Physics: No Applications


A Theory of Almost Everything

cox“The difficulty is to me a fatal one; and the fact that when you put it to many scientists, far from having an answer, they seem not even to understand what the difficulty is, assures me that I have not found a mare’s nest but detected a radical disease in their whole mode of thought from the very beginning. The man who has once understood the situation is compelled henceforth to regard the scientific cosmology as being, in principle, a myth; though no doubt a great many true particulars have been worked into it.” CS Lewis.

If you desire to make a name for yourself in modern art or wine-tasting or physics there are simple rules: You take something very simple and you complicate and convolute it, make-up a rational sounding story about it, invent a language for it, generally make it hard for the general public to understand. And before you know it, you will be proclaimed a genius. Then you can tell everyone they don’t have the intellect to understand it, its counter-intuitive to all but a physicist and the others are uneducated fools – you can become a snob about your knowledge. This of course is much easier if you happen to be a scientist and you have the full backing of the main-stream media.

What you do does not have to be of any use to anyone but a physicist or a mathematician, only that they can continue to draw their social security payments for non-science.

thinking2Most of us are absolutely sure that we know how to think and that ours is the right way or even the only possible way to do so. We were taught from an early age what is real and what is imaginary, good, bad, happy, sad, we are even taught where to find the most reliable information and how to use it.  – I’m sure Google will be only too happy to do the job for you. –  We were taught first by our parents, who went through the same education system, and then at primary school, leading to junior, senior and for many, higher education. Our qualifications that enabled us get a job are usually as a direct result of this meritocracy. The notion that what we are taught is a ‘belief system’ and not an absolute, rarely occurs to us.

Very few of us even bother to reflect on the lifelong process that appears to glue the bricks of our society together. Where did it originate and how reliable is it?, are questions seldom asked as it all appears to work, for some anyway, for others not so well.
But the trust is all but complete when even those at the bottom of the pile will admit that had they absorbed more from the education system they may have fared much better. So deeply ingrained in our childhood is the idea that success depends on education that it is never questioned, even by the failures.
The last thing we tend ask about it is, ‘is it is just an imposed belief system, or something more profound?’ Can something that involves us all be flawed or maybe unreliable and is there room for improvement? Do we need to scrap the whole she-bang and start again?
To endorse a failed system is to perpetuate it and reject change and progress.badeducation

The fact of the matter is, that most of what we are taught in the various educational subjects, are completely controlled by academic science. Everything, with the possible exception of the arts is science based, think about it – maths’, English language, cookery, diet, plumbing, computer studies, agriculture, are all done in a *scientific manner* or are guided by a scientific input. Everything has to be done scientifically or it is somehow deficient and lacking in some respect. The reader is about to see that all of the above is deeply, (scientifically), awry because the underpinning science is faulty and seriously in need of a major overhaul.

Also in need of examination is the assumption that our modern world with its electronic wonders and labour-saving devices that are called science, are thanks to the benevolence of this same academic science and would not exist without its guiding hand. What if we find that technology is not science, that the role of science is all but non-existent in such things? If it should turn out that academic science is responsible for technology, then we don’t have a problem, but if it’s not true then the whole basis of our thinking is in question and we have all been misled by those who educated us.

I fear that in examining that which is rarely examined, we will find holes, a science that is filled with things that have no existence in the real, natural, world and things that are claimed as their own by scientific academics who have no right to them. As we explore this and other pages, we will ask questions about such old assumptions and test their validity.

If we are to look closely at science, then what better place to start than those who are considered to be ‘the crème de la crème of the scientific crop’, the physicists. Physics is at the heart of all the scientific disciplines.


Until around the 1930’s, the test of the success of any physics theory was always by way of a useful technology that it produced. Most of the electronic technology that we use today was devised in its basic form prior to this date. It is no coincidence that the rise in the theories of Albert Einstein, although they were formulated much earlier, roughly correspond to this date that also marks a watershed in electronic genius and ingenuity. See Electron, Television Radio etc.

impossible3Today there seems to be no need for any useful  physics inspired technology and the physicist is on a wild foray into theoretical realms of imagining mathematical fantasies that provide jobs for mathematicians and little else. Theories are all-important to academics and the rest of us just foot the bill for the ‘Emperor’s New Clothes‘, not wanting to appear to be ignorant. Too few doubt or ask questions.

At the time of writing, I have a magazine before me with a ‘Readers Letters’ writer complaining about an article in a previous issue of the same magazine, that criticises the Large Hadron Collider. WOW!
It is assumed that such things are above criticism?
It discusses the unlikelihood of it ever producing anything of practical use, whilst comparing it with the grandeur of a medieval cathedral, something built for effect rather than utility. The complaining letter writer also proudly tells us that “it was CERN that gave us the Internet”, this is a little like saying that it was the BBC who gave us television or that the transistor is thanks to quantum physics. The Internet was up and running long before Tim Berners-Lee did whatever it was that he is supposed to have done and the transistor was around long before its ‘official’ inventors. This is something that will get close scrutiny on other pages .

Some real supporting evidence to justify the existence of modern physics would be welcome, but don‘t hold your breath, it will not come from physicists who shun reality, their heads buried in the sands of numbers and theory.


De-mystifier: The Large hadron Collider
Wiki tells us: “A particle accelerator [Like the LHC] is a device that uses electric fields to propel charged particles to high speeds and to contain them in well-defined beams. An ordinary old CRT (cathode ray tube) television set is a simple form of accelerator. There are two basic types: electrostatic and oscillating field.”

Crookes Tube used in early particle physics

The television cathode ray tube (CRT) is the old glass type used in pre flat screen TV. The particle accelerator is a development of the old TV tube and not the other way round. This in turn, was a development of the original Crookes Tube, invented by Sir William Crookes, (1832-1919). He was a chemist and occult researcher and not an academic physicist. He was an amateur physicist and if you ask a physicist today, they will call him a tinkerer, a derogatory remark suggesting a lack of theoretical skill. The amateur physicist no longer exists, today he would be considered an outsider, unqualified, a pseudo-scientist. Also, being a researcher in the paranormal compounds Crookes’s crimes against science, confirming his unscientific status but not able to deny his genius as the inventor of the original particle accelerator.


And so we have The Large Hadron Collider (LHC), the very pinnacle of scientific achievement, that is based on the work of a ‘pseudo-scientist’, who spoke to the departed and embraced the physical theory of aether, something that has been debunked for a hundred years by what we now know as modern science. The likelihood of cognitive dissonance (there never were more conflicting ideas) among physicists is quite high as none of this has been satisfactorily resolved. We all spend our lives living happily alongside working technology that is based on taboo and debunked science, the majority of which was conceived and invented a hundred or more years ago by those who have been excluded by modern science. It is against this backdrop of confusion and perplexity within the science that underpins our lives and our society that we continue our examination.

E=mc2 passes tough MIT test
What follows is claimed to be proof that the path that physics is treading is a worthwhile pursuit. The quantities measured are so infinitesimally small that the whole thing stretches credulity to its innermost limits. The theory states that mass and energy are equivalent (equal) (E=mc2) and the experiment attempts to show that this is true, but as we will see later, nature has other ideas.
Don’t worry if you don’t understand the following you are not alone, and all will be explained.

MIT News E=mc2 passes tough MIT test Elizabeth A. Thomson, News Office, December 21, 2005MIT
“The mass loss was obtained at MIT by measuring the difference between the mass of the nucleus before the emission of a gamma ray and after. The mass difference was measured by comparing the cyclotron orbit frequencies of two single molecules trapped in a strong magnetic field for several weeks.
Pritchard notes that the mass of the nucleus is about 4,000 times larger than the much smaller mass difference. As a result, “determining the mass difference requires the individual masses to be measured with the incredible accuracy of one part in 100 billion — equivalent to measuring the distance from Boston to Los Angeles to within the width of a human hair!”
Despite the results of the current test of E=mc2, Pritchard said, “This doesn’t mean it has been proven to be completely correct. Future physicists will undoubtedly subject it to even more precise tests because more accurate checks imply that our theory of the world is in fact more and more complete.”

YMBJThere are those who take the word of physicists without question and there are those who don’t. It is at this point that we are all supposed to say, ‘err, OK’, and leave with heads spinning and slightly bowed, but it is really all meaningless gobbledegook. It is meant to make physicists look smart and the rest of us poor pleb’s appear to be idiots. Physics and modern art are much the same, as mentioned above, depending on an accompanying plausible-sounding story to evoke a seeming credibility.

The C in e=mc2 refers to the speed of light, a statistical measurement with the speed element dependent on time. Unfortunately time is something never actually proven to exist by any scientific standard and is nothing more than a convenient idea that has, admittedly, been around for centuries. We begin to see the first hole in what will become a logical Swiss cheese of a science of unreality that measures things that do not exist with incredible exactitude.

Why is it seemingly so easy for so many to laugh at the UFO phenomenon witnessed by millions? Yet, take seriously the ever more fantastical claims of physicists, things too far away or too small, or too large to see, or even universal in scale. The black hole, dark matter, dark energy, gravity waves, not observed by anyone. No one questions the one part in 100 billion MIT test? No one but a physicist can check it and besides, it makes absolutely no difference to our everyday lives!

Is Time Real?

persistence of memory

The concept of time as something we move in or through is crucial to the survival of physics as a bona fide scientific discipline, but there never has been a scintilla of evidence to show that time even exists. The speed of light, for example, depends on time and without time as an entity it becomes a meaningless and inconstant number.
Wiki tells us that:”Time has been a major subject of religion, philosophy, and science, but defining it in a non-controversial manner applicable to all fields of study has consistently eluded the greatest scholars. A simple definition states that “time is what clocks measure”, nothing more.”
And so, a strong argument can be made in support of the idea that time does not exist, except in the form of numbers, measurements and movements made by the fingers against the face of a clock.

planet_timeTime was originally, historically, measured by the rotation of the Earth, day/night being its simplest and earliest terms. Ancient astronomers (the term is used because time is an observation of the heavenly bodies) made ever more subtle measurements -years, months (by the Moon), hours, minutes, and seconds. Observations of the Sun’s position on the horizon gave us years and this was divided into twelve months and the months into seven day weeks. All of this based upon the angles of the Earth’s rotation and the angles of the Earth’s position with regard to its orbit about the Sun and the phases of the moon.
Time was originally the movement of the Earth with reference to its surrounding Solar System bodies.
Time can therefore be described as movement. There is nothing, scientific or philosophical, that can logically refute this view.
n. Abbr. min.
1. A unit of time equal to one sixtieth of an hour, or 60 seconds.
2. A unit of angular measurement equal to one sixtieth of a degree, or 60 seconds. Also called minute of arc.”

n. Abbr. sec.
1. A unit of time equal to one sixtieth of a minute.
2. A brief interval of time; a moment. See Synonyms at moment.
3. Abbr. s Mathematics A unit of angular measure equal to one sixtieth of a minute.”
It’s no accident that the terms for time and movement through angles are alike:

Arc minute, Arc secondclock_angles
Wiki: “A minute of arc, arc minute, or minute arc (MOA), is a unit of angular measurement equal to one sixtieth (1/60) of one degree. In turn, a second of arc or arc second is one sixtieth (1/60) of one minute of arc. Since one degree is defined as one three hundred and sixtieth (1/360) of a rotation, 1 minute of arc is 1/21,600 of the same. It is used in those fields which require a unit for the expression of small angles, such as astronomy, navigation and marksmanship.
This is no different to the method used for time measurement.

Wiki: “The opposing view is that time does not refer to any kind of “container” that events and objects “move through”, nor to any entity that “flows”, but that it is instead part of a fundamental intellectual structure (together with space and number) within which humans sequence and compare events. This second view, in the tradition of Gottfried Leibniz and Immanuel Kant, holds that time is neither an event nor a thing, and thus is not itself measurable nor can it be travelled.”

An overwhelming case can be made that time has no objective existence, does not exist and that its only reality is derived from the mathematical, angular measurements of the movements of Solar System bodies.

If we say that time is movement, then something like the speed of light comes out as: Light travels 186,000 miles while the Earth’s rotation moves through an angle that represents one second. Or 1/86,400th of 360 degrees or 0.0041666 degrees of a day and night. When making assumptions about time we are comparing a linear movement with an angular movement.
Many just do not understand this alternative position or refuse to try, due to the influence of science-based education and the need for a measurable time-scale to support scientific theory. Time is movement and there is nothing else in nature that can represent it.

Note: The writer does not subscribe to the idea of the abandonment of time, which is a useful concept to get us to work on time in the morning. It’s fine as long as the reader understands that time does not exist in any way or form suggested by the metaphysical claims of academic scientific physics. It is a Santa Clause that gets the kids to sleep on Christmas Eve, or the tooth fairy.

Atomic Clock Fraud
Hafele-Keating Experiment “In 1971, experimenters from the U.S. Naval Observatory undertook an experiment to test time dilation . They made airline flights around the world in both directions, each circuit taking about three days. They carried with them four caesium beam atomic clocks. When they returned and compared their clocks with the clock of the Observatory in Washington, D.C., they had gained about 0.15 microseconds compared to the ground based clock.” 22

Louis Essen was not fooled

THE POLITICS OF KNOWLEDGE “Louis Essen, elected FRS for developing the Caesium (Atomic) Clock, wrote to Nature that the alleged confirmation of Relativity by the gentlemen who took Caesium Clocks round the world by airplane was bogus because the caesium clock did not have the claimed accuracy. Nature refused to publish, preferring the PC ‘confirmation’ of relativity to stand.” 23

Science tells lies and Essen is obviously not one of the inner sanctum of faceless, nameless and enlightened physicists who understand the perfect scam, the magical, metaphysical production of infinitesimally small or large, incredibly, ‘accurate’ numbers from numbers that are statistically generated or based upon the non-existent.

Every clock depends on a tick/tock, be it by pendulum, spring escapement or quartz crystal, to keep time and the more accurate the tick, the more accurate the clock. The atomic clock has an extremely accurate tick/tock synchronised with the Caesium 133 atom.
Unfortunately, it is necessary to establish the length of a second before one can calibrate an atomic clock. In other words, the Caesium 133 atom used in the clock does not oblige by giving a tick/tock that is an exact match to, or fraction of a second. And so, the standard second has to be determined beforehand to calibrate the atomic clock. No magical second appears in the clock itself, this is done by returning to the original method, ancient and hoary with age, the positions of the Sun, Moon, planets and stars and the second obtained by the angle of Earth’s rotation is called ‘ephemeris time’. Ephemeris time however, does not correspond to anything in nature.

Blinded by complexity “By convention, the standard seasonal year is taken to be A.D. 1900 and to contain 31,556,925.9747 sec of ephemeris time. In 1984 ephemeris time was renamed terrestrial dynamical time (TDT or TT); also created was barycentric dynamical time (TDB), which is based on the orbital motion of the sun, moon, and planets. For most purposes they can be considered identical, since they differ by only milliseconds, and often therefore are referred to simply as dynamical time.” 24

The Earth’s rotation and orbit varies, and we are told that this is inadequate for the purposes of atomic timing and so atomic time was based on the second in the year 1900; but this is not in accord with the Earth’s position at the present. The time given by atomic clocks is unsuitable for measuring anything on Earth because it measures time as it was in 1900 and would need to be calibrated for today’s second. The writer is not quite sure where this leaves us, apart from having a meaningless atomic time-scale and a headache.

The Stanford University website admits: “…Finally, as Einstein noted “Space and time are modes in which we think, not conditions in which we exist” which is a view also expressed in 900 AD by the Arabic physicist Ikhwan al-Sufa, “Space is a form abstracted from matter and exists only in consciousness“. 25

Seemingly, Einstein and Ikhwan al-Sufa together have demolished the concept of space/time with the blessing of Stanford University as obviously they know that time is just a mode of thinking. Einstein managed to debunk just about everything he had ever said in his theories.

The writer would like at this point, to ask how a theory of space-time physical properties can possibly be constructed from the “modes in which we think” or something that “exists only in consciousness”, and how such an idea finds a place in a materialistic, mathematical, evidence based, empirical science?
A mathematical quantity needs to be represented by something tangible, material to fulfil the materialistic claims of modern science. But none of this seems to have prevented Einstein from formulating his theories of relativity that require time and space (spacetime) combined to be a physical entity.

John Gribbin, `Companion to the Cosmos‘:
One of the greatest mysteries in science is the distinction between the past and the future. At a subatomic level, neither the old ideas of classical mechanics nor the modern theory of quantum mechanics distinguish between the past and the future” 26

circularThe reasoning on the web page at the link below ‘What is Time?’ depends on a not unusual, illogical, circular argument so common in academic science: The premise (time exists) is assumed to be true in the complete absence of any supporting evidence.
Evidence is carefully chosen in support of the ‘attributes’ – things with no proven existence.
The attributes take on a pseudo-life of their own while never proving the existence of the premise.
If there is no direct testable evidence in support of the reality of time then all arguments are untested, untestable and invalid.

It’s important to distinguish between an attribute and a property of time as time has no properties apart from those ascribed.

Quote from the link: ‘What is Time?‘
In order to investigate the nature of time it may help to break it down into four main questions.
1) How does time flow? (‘Flow of time’ is an assumed attribute unobserved and unobservable)
2) Does time flow in only one direction? (‘Direction’ is an attribute of the attribute to ‘flow’)
3) Is there a constant ‘Universal’ time? (‘Universal time’ is an assumed attribute.)
4) Is time a ‘real’ dimension?” (Not outside-of metaphysical mathematics.) 27
It is a common assumption that we ‘move’ into the future, again, making time into movement.

Time has no properties that can be demonstrated in a lab.
The phrase ‘the fabric of time’ is a contradiction because time cannot be described as a fabric, being something not material, in fact insubstantial, not substance, not fabric, not real in any empirical scientific sense.

The work of Professor Stephen Hawking relies heavily on the time concept and I wrote to him recently asking for his comments after being invited to do so on his website.
His reply, or one written for him: “He very much regrets that due to the severe limitations he works under, and the enormous number of requests he receives, he is unable to compose a reply to every message, and we do not have the resources to deal with many of the specific scientific enquiries and theories we receive.” 28
I was expecting such a prominent figure to jump at the opportunity to show just how much is known about a subject so close to his heart – but no, not a word about “Is time real”? Could it be that he has no answer? He would be without a job were he to agree. And so, I must assume he only replies to true believers who hang on his every word and do no thinking of their own.
I challenge any physicist to prove empirically that time exists as an entity, a container, or something within which we or even the universe exists.
Failure to do so can only portray the work of Hawking and even that of Einstein as merely metaphysical folderol, a fantasy that can be likened to The Emperors New Clothes.

Light speed
Wiki and others: “In 1973 the speed of light was measured by Evanson et al at 299,792.4574 +/- .001 and then in 1983 it was tied to the meter length at 299,792.4575 for the sake of convenience and because so many differing results were being obtained.” 29
The speed of light was measured by so many scientists, all obtaining different results, that it would be tedious for the reader were I to list them. It was finally agreed to represent the speed of light with a statistical value. We can see that measuring “E=mc2 to one part in 100 billion, equivalent to “measuring the distance from Boston to Los Angeles to within the width of a human hair!” is more than a little fanciful when c is not known to any such accuracy and the certainty that the time element in the speed of c is no more than a fantasy.

The Standard Metre “The meter bar lasted a good long time; but it became cumbersome and error-prone to refer to a specific, physical meter bar. Finally, after 71 years, a new standard emerged. In 1960 the General Conference on Weights and Measures redefined the meter in terms of the number of waves of a very precise color (wavelength) of light emitted by krypton 86 atoms. That revision did not last so long. In 1983 the Conference discarded the krypton standard and redefined the meter in terms of the speed of light–what might be called a theoretical definition. The meter is now officially 1/299,792,458 the distance travelled by light in a vacuum in one second.” 30 31

circular_logicThe metre is therefore defined by a light-speed that is also a statistical measurement in metres-per-second, the second derived from the second of 1900 that is no longer valid for Earth-bound measurements; circular or what? Circular thinking works because circular thinking works because…..

eddingtonRelativity Einstein and Arthur Eddington
Back in the early 1900’s, when such things were new, Eddington was asked if it was true that only three persons in the world understood Einstein’s Relativity, Arthur Eddington is said to have replied, “I wonder who is the third”? He was a bit of a wag.
Einstein later remarked that after the mathematicians had gotten a hold on his theories he did not understand them himself. And so, we seem to have been left with Eddington alone who understood, and when he died he took the secret with him. The physicists of today are still not in agreement as to what Einstein said or the meaning of the mathematics, as we will see.

In the far distant past, it must have been obvious to most that the Sun travels around the Earth. But, at some point in history, due to problems with astronomical observations, it was agreed by most that the Earth and the planets did indeed orbit around the Sun; it made calculations and understanding so much easier and it was logically acceptable. This is an example of something not immediately intuitively obvious becoming accepted as factual and literal.

Compare Relativity Theory: something that is still disputed among the “experts” even after a hundred years of continuous study. Claimed at the outset, first by Eddington and later by others, to be counter-intuitive and ‘only accessible to those few who understand it’. We are still waiting to be told who they are, because they disagree with one-another. Some of us have the feeling that we are being led up the garden path, by something not intuitively correct and not logically acceptable, making understanding more complex or seemingly impossible. The plain fact presents itself, that the physicists are incapable of explaining just how it all works to the rest of us because they are unsure of how it works and don’t agree among themselves. Becoming a physicist does not endow one with superhuman qualities and a request for an explanation by those non-physicists with equal intelligence is not unreasonable after a hundred years.

So Far
Both the speed of light and the metre are statistical measurements and are used here to determine energy (E) based on the theoretical E=MC2. (the speed of light being the ‘C’ and M the mass in the equation).
The question arises: How can a measurement of one part in 100 billion be made when the accuracy of the speed of light, not to mention the length of the standard metre are so much less accurate? Let’s also throw-in the non-existence of time.
Maybe a physicist would care to enlighten us?

Irving Langmuir of the scientific thought police

by Irving Langmuir (1881 1957)
Symptoms of Pathological Science:
1. The maximum effect that is observed is produced by a causative agent of barely detectable intensity, and the magnitude of the effect is substantially independent of the intensity of the cause.
2. The effect is of a magnitude that remains close to the limit of detectability; or, many measurements are necessary because of the very low statistical significance of the results.
3. Claims of great accuracy.
4. Fantastic theories contrary to experience.
5. Criticisms are met by ad hoc excuses thought up on the spur of the moment.
6. Ratio of supporters to critics rises up to somewhere near 50% and then falls gradually to oblivion.” 32 33

Irving Langmuir invented of the term ‘Pathological Science’ around 1953, now it is applied to anything that a particular scientist or group of scientists find inconvenient in the face of the prevailing paradigm. In other words, anything that contradicts the word of an academic scientist or evidence that a scientific theory may be wrong is madness. If you keep on repeating this, you may start to believe it. This must be the most supreme example of unashamed arrogance in the history of the world.

It must have been at this point (in the 1950’s), when science realised that it was very good at doing something, namely, debunking ideas that come from outside of the fraternity with words like pathological and pseudo-science.
Charles Fort commented years ago that science must make the ideas of outsiders seem unreal in order to make its own ideas seem more real, a kind of universal law, or an exchange if you will?

At least five of the six pathological symptoms given by Langmuir can be applied to the MIT measurements above and the same applies to the general and special relativity theories themselves. Madness it seems, is relative and only applied to non-scientists!

Is the claim that mass is converted into energy in the form of radioactivity true?
Science has always taken it for granted that the decay of radioactive material proceeds at a fixed rate and that this is so reliable that it can be used to fix the dates of rocks surrounding fossils and artefacts. Again, a universal, but unproven, time-scale.

The following looks at a more realistic experiment than the MIT test above, with surprising results. I’ve been told by scientists that the Eckhard Dieter Falkenberg paper below cannot be verified, but even so, if someone else did this experiment it would be worthy of further attention. And then, I found the Russian paper and more recently a third and then a fourth, all relating to the same doubt about atomic theory.
What is quite amazing about these findings is that they also seem to lend themselves to an, as yet, unsuspected power source and the possibility of energy generation. New and exotic energy sources are something that seem to have become anathema to the modern science of physics.

Physics likes to give the impression that it knows all there is to know about energy and further, that an unknown energy is impossible. It follows that if there were to be an unknown energy source, science would be without any means of detection because it does not possess alternative energy detectors. It maintains this stance, and this has the effect of blocking any possible new energy discovery with a by-default denial. According to the information below, it is not beyond the realms of possibility that if the energy of radioactive elements (that drive atomic reactors) is a reaction of cosmic rays, then there is a potential to tap that same energy in other ways.

Nikola Tesla and Wiki:
After almost one hundred years science has failed to catch-up with Nikola Tesla who predicted these things. Speaking of cosmic rays in 1931, Tesla said: “I have satisfied myself that the [cosmic] rays are not generated by the formation of new matter in space, a process which would be like water running up a hill. Nor do they come to any appreciable amount from the stars… This ray, which I call the primary solar ray, gives rise to a secondary radiation by impact against the cosmic dust scattered through space. It is the secondary radiation which now is commonly called the cosmic ray, and comes, of course, equally from all directions in space. [The article continues: The phenomena of radioactivity are not the result of forces within the radioactive substances but are caused by this ray emitted by the sun. If radium could be screened effectively against this ray it would cease to be radioactive, he said. ” 34
—Nikola Tesla

Mass and energy may not be so equivalent!

Apeiron, Vol. 8, No. 2, April 2001 32
Radioactive Decay Caused by Neutrinos?
Eckhard Dieter Falkenberg
Uhldingen, Germany
Read it all at:

“The result of a long-term experiment is presented and discussed. The experiment aimed at testing the hypothesis that radioactive b-decay might be caused by the omnipresent neutrino flux coming from the sun and other sources, by trying to find a positive correlation between the decay rate of tritium and the annually varying solar neutrino flux, due to the annually changing distance from sun to earth.” 35

What was found, during this quite long-term experiment was that the ‘radioactive b-decay’ varied according to the time of year, it was seasonal, at odds with the prevailing atomic theory that tritium and other radioactive substances are unaffected by outside influences and decay according to a universal time-scale.
The assumption that the variation is due to annually varying neutrino flux is just that, an assumption on the part of the experimenter. The neutrino was not known in Tesla’s day.

Previously. Summer 2000:
21st Century Science & Technology – Russian Discovery Challenges Existence of Absolute Time by Jonathan Tennenbaum
Russian scientists discover unexpected regularities in radioactive decay, linked to astronomical cycles…”
(There is certainly an element of Astrological taboo here that will bolster the sceptics case for more exclusion based on prejudice.)
“…Moreover, these periodical changes correlate with the changes in our solar system, and possibly in our universe. To evaluate properly this phenomenon we first ought to understand the cause and mechanism of the first phenomenon.”
The authors do not suggest any explanation of the phenomena discussed, and make no hypotheses concerning their possible mechanisms, and quite rightly so! The reader must start thinking on his own, which certainly is the main intent of this publication.” 36
Also the intent of the writer of these pages.

And recently, this effect has become so “in your face” to physicists that what seems to be a damage limitation process has been initiated. I predict that tame researchers will produce null results in equal numbers to those with positive results and the whole thing will be waved away, not unlike the fuss over cold fusion – time will tell?

Is the Sun Emitting a Mystery Particle?
Analysis by Ian O’Neill
Wed Aug 25, 2010 02:21 PM ET,
But what if a well-known — and apparently constant — characteristic of matter starts behaving mysteriously?
This is exactly what has been noticed in recent years; the decay rates of radioactive elements are changing. This is especially mysterious as we are talking about elements with “constant” decay rates — these values aren’t supposed to change.
School textbooks teach us this from an early age.
This is the conclusion that researchers from Stanford and Purdue University have arrived at, but the only explanation they have is even weirder than the phenomenon itself:
The sun might be emitting a previously unknown particle that is meddling with the decay rates of matter. Or, at the very least, we are seeing some new physics.” 37

The strange case of solar flares and radioactive elements
This story is from the Aug. 23, 2010 issue of Stanford Report. and
When researchers found an unusual linkage between solar flares and the inner life of radioactive elements on Earth, it touched off a scientific detective investigation that could end up protecting the lives of space-walking astronauts and maybe rewriting some of the assumptions of physics…
Ephraim Fischbach, a physics professor at Purdue, was looking into the rate of radioactive decay of several isotopes as a possible source of random numbers generated without any human input. (A lump of radioactive cesium-137, for example, may decay at a steady rate overall, but individual atoms within the lump will decay in an unpredictable, random pattern. Thus the timing of the random ticks of a Geiger counter placed near the caesium might be used to generate random numbers.)
As the researchers pored through published data on specific isotopes, they found disagreement in the measured decay rates – odd for supposed physical constants.
Checking data collected at Brookhaven National Laboratory on Long Island and the Federal Physical and Technical Institute in Germany, they came across something even more surprising: long-term observation of the decay rate of silicon-32 and radium-226 seemed to show a small seasonal variation. The decay rate was ever so slightly faster in winter than in summer.” 38 39

The writer at the following link heaps negativity upon the very idea that something could possibly be amiss with physics theory and then congratulates Fischbach for his audacity. This is called ‘playing it safe’. Not exactly the free spirit of exploration – more to do with the usual navel contemplating, inward looking attitude that has become so common in scientific circles, fear of ridicule by peers and a general reluctance to show enthusiasm for anything new.

“The Sun Influences the Decay of Radioactive Elements” “Researchers at the Purdue University now contest the idea that the constant exist, basing their claim on a series of experiments which show the existence of disagreements in the measured decay rates of various radioactive isotopes.
The new data, proposed by Purdue physics professor Ephraim Fischbach, was tested and confirmed by teams at the US Department of Energy’s (DOE) Brookhaven National Laboratory, and the Federal Physical and Technical Institute, in Germany,
These two labs also found that small seasonal variations existed in the decay rates of the chemical elements silicon-32 and radium-226.
Researchers here found that decay rates during the summer season were slightly faster than those present during winter.” 40

Heat and Radioactivity: History
William Corliss
Thirty years ago, Otto Reifenschweiler was searching for a compound which could protect Geiger-Mueller tubes from damage when they are first ionised. He found the compound, which became a money-spinner for Philips, in a mixture of titanium and radioactive tritium. He also discovered that as the mixture was heated, its radioactivity declined sharply. No process known to physics could account for such a baffling phenomenon: radioactivity should be unaffected by heat. Nevertheless, as the temperature increased from 115C to 160C, the emission of beta particles fell by 28%.” 41

Something not quite right with the atomic theory, that casts doubt on the validity of a universal time and throws a large spanner in the works of radiometric rock dating?
The theory of radioactivity is assumed to be true – it has to be true – but no one has bothered to check. A clean power source has been waiting to be researched for a hundred years and not one of our brave scientists has dared to look beyond the wall erected by those who receive funding from the ‘interests’ who provide support for non-research and thereby retain the status quo.

Explorations of Biological Alteration of Radioactive Decay (and transmutation)(Basically, radioactive decay is not what we are told by physics) See other examples: Click for other Transmutations

Newton’s First Law
The continuing theme that science makes it up as it goes along and ignores nature, is evident in the following. First we have NASA, and one would think that they would know how things move in space when considering Newton’s First Law.

“Newton’s first law states that every object will remain at rest or in uniform motion in a straight line unless compelled to change its state by the action of an external force. This is normally taken as the definition of inertia.” 42

A cursory glance at a kid’s popular astronomy book will show that things in space certainly do not move “in a straight line”. Everything out there moves in an orbit and everything orbits something else. The only possible place where this is likely not to apply is outside of the universe, where no one even knows if the laws of physics (whatever they are), apply.
At any point within the universe, an object is subjected to the forces of the surrounding universe and will describe an orbit.

The NASA dogma is forced into young minds at an early age: “You can see good examples of this idea when you see video footage of astronauts. Have you ever noticed that their tools float? They can just place them in space and they stay in one place. There is no interfering force to cause this situation to change. The same is true when they throw objects for the camera. Those objects move in a straight line. If they threw something when doing a space walk, that object would continue moving in the same direction and with the same speed unless interfered with; for example, if a planet’s gravity pulled on it (Note: This is a really simple way of describing a big idea. You will learn all the real details – and math – when you start taking more advanced classes in physics.).” 43

The tools that float are moving with the spacecraft in orbit and a planet’s gravity is pulling on them. They will not “continue moving in the same direction” when thrown”, because they will orbit the Earth. Learning “all the real details” is apparently not an option.
All of this is not meant to prove that Newton was wrong – yet, just that he has been misinterpreted by modern academic science. He said that an object will move with a uniform motion; a uniform motion is an orbit and any calculation based on a straight line is likely to be wrong.

This is not new, see wiki:
“Buridan also maintained that impetus (inertia) could be not only linear, but also circular in nature, causing objects (such as celestial bodies) to move in a circle.” 44
Inertia was once thought to be a property of matter, but this was dropped by modern science, although science does accept that empty space has properties since Albert Einstein. What is empty space?

“Every body continues in its state of rest or uniform motion in a straight line, except insofar as it doesn’t.” The mystical Arthur Eddington again.

Peter Bros:
Newton never succeeded in his proof of universal gravitation. Subsequent attempts by his intellectual heirs had to be abandoned when the orbits of planets were found to present greater discrepancies than existed with Newton’s use of the Moon’s orbit.
The failure has left an unproven proposition at the heart of modern science. Instead of abandoning a failed hypothesis, however, science now assumes Newton’s universal gravitation as fact. Science then uses this to predict the mass of planets and stars, predictive facts that are not independently verifiable, perpetuating a proposition that has never been, and never can be tested. Newton’s ideas that white light is made up of all colours and that colours are specific wavelengths that emerge from the prism in descending order are propositions -like mass/gravity- as incapable of proof today as they were in his day.
The British Empire Newton helped create collapsed in the twentieth century but Newton’s ideas-which Montagu promoted as infallible in order to establish the monetary basis of empire and which Newton viciously perpetuated by bludgeoning all dissent, remain both omnipresent and baseless-the invisible, unquestioned, and ultimately non-existent pillars upon which all scientific thought rests.” 45
“Newton, Alchemy, and the rise of the British Empire”,
“The mystical foundation of empirical science”.
Peter Bros

Newton’s gravitation theory did not work and during his lifetime, it failed to plot the position of the Moon. Contemporary astronomers told him so and they disregarded his work, preferring the older and more reliable methods. However, such was his influence at the Royal Society, that his laws of universal gravitation were ‘enforced’ and remain to this day.

There are still problems: “Around the late 19th century, astronomers began to notice that Newton’s law did not perfectly account for observed gravitational phenomena in our solar system, notably in the case of Mercury’s orbit. Albert Einstein’s theory of general relativity, published in 1915, resolved the issue of Mercury’s orbit, but it has since been found to be incomplete as well, as it cannot account for phenomena described in quantum mechanics.” 46
We will encounter real life problems with gravity and the non-response of science to something so central to its credibility on another page. It seems that the quote above is something of an understatement.

Einstein’s answer to the perihelion advance of Mercury has been challenged and the effect attributed to the non-spherical shape of the Sun and various other causes, not least that he was not the first to suggest the theory… “…using only Newtonian gravitation plus the reasonable assumption that gravity propagates at light-speed, (Paul) Gerber calculated the correct result. Given that classical mechanics can fully account for the missing precession, in what way can we say that the precession proves GR theory instead of Gerbers calculation? Here there is no need for the relativity calculation. It is also important to note that Gerbers paper was published 17 years before the GR papers and thus developed independently of GR.” 47

It’s all a bit of a mess and, as we can see from the link below, direct measurement is still the most reliable method to determine the position of the Moon (and presumably the rest of the Solar System planets) in its orbit.

Wiki: “The most significant improvement of position observations of the moon have been the lunar laser ranging measurements, obtained using earth-bound lasers and special retro-reflectors placed on the surface of the moon.” 48
We will be looking at this in more detail on another page.

New physics, technology on sale, in the shops?
At or around the time of writing some of the above, there was an exchange with a senior physicist, the author of these pages was accused of criticising theoretical physics as if it were ‘the application of physics’, something he rightly thought to be quite different. This would be fine if there were anything new to apply, but the only applications that I personally can think of are applications of physics a hundred years old.
I throw out a challenge to all of those who swoon in admiration of science: To name me one NEW concept (not a development of and old one,) that led to something useful, that is on sale in the shops, and that is the result of modern physics and scientific method and has been newly discovered in the last twenty years and then another in the last thirty years. I know of none, although I have searched in my own disbelief that such a thing could possibly be true, but it seems to me that it is true.

Parallel and equally unbelievable to me, although probably part of the same hypnotic phenomenon is that of new motor vehicles, and how marketing describes them as so much more advanced than last years model. As an engineer, the author knows that cars have not changed in their basics in a hundred years, just like physics, but everyone thinks that they have, just like physics.
There are changes of a cosmetic, electronic and safety nature, agreed, but an engineering drawing of a 1920’s car engine is strikingly similar to one of today. The same applies to gearbox, clutch, brakes and transmission all invented a hundred years ago or more. Science also cashes-in on the marketing, advertising industry that seems to be the only activity with any new ideas. I have nothing but admiration for advertisers, who year after year reinvent the same old technology. We must also not forget the evergreen Hollywood “Scientist Saves the World” scenario. I know of no example of this actually happening although I could point to one or two disasters.

‘The new lab’ will do so much more than the old one’, as will the new LHC do more than those that went before, it “may help scientists to understand the creation of the universe” or it may not. It’s all advertising and little ever transpires that is of any practical use. Practical utility is something that theoretical science retreats further from with every passing year.

And so, there is no modern applied physics because there is nothing new to apply; just jam tomorrow, pie-in-the-sky, advertising hype. A kind of hypnotic suggestion that causes us to see scientific advances when they are only promises and speculation. Scientific ‘presentism’ is responsible for these misconceptions where everything under the Sun is attributable to recent, modern, academic, scientific research. Even relatively modern science history is treated as if it were a time of dark ignorance. “physics is the only subject in the university curriculum in which the first year’s study rarely gets beyond what was known in 1900.” 49

The GPS Problem
It’s a popular misconception that Einstein’s relativity theories have been proven many times. The in-vogue idea being, that the operation of the Global Positioning System (GPS) is a living proof that relativity is a real effect.
Every so-called proof has historically been riven with controversy and GPS is no exception. Some physicists were sure that GPS would not work because of relativistic effects, others now insist that it’s because of relativistic effects that it does work. What this seems to show is that they are just as much in the dark as the rest of us?

Rethinking Relativity by Tom Bethell
….“To offset these two effects, the GPS engineers reset the clock rates, slowing them down before launch by 39,000 nanoseconds a day. They then proceed to tick in orbit at the same rate as ground clocks, and the system “works.” Ground observers can indeed pin-point their position to a high degree of precision. In (Einstein) theory, however, it was expected that because the orbiting clocks all move rapidly and with varying speeds relative to any ground observer (who may be anywhere on the Earth’s surface), and since in Einstein’s theory the relevant speed is always speed relative to the observer, it was expected that continuously varying relativistic corrections would have to be made to clock rates. This in turn would have introduced an unworkable complexity into the GPS. But these corrections were not made. Yet “the system manages to work, even though they use no relativistic corrections after launch,” Van Flandern said. “They have basically blown off Einstein.”

The latest findings are not in agreement with relativistic expectations. To accommodate these findings, Einsteinians are proving adept at arguing that if you look at things from a different “reference frame,” everything still works out fine. But they have to do the equivalent of standing on their heads, and it’s not convincing. A simpler theory that accounts for all the facts will sooner or later supplant one that looks increasingly Rube Goldberg-like. I believe that is now beginning to happen.”

Dingle’s Question:
University of London Professor Herbert Dingle showed why special relativity will always conflict with logic, no matter when we first learn it. According to the theory, if two observers are equipped with clocks, and one moves in relation to the other, the moving clock runs slower than the non-moving clock. But the relativity principle itself (an integral part of the theory) makes the claim that if one thing is moving in a straight line in relation to another, either one is entitled to be regarded as moving. It follows that if there are two clocks, A and B, and one of them is moved, clock A runs slower than B, and clock B runs slower than A. Which is absurd.
Dingle’s Question was this: “Which clock runs slow? Physicists could not agree on an answer. As the debate raged on, a Canadian physicist wrote to Nature in July 1973: “Maybe the time has come for all of those who want to answer to get together and to come up with one official answer. Otherwise the plain man, when he hears of this matter, may exercise his right to remark that when the experts disagree they cannot all be right, but they can all be wrong.”

Click to access Science%20at%20the%20Crossroads%20revised%202015.pdf

The problem has not gone away.
Alan Lightman of MIT offers an unsatisfactory solution in his Great Ideas in Physics (1992).
“[T]he fact that each observer sees the other clock ticking more slowly than his own clock does not lead to a contradiction. A contradiction could arise only if the two clocks could be put back together side by side at two different times.” But clocks in constant relative motion in a straight line “can be brought together only once, at the moment they pass.” So the theory is protected from its own internal logic by the impossibility of putting it to a test. Can such a theory be said to be scientific?” 50

Note the use of the straight line.
Again, the absurdities of relativity theory are apparent, but we are told that we mere mortals are incapable of unravelling the Gordian knot that is relativity theory.
As can be seen above, an “official answer” can never be disproved and the emperor can never be accused of having no clothes. Science continues in its blissfully illogical inscrutability – naked.

The early decades of the twentieth century saw the rise of modern physics with the introduction of Albert Einstein’s theories. By the thirties physics had come to be seen as so esoteric as to be considered beyond the grasp of the average person. Physicists were elevated to a godlike status by the popular press who also promised a modern scientific, technological, utopia where work was relegated to history. Unfortunately none of this came to pass and the only technology attributable to Einstein was the atomic bomb, something well on its way into production by the Nazis who had also banned Jewish science.

However, the reputation of physicists remained, as it does to this day and they were in a position to debunk any technology they considered not to be aligned with modern theory. The problem with this is that all of our modern technological wonders have their roots in a time when aether theory was dominant. Radio, television and the main basic components that make computers possible can all be traced back to the 1930’s or even before.

Since the 1930’s we have had a steady drip of what is assumed to be new technology that is also assumed to be thanks to modern science. We will look at this in more detail in the technology chapters where the rise of modern technology can be seen in a chronological order. How science, in this case physics since the thirties, has been theorising on anything-but new technology.
All of this was a gift to those who had a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. Electrical power generation and distribution have not changed in a hundred years, in fact not since Tesla’s attempt to introduce cheap loss-less distribution of power has there been any suggestion of an improvement.

A Theory of Almost Everything is a chapter from the book ‘Chronicle of a Cassandra the dark matters of science’ by Alan Wade

The Digging Dog

7 thoughts on “Physics: No Applications

  1. Stephen Hawking was one of the biggest armchair theorist propagated to corrupt any true scientific progress. His books are beyond science fiction.

    His physical disability was celebrated as an highly cerebral person. He keep praising Einstein in his books. So if you want to become a celebrated scientific God, you can’t miss Einstein.

    He don’t have even have basic understanding of metric and dimensions. He keep adding dimensions after dimensions arrogantly as if he owns the nature.

    String theory is an outcome of perverted mind.

    But still he has millions of blind followers all of the world. This is called the power of paid-media.

    Idiots and incompetent fellows like Kip Thorn only admire him.

    Seems scientists don’t want to create anything engineerable and useful, rather create more and more absurd papers with mathematical gymnastics to get passed by peer review.


  2. Hawking was a hero manufactured by science and the media. His is one of maybe two books I’ve thrown in the bin. I wrote to him on his website asking a question about his use of time as if it was a reality. Someone answered saying he didn’t have TIME to answer everyone, which I thought was bizarre.Einstein was a celebrity manufactured in exactly the same way. Science does this to hide the fact it has no one who can think clearly. The scientific media and the space cadets lap it up.
    I’ve a new page on transformers – not my own work but interesting.


  3. Now I know why Hawking didn’t reply. You have clearly confirmed that you do not possess any understanding of the scientific method, much less any faculty that would allow you comprehend his reply, as evidenced by your ineffective use of the English language. Otherwise I hope, for your sake, English is not your Native language or else I must conclude you have no hope. And I am no scientist by any stretch of the imagination.


    1. I tend welcome criticism but in your case I’ll skip the usual rules. You do have a first though, no one has ever complained about my English. What’s wrong with this line atop your blog?:
      “I never learned to write well, but I used to read alot.”
      Alot does not appear in any dictionary but Allot does: to divide or distribute by share or portion; distribute or parcel out; apportion:
      Oh I get it, you mean ‘a lot’
      If you want to make your name as a critic you need to look at the blog find something incorrect and then prove you’re point. Just attacking someone with no evidence or reference is called Ad hominem. See Wiki. A personal attack rather than attacking the work.
      I’m quite old and I’ve spent many years reading science. Therefore if I tell you something it’s likely to be true. But you can check for yourself: read-up on physics.
      Wiki says:”Time has long been an important subject of study in religion, philosophy, and science, but defining it in a manner applicable to all fields without circularity has consistently eluded scholars.”
      Read it for yourself, it’s called research.

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.