (at least to yourself). Therefore, it is crucial to check and recheck your underlying assumptions and make sure they are watertight. You don't do this.

Once more, quoting:
"What's even worse is that physicists are still talking in this day and age about continuity as if it were a possibility."

Show me why it is not!


[Pause]

Then, on the other, much less relevant point, quoting:

"Acceleration is a Newtonian term that is only applicable at the macroscopic level. I use it at the microscopic level for want of better terms."

If this is so, why on earth would you then make bold statement of:

"All motion is acceleration."

...and keep referring to it? Just say jump, if jump is what you mean. But this is just words, which are fundamentally meaningless.

The first point about a discrete universe however is not just words. You need to show your logic about that one before you take any further steps and end up lost in the woods.

And I am not even a physicist, just a lay-man who sees glaring holes and massive leaps of faith in your argumentation. What you write is not physics, not even philosophy or logic: it is pure faith, nothing more, nothing less, and this is why I didn't read further.

Lauri said...

Finally, could you elaborate on why you do not accept the existence of space.

Louis Savain said...

Lauri,

I am a busy man. I got a lot of things to think about. Right now, I am also getting a lot of email requesting explanation about my hypothesis on motion. I simply can't handle them all on a timely basis. Keep reading the material on this blog and the rebel science physics pages and all of your questions and criticism will be answered in due time.

PS. I will post a new item on the lattice and its constituent particles soon.

Anthony said...

"I am proposing that the lattice has four dimensions and that the entire visible matter of the 3-D universe is moving at the speed of light along the fourth dimension."

Well, then, you've proposed continuous motion at constant speed, but in a direction we do not experience directly.

By your premises, this motion cannot continue uncaused. Instead, the 4-d movement of every particle in the current 3-d slice requires an energy input. If 3-d motion needs to be caused by interactions involving a 4-d lattice, then your argument can be used iteratively- this implies a 5-d lattice causing the motion of particles in the 4th dimension of the 4-d lattice.

Your argument, as presented, can be applied to itself indefinitely, requiring as many lattice dimension as there are integers in order to remain internally consistent.

95311 said...

Well that is extremely funny. When Lauri demanded proof for your explanations, you simply said, "I am a very busy man", and then said to look forward to future postings in your blog so that she (and everyone else for that matter) could see why your view on motion is based on credible evidence.

Oh! What a shame! After this posting in your blog I see that the SERIES HAS BEEN DISCONTINUED! Why is that I wonder?

You are so full of shit, and until you prove me otherwise by continuing the series and actually explaining your points, you will remain full of shit. I wonder, how can you be so busy that you cannot argue for the position on motion that you are championing?

John said...

I must agree with the argument that there is no evidence to support the claims whatsoever. And why can't we have an infinite regression? Any evidence of the particles we are all swimming in all of the time? You the ones that will be our source of infinite power?

Louis Savain said...

John wrote:

I must agree with the argument that there is no evidence to support the claims whatsoever.

The evidence that we are immersed in a sea of particles? It is all around you. It's called motion and causality.

And why can't we have an infinite regression?

Because infinity is illogical. It is impossible to compare any member of an infinite set with the infinitely big. It introduces a contradiction. Why? Because it is infitely small compared to the infinitely big while being finite at the same time.

That's just one refutation of the infinite. There are others.

Any evidence of the particles we are all swimming in all of the time? You the ones that will be our source of infinite power?

See above. The only claim that I make for which I will have to show proof is this: we can tap into the energy in the lattice for propulsion and energy production. The existence of the lattice is a fact. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand the logic behind it. In fact, it's so simple, the intelligent ones always fail to grasp it.

Now, here is my point, and it's an important one from my perspective. Those who refuse to see the logic of the lattice (for whatever reason, I don't care) can kiss my ass. How about that? I don't have the patience nor the time to argue with the blind about the hole they're about to step into.

Danny said...

I'm not anything close to anyone who knows the ins and outs of physics or science of any sort, however i believe the reason people may be attacking you is because they want to learn, they want to accept the truth you so call it.

i am not judging you or your theories.

but i and many others want to learn.
If you are one of the people who know about this, why dont you teach it?

The only people who don't want to listen are the physicists which do not have the brain capacity to think rationally.

people like me, who work a normal 9-5 job want to hear these break-through theories about how we can achieve mass (if not unlimited) amounts of energy, so why baffle us with physics jargon?

just show us (or throw some links to show us) how to understand it!

Louis Savain said...

Danny wrote:

If you are one of the people who know about this, why dont you teach it?

Teaching is what I am doing. At the end of the class, you will have learned, not only how to levitate a block of stone, but also the reasoning (explanation) behind it. This is rebel science, not magic. It the people's science. Just hang in there.

Danny said...

Louis,
I'm glad to see you're still active on here even though you have stopped posting more parts to your theories.

if you were just making this up then you would be wasting your time with this blog, which proves you support your theory strongly.

I respect that, and good luck!

TechGuy said...

"forget about the relativist nonsense according to which the mass of a body increases toward infinity as it approaches the speed of light."

While I agree this is wrong. A body approaching the speed of light does not gain mass. It loses efficiency. Consider the situation in Newtonian space. Imagine you propel a body weighing one kilogram using a stream of 1 gram pellets traveling at 100 Km/h. When the Body velocity is zero, each pellet will transfer its motion efficiently. As the body accerates the velocity difference between the two objects declines. As the body approaches 100 Km/h, the velocity difference approaches zero. It takes an infinite amount of energy to propel a body at 100 KM/s faster than a external body that also has a velocity at 100 KM/h. Masses can only be accerated by forces that interact with the mass at the speed of light. A given Mass is constant no matter what is velocity is.

The Speed of light is probably a limit established by the permeability of space. We know that under certain conditions the speed of light is lower than 3 X 10^8 m/s, such in an high gravity field. Its doesn't have to do with a 4D lattice field traveling at the speed of light. If that was the case then the speed of light would be constant in high-G fields.

It may be possible to increase the speed of light beyond 3 x 10^8 m/s in a local space if the permeablity can be changed in local space.

We know that we can use different materials that have different magnetic permeability, so its plausable that space can also be altered under selected conditions.

"I claimed that the physics community’s understanding of motion is fundamentally flawed, on a par with the flat earth hypothesis."

Why would a body change velocity unless another external (or internal) force acted upon it? Space has no drag.

Remember Space Permeability? well it also applies to mass acceleration. A object in space has impediance against changes in velocity. When an object accelerates there is impediance or resistance to change. If an moving mass impacts another object it motion energy is transferred to the other object (well depending on its elastic/plastic properties with the other object). An Object speed limit (the speed of light) is a function of saturation, much as a magnetic core become saturated and can not increase its magnetic force no matter how much current or static magnetic field is applied to it. Figure out a way to alter space permiablity and you can increase or decrease the spead of limit (of course with in the confines of space that you can apply the change).

If your theory was correct then we would see objects all over the universe acting wierd with sudden changes in velocity or direction. Observed objects all appear to follow the same direction and speed until it interacts with another object. We would have observed objects randomly tapping into the Lattice field which would have unexpectially influenced their speed and direction.

"We see possible examples of this in places like Stonehenge, Giza plateau, Baalbek, Easter Island, Tiahuanaco, Nazca and other places around the world."

Except that there is clear evidence that ancient man did not have that technology. We have seen evidence of scrape marks and grooves created as the stones were dragged across the land. Why was this technology not to used to create floating palaces in ancient times? Floating Oblisks or palaces been far more impressive. If you can levetate 100 Ton stones we would have seen even more amazing buildings and use for ancient weapons, mining, irragation and an million other problems that ancient civilizations faced at the time. Why no hover chariots powered by the 4D lattice?