I would like to address myself to those fellow enthusiasts who are willing to take at face value, my statment that the Kidd Effect is real and that the experiment showing the Kidd Effect is proof of it. In scientfic research, as in many other facets of life there comes a moment where the curious entertain possibilities even as others blindly turn away from an idea and its powerful potential.
At such moments, our curious eyes must always remain fixed upon the horizon and seek a perspective upon the larger problem if we wish to steer accurately. At present that means that the alarming situation in physics must be called out loud and clear. To extend the sailing analogy, physics today is a current which is being blocked by a large rock dead ahead and that rock is gravity.
This much I know- the inability of quantitatively verified (i.e. experimentally tested) physics to properly integrate gravity with the rest of the forces signifies that something is very wrong with the (standard) model that we are toying with today . This is not a scratch upon an otherwise excellent tea-cup but rather as Auden would say "the crack in the tea-cup opens -A lane to the land of the dead".
For, any theory that cannot integrate gravity with the rest of the forces is essentially D.O.A. -Dead on Arrival. No question about it! And none of the critics of my approach to the problem have any theory that can integrate gravity with the rest of the forces. Nor does any professor in any university in the world at the moment have a theory that is being tested right now that integrates gravity with the other forces. We DEFINITELY don't have an experimentally verified theory that integrates gravity into the rest of the framework as things stand at the moment (October 2009). My theory is offering a way to accomplish exactly that. By folding ElectroMagnetic laws and Mechanical laws into a single framework, I'm providing a credible path to the integration of gravity into the nomological network of the Standard Model.
Therefore, my theory is superior to the Newtonians [Here, Newtonians are those who insist that in explaining a gyroscope's behavior, Newtonian (or Eulerian) analysis is necessary and sufficient.] in the sense that it cannot be refuted by any amount of argumentation from Newtonians who -by virtue of their failure to provide any credible path towards the integration of gravity with the remaining forces- cannot overcome that fatal flaw first, even before they could debate me about my theory. As long as my critics are unable to present their own nomological network of experiments that can integrate gravity with other forces with in the current paradigm of physics, any and all of their criticism of my theory which limits the discussion to the gyroscopic problem alone will be rendered null and void by the larger problem, the elephant in the room so to speak, that they do not, indeed cannot address. Please refer to my page on the importance of gyroscopic behavior in the analysis of the bigger problem of gravity and its place in the scheme of things.
Not only can the Newtonian fail to explain how gravity fits with the other forces, but also, the Newtonian cannot explain certain features of Gyroscopic behavior - features that my theory can account for logically.
This page dealing with the laws governing gyroscopic behavior, the page dealing with the problem of Effect preceding Cause in gyroscopic behavior and also this page highlight the problems that Newtonians have in explaining Gyroscopic behavior. The links in the previous sentences lead to pages that not only state the problems but also show how they are not an issue in my theory.
I hold that rotation is the fundamental phenomena at work in both Electro Magnetic and Mechanical situations. This is my very own unique hypothesis. From the perspective provided by this unique hypothesis, all the effects are mapped from mechanical to Electro-Magnetic situations via the quanttative laws of mechanics and Electro-Magnetism. That is, every mechanical situation has an Electro-Magnetic couterpart and vice versa.
Verification of the similarity of corresponding quantitative laws in Mechanics and Electro-Magnetism are being provided by
A. Outlining the theory via explicit analogy between the two fields and also the similarity of the calculus underlying the laws and
B. also by the experiments I am performing.
One half of this verification - i.e., the theory, I have already presented in detail. See my pages on capacitors, inductors and spinning wheels, the paradoxical nature of the laws governing gyroscopic behavior.
The other half -the experiment- is in progress.
As I mentioned here, one important consequence of my theory's perspective of rotation as being a fundamental phenomena in both Electro-Magnetic and Mechanical situations is that there is a mechanical equivalent to Inductance in Elecro-Magnetism.
This then led me to the idea of a harmonically oscillating resonant Inductance-Capacitance circuit. And that is what the Relativistic Machine is - A machine which functions upon the relativistic curvature of spacetime to create a feedback loop that enables a build up in amplitude of the circuit's energy output.
Looking at the bigger picture, I'm arguing for the introduction of the new paradigm of capacitor-inductor arrangements as measures of local-to-global space-time interactions (its really just the newest incarnation of the harmonic oscillator) that will model both mechanical and Electro-Magnetic situations (as also counter parts in weak and strong interactions as future research will hopefully prove).
Under such a paradigm, we can explain both electronic LC circuits and the Relativistic Machine in terms of the backreaction of a field upon the source. Time Symmetry is shown to be the source of the unique energy pumping mechanism that is possible with Capacitor-Inductor arrangements.
In conclusion, I'd like to remind everyone that my work is in line with work done by engineers and scientists of a different era when Electro-Magnetism was first being modeled and explored.
No comments :
Post a Comment