imagine darkness: the making of the simple universe

Publication notice:

 I’m pleased today, February 17, to announce the publication of imagine darkness: the making of the simple universe, in a paperback edition. The book is the continuation and expansion of the model I first sketched out in the picnic at the edge of the universe, published as an ebook in 2011 and re-released in paperback format on January 1, of this year.

the simple universe described in this account is a new model of the origin and structure of the universe as observed from our local, and only, vantage point here on earth. It is based on just what we can observe, not burdened with mysticism, fantasy, hypothetical dimensions, belief in paradoxes or contradictions, mechanistic contrivances, or mathematics substituted for reality. Beginning with the rediscovery of a single fixed relativistic frame of reference, the electromagnetic ether, it enables us to resolve or dismiss the multiple paradoxes and contradictions of the current “standard models” of physics and cosmology and replace them with a new and simplified theory of everything. Along the way this account provides new insights into the commonly accepted belief systems around relativity, particle theory, quantum theory, the second law of thermodynamics, E=mc2, and the velocity of light, and offers a simplified, rational, and reality-based alternative, It accomplishes this by seeing with new eyes the same body of evidence, the same observations, that, through misattribution or misuse have supported the current incomplete and contradictory theories for the past 100 years, as well as by applying what we have learned since those theories were first proposed.

 the simple universe is the model of modern physics and cosmology I’ve been working on for more than a dozen years and I finally feel I’ve gotten it right. These two books came out of long conversations with friends and colleagues who were interested in “the big questions” and who weren’t satisfied with answers that were too mysterious and complicated. But searching the literature for clarity soon turned up the fact that there was no clarity, not even among those experts who claimed to know the subjects and the answers.

What we finally discovered was that, for too long, we’ve lived with the untenable logical assumptions of the big bang and so-called “quantum” everything. It is painful to read that we have all the answers when almost none of it can be accepted without a “willing suspension of disbelief” at every level. We are told that 1, it all came from nothing, 2, it’s expanding into nothing, 3, that it can’t be measured or explained, 4, it’s all mathematics. 5, it’s all information, 6, that it didn’t exist at all until we observed it, 7, time and space didn’t exist until we came along, 8, it exists in a mysterious other dimension (or dimensions), and so on and so on. The arguments are infinitely circular, energy is what makes the world go around and the world going around is what generates energy.

Common sense tells us that the dimensions we have created are what we use to describe the size and shape and location of things, they are not things in themselves; the units of time we created are for measuring the duration of events and phenomena and the persistence of objects in space, and are not real things in themselves. Einstein invented an imaginary entity he called spacetime and invested it with real physical characteristics and none of the experts challenged him on it before it became the de facto standard model. Bohr, Heisenberg, and the Copenhagen Crew told us that we could never understand their mystical theories, Richard Feynman said nobody could, so the physics professors told their students to forget trying to make it logical, just calculate!

Unfortunately, in modern physics, logic and common sense have lost their place. When mathematicians took over physics they decided that just being honest describers of the real world was not enough; math could just take over and be the real world. That way only a few people could understand it and the math could be the new holy writ. The experts could declare victory and that was it. Dissenters were dismissed as cranks and crackpots. Unfortunately a few are just that, but still the questions they raised are not being answered.

It was way past time to take back reality. That’s what imagine darkness tries to do. The fundamental mysteries of the standard models are reduced to just one, down from the dozens mentioned above. The structure of everything turns out to be explainable by information we have all around us. Some of the mathematics may be reusable but the fundamental logic of the universe needs to be seen ‘with new eyes’ in an entirely different way. I welcome your thoughts and your challenges. I hope for many. Thank you.

This book, as well as the preceding one, are available through Amazon, through this web site at and other outlets.

Advertisements

About Charles Scurlock

Charles is a recently retired architect/planner and generalist problem-solver with a lifelong interest in science, physics, and cosmology, and the workings of the human mind. He has started this blog in the interest of sharing his ideas with others of like-(or not so like) minds.
This entry was posted in 2 Being and Nothingness, 6 General. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to imagine darkness: the making of the simple universe

  1. Shortened Three Objections to Modern Physics and Improvement of Classical Physics

    Relationship Lorentz derived from the asymmetrical form of the intensity of the moving charge. To derive it we do not need Lorentz’s transformations equations, that is we do not need SPACE-TIME.
    We do not need local time, or covariant equations or physical simultaneity definition or invariant interval. In other words, in physics we do not need Einstein’s theory of relativity. From the asymmetrical form of the intensity of the moving charge we can derive Gauss law, Faraday’s law and derive the 4th Maxwell’s equation, fictional by Maxwell and not to be derived.Kinetic energy of a charge moving at the velocity of v has two different values: in direction of motion as own kinetic energy of charge and against direction of motion of charge represents the wave energy, which creates charge in transmision medium.
    The main differences between Einstein’s theory[1] and the latest knowledge[2]are:

    1.Form of Intensity of the Moving Charge Electric Field is asymmetrical,

    2. Form of the interference field is non-linear,

    3. Kinetic energy of a charge moving at the velocity of v has two different values:

    Kinetic energy of electron , (proton)
    Tkin id =mc2 [ln |1-v/c|+ (v/c) / (1-v/c) ] in direction of motion of electron, (proton)
    where v is velocity of electron, (proton).

    Kinetic energy of electron , (proton)
    Tkin ad = mc2 [ln |1+v/c|- (v/c) / (1+v/c) ] against direction of motion of electron, (proton)
    where v is velocity of electron, (proton).

    These are the main differences between Einstein’s theory and the latest knowledge.

    Calculation of the kinetic energy of a body moving at the velocity of v

    http://www.trendsinphysics.info/kniha/3-2.html

    THEORY AND ITS COMPARISON WITH EXPERIMENT
    Form of Intensity of the Moving Charge Electric and Magnetic Field
    Intensity of the Moving Charge Electric Field – A New Theory

    http://www.trendsinphysics.info/kniha/2-1.html

    Kaufmann’s Experiment

    Kinetic energy of electron (proton) Tkin id =mc2 [ln |1-v/c|+ (v/c) / (1-v/c) ] in direction of motion of electron ( proton), where v is velocity of electron (proton) and m is mass of electron (proton)[2]. It’s own kinetic energy of the electron (proton).

    Kinetic energy of electron (proton) Tkin ad = mc2 [ln |1+v/c|- (v/c) / (1+v/c) ] against direction of motion of electron (proton), where v is velocity of electron (proton) and m is mass of electron (proton.

    Represents the wave energy, which creates electron (proton) in transmision medium.

    Electron (proton) as a source exists if and only if repeatedly speeds up and slows down its movement in source along ellipse (when blinks).

    Electron (proton) as a source, creates in the transmission medium, electromagnetic wave, that spreads in all directions with the velocity c / n,
    regardless of the source movement, where n is the refractive index of the transmission medium.
    In other words, electron (proton) , which is the source, can not be a transmission medium and remain in it.

    The main characteristic of the waves is the energy transfer through a transmission medium.

    And no transfer of the substance (= of real electron,proton ) from the source to the transmission medium.

    Wave exists if and only if there is not a source.
    In the case of electromagnetic waves, see

    The electromagnetic field. Maswell’s equations.

    http://www.trendsinphysics.info/kniha/2-1.html#2-1-3

    Consequence : Form of Intensity of the Moving Charge Electric Field is asymmetrical.

    The non-linear form of the interference field
    http://www.trendsinphysics.info/kniha/2-2.html

    Fizeau’s Experiment
    Harres’s Experiment
    http://www.trendsinphysics.info/kniha/2-2.html#2-2-1

    Consequence : Form of the interference field is non-linear.

    Calculation of the kinetic energy Tkin of a body moving at the velocity of v according to Vlcek and according to Einstein

    Vlcek ´s theory – kinetic energy against direction of motion as wave
    Tkin ad = mc2[ln |1+v/c|- (v/c)/(1+v/c)]

    Vlcek ´s theory – kinetic energy in direction of motion as particle
    Tkin id = mc2[ln |1-v/c|+ (v/c)/(1-v/c)]

    Vlcek ´s theory m = mo = const

    Einstein ´s theory Tkin = mc2 – mo c2

    http://vixra.org/pdf/1409.0090v1.pdf ,

    Improvement of Classical Physics
    http://vixra.org/pdf/1412.0131v1.pdf

    vixra
    http://vixra.org/author/lubomir_vlcek

    academia.edu
    https://tuke.academia.edu/LubomirVlcek/Papers#add/paper_details

    home
    http://www.trendsinphysics.info/

    Why Einstein’s theory of relativity is not generally accepted as correct even after 100 years.
    Why it nevertheless no one truly understand.
    Why is Einstein considered the best physicist of all time, a model which wants to follow every physicist. Why nevertheless has not been on the faculties of the physical world of general relativity included in major courses teaching and taught only marginally special theory of relativity.

    Motto:

    “The difference between a good experiment and a good theory is in the fact that the theory gets old quickly and it is replaced by another one, based on more perfect ideas. It will be forgotten quickly. The experiment is something else. The experiment, which has been thought well and performed carefully, will step in the science forever. It will become its part. It is possible to explain such experiment differently in different periods of times.”
    P. L. KAPICA

    “The laws of nature are so grandiose, that they have to evoke admiration. We can fully relish the feeling only if we can share it with someone. This is not easy affair, however, to share that feeling. The deeper the man plunge into the unknown, the less fellow-travelers one has. In the end of the process, when he arrives there for real where no one else has been before, he is alone.”
    H. SELEY

    “No scientist can have and even require a guarantee, that his opinions will not be contradicted in the future. He can only hope, that he will set the sufficiently valid and significant relations between the facts, which, even if they will be contradicted later, will serve as a basis of the discoveries of new facts and new coherencies.”
    J. D. BERNAL

    Abstract
    All is building on experiments. The theory is valid if and only if it can explain everything
    earlier known experiments and can predict something new in physics, which will be confirmed in the future. Metrology must be paramount. All equations must be dimensionally correctly, that is, to use the correct units for each physical quantity. Correct nomenclature and correct terminology.
    Form of the interference field must be non-linear.
    Form of Intensity of the Moving Charge Electric Field must be asymmetrical.
    Kinetic energy of a charge moving at the velocity of v has two different values: Kinetic energy against direction of motion as wave
    Tkin ad = mc2[ln |1+v/c|- (v/c)/(1+v/c)]
    Kinetic energy in direction of motion as particle
    Tkin id = mc2[ln|1-v/c|+ (v/c)/(1-v/c)]

    Wave – particle duality as kinetic energy against and In direction of motion.
    Physicist must to have a healthy arrogance, do not be afraid criticize of the great physicists, if he is adamantly confident on the basis of experiments metrological and mathematically about their truth. Not afraid to speak out about errors in the theory and about their consequences.
    Physicist must have a flight and constantly looking partners, who can discuss with him, who can jointly develop and explore.

    1.Introduction
    Source en.wikipedia:
    Criticism of the theory of relativity :
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_theory_of_relativity#mw-navigation
    Criticism of the theory of relativity of Albert Einstein was mainly expressed in the early years after its publication in the early 1900s, on scientific, pseudoscientific, philosophical, or ideological bases. Serves as the basis of many successful theories such as quantum electrodynamics.
    Relativity principle versus electromagnetic worldview
    Around the end of the 19th century, the view was widespread that all forces in nature are of electromagnetic origin (the “electromagnetic worldview”), especially in the works of Joseph Larmor (1897) and Wilhelm Wien (1900). This was apparently confirmed by the experiments of Walter Kaufmann (1901–1903), who measured an increase of the mass of a body with velocity…
    Faster-than-light neutrino anomaly: In 2011, the OPERA collaboration published results according to which the speed of neutrinos is slightly faster than the speed of light.. ..
    Acceleration in special relativity
    It was also claimed that special relativity cannot handle acceleration, which would lead to contradictions in some situations. ,,,Paul Ehrenfest (1909), who demonstrated that a rotating rigid body would, according to Born’s definition, undergo a contraction of the circumference without contraction of the radius, which is impossible (Ehrenfest paradox). And Max von Laue (1911) showed that rigid bodies cannot exist in special relativity…,
    Abraham (1912) argued that Einstein had given special relativity a coup de grâce….
    Superluminal speeds
    In special relativity, the transfer of signals at superluminal speeds is impossible, since this would violate the Poincaré-Einstein synchronization, and the causality principle….
    … length contraction and time dilation, led and still leads to the construction of various apparent paradoxes. Both the twin paradox and the Ehrenfest paradox ..Besides the twin paradox, also the reciprocity of time dilation (i.e. every inertially moving observer considers the clock of the other one as being dilated) was heavily criticized by Herbert Dingle and others. For example, Dingle wrote a series of letter to Nature at the end of the 1950s. . Other known paradoxes are the Ladder paradox and Bell’s spaceship paradox, which also can simply be solved by consideration of the relativity of simultaneity….
    Alternative theories
    The theory of complete aether drag, as proposed by George Gabriel Stokes (1844), was used by some critics as Ludwig Silberstein (1920) or Philipp Lenard (1920) as a counter-model of relativity….
    Bad Nauheim Debate
    In the “Bad Nauheim Debate” (1920) between Einstein and Philipp Lenard, the latter stated the following objections: He criticized the lack of “illustrativeness” of relativity, a condition that allegedly can only be met by an aether theory…. Another issue (that was raised by both Lenard and Gustav Mie) concerns the existence of “fictitious” gravitational fields, which were introduced by Einstein within accelerated frames to guarantee their equivalence to frames in which gravitational fields exist. Lenard and Mie argued, that only forces can exist that are proportional to real existing masses, while the gravitational field in an accelerating frame of reference has no physical meaning, i.e. the relativity principle can only be valid for mass proportional forces … In this respect the criticism of Lenard and Mie was partly justified – Mach’s principle is not fulfilled in general relativity…
    Silberstein-Einstein controversy
    Ludwik Silberstein, who initially was a supporter of the special theory, objected at different occasions against general relativity. In 1920 he argued that the deflection of light by the sun, as observed by Arthur Eddington et al. (1919), is not necessarily a confirmation of general relativity, but may also be explained by the Stokes-Planck theory of complete aether drag…
    Philosophical criticism
    Critical responses to relativity (in German speaking countries) were also expressed by proponents of Neo-Kantianism (Paul Natorp, Bruno Bauch, etc.), and Phenomenology (Oskar Becker, Moritz Geiger etc …
    Based on Henri Poincaré’s conventionalism, philosophers such as Pierre Duhem (1914) or Hugo Dingler (1920) argued that the classical concepts of space, time, and geometry were, and will always be, the most convenient expressions in natural science, therefore the concepts of relativity cannot be correct….
    Some proponents of Philosophy of Life, Vitalism, Critical realism (in German speaking countries) argued that there is a fundamental difference between physical, biological and psychological phenomena. For example, Henri Bergson (1921), who otherwise was a proponent of special relativity, argued that time dilation cannot be applied to biological organisms, therefore he denied the relativistic solution of the twin paradox….
    Based on the philosophy of Fictionalism, the philosopher Oskar Kraus (1921) and others claimed that the foundations of relativity were only fictitious and even self-contradictory. Examples were the constancy of the speed of light, time dilation, length contraction.
    Academic and non-academic criticism
    Some academic scientists, especially experimental physicists such as the Nobel laureates Philipp Lenard and Johannes Stark, as well as Ernst Gehrcke, Stjepan Mohorovičić, Rudolf Tomaschek and others criticized the increasing mathematization of modern physics, especially in the form of relativity theory and quantum mechanics.

    … “defensive belt” around Einstein. Some representatives were Max von Laue, Max Born, etc. and on popular-scientific and philosophical level Hans Reichenbach, André Metz etc., who led many discussions with critics in semi-popular journals and newspapers.
    A Hundred Authors Against Einstein
    A collection of various criticisms can be found in the book Hundert Autoren gegen Einstein (A Hundred Authors Against Einstein), published in 1931. It contains very short texts from 28 authors, and excerpts from the publications of another 19 authors. The rest consists of a list that also includes people who only for some time were opposed to relativity …

    Source : http://www.trendsinphysics.info/
    Critical examination of fundamentals in physics
    [2] L. Vlcek: New Trends in Physics, Slovak Academic Press, Bratislava 1996, ISBN 80-85665-64-6. Presentation on European Phys. Soc. 10th Gen. Conf. – Trends in Physics ( EPS 10) Sevilla , E 9 -13 September 1996, http://www.trendsinphysics.info/

    Criticism of Einstein’s theory of relativity
    Einstein’s closed vicious circle
    Lorentz transformation equations

    local time

    covariant equations

    physical definition of simultaneity

    invariant interval

    Lorentz transformation equations
    http://www.trendsinphysics.info/kniha/1-1.html

    2. Theory

    Through the work of Max Planck, Albert Einstein, Louis de Broglie, Arthur Compton, Niels Bohr, and many others, current scientific theory holds that all particles also have a wave nature (and vice versa).[1] This phenomenon has been verified not only for elementary particles, but also for compound particles like atoms and even molecules. For macroscopic particles, because of their extremely short wavelengths, wave properties usually cannot be detected.[2] Wave–particle duality is an ongoing conundrum in modern physics. Most physicists accept wave-particle duality as the best explanation for a broad range of observed phenomena; however, it is not without controversy.
    Albert Einstein , who, in his search for a Unified Field Theory , did not accept wave-particle duality, wrote: [4]
    This double nature of radiation (and of material corpuscles)…has been interpreted by quantum-mechanics in an ingenious and amazingly successful fashion. This interpretation…appears to me as only a temporary way out…
    The pilot wave model, originally developed by Louis de Broglie and further developed by David Bohm into the hidden variable theory proposes that there is no duality, but rather a system exhibits both particle properties and wave properties simultaneously, and particles are guided, in a deterministic fashion, by the pilot wave (or its ” quantum potential “) which will direct them to areas of constructive interference in preference to areas of destructive interference . This idea is held by a significant minority within the physics community. [5]
    When in this idea we will replace the “quantum potential” by “electromagnetic potential” (or by ” interference of electromagnetic waves”), the idea will be acepted large majority of physicists.
    In 1900 Max Planck hypothesized that the frequency of light emitted by the black body depended on the frequency of the oscillator that emitted it, and the energy of these oscillators increased linearly with frequency (according to his constant h, where E = hν).
    Theoretical Planck´s oscillator we can replace with circulating electron along ellipse around the nucleus of an atom between two Bohr´s energy levels, while electron moving alternately with acceleration and deceleration. This electron really blinks. When an electron moves at the speed of a higher Bohr energy levels (from afnucleus) to lower (towards perinucleus) radiates spectral lines of certain thickness (really blinks). For example, spectral line Halfa 656.281 + – 1.4 nm.
    From the thickness of the spectral lines
    we can easily identify the smallest (in afnucleus) and largest (in perinucleus) the speed of the
    electron around the nucleus of an atom, taking into account the kinetic energy of the electron
    in the direction of movement and against the movement if we know that according to the
    Doppler principle is the lowest wavelength (highest frequency) and against the direction of
    motion of the electron is a wavelength of the highest (lowest frequency).

    Why Einstein’s theory of relativity is not generally accepted as correct even after 100 years.

    Why it nevertheless no one truly understand.

    Why is Einstein considered the best physicist of all time, a model which wants to follow every physicist. Why nevertheless has not been on the faculties of the physical world of general relativity included in major courses teaching and taught only marginally special theory of relativity.

    Einstein’s theory of relativity can not explain …

    1. Movement principles of the fast-spinning pulsars,
    2. Nuclear Fusion ,
    3. Wave – Particle Duality as Kinetic Energy Against and In Direction of Motion
    4. the 4th Maxwell’s equation,
    5. Lorentz equals without the help of Space-Time,
    6.Confinement of quarks
    7. Great Table of Elementary Particles
    8. Spectral line Hα
    9. Neutrino Oscillations
    10. Form of the interference field must be non-linear.
    11.Form of Intensity of the Moving Charge Electric Field must be asymmetrical.
    12.Kinetic energy of a charge moving at the velocity of v has two different values: Kinetic energy against direction of motion as wave
    Tkin ad = mc2[ln |1+v/c|- (v/c)/(1+v/c)]
    Kinetic energy in direction of motion as particle
    Tkin id = mc2[ln|1-v/c|+ (v/c)/(1-v/c)]

    13. Yukawa potential

    My theory can explain:
    1. Movement principles of the fast-spinning pulsars,
    2. Nuclear Fusion ,
    3. Wave – Particle Duality as Kinetic Energy Against and In Direction of Motion
    4. the 4th Maxwell’s equation,
    5. Lorentz equals without the help of Space-Time,
    6.Confinement of quarks
    7. Great Table of Elementary Particles
    8. Spectral line Hα
    9. Neutrino Oscillations
    10. Form of the interference field must be non-linear.
    11.Form of Intensity of the Moving Charge Electric Field must be asymmetrical.
    12.Kinetic energy of a charge moving at the velocity of v has two different values: Kinetic energy against direction of motion as wave
    Tkin ad = mc2[ln |1+v/c|- (v/c)/(1+v/c)]
    Kinetic energy in direction of motion as particle
    Tkin id = mc2[ln|1-v/c|+ (v/c)/(1-v/c)]

    13. Yukawa potential

    Going out from Einstein’s closed vicious circle is more important, as to remain in Einstein’s closed vicious circle:

    Lorentz transformation equations ==> local time ==> covariant equations ==>

    ==> physical definition of simultaneity ==> invariant interval ==>

    ==> Lorentz transformation equations

    Do not use space – time and bad therms :
    – in current physics (uniform motion in a straight line, retarded potentials, …)
    -in special relativity theory (inertial systems, SPACE-TIME, local time, covariant equations, physical definition of simultaneity, invariant interval, Lorentz transformation equations, ..)
    -in old physics (ether, drag coefficient, …)

    and replace it with several new terms (medium, equivalent system, quasi-circle motion, new form of the intensity of moving charge of electric field, non-linear form of the interference field, new generalized law of inertia…).

    I hope to will eliminate bad, harmful and illusory terms.
    Those terms have been proved as bad by a number of other authors (ether, SPACE-TIME, inertial systems, …).
    I hope that this will not distract the reader.
    I wishes that the you will take time to study and learn new nomenclature and terminology.
    The terminology in physics (but also in philosophy and in science in general) is as variable as grade knowledge.
    Being opposed to this means to stop progress.
    It is very difficult to express through human language should one wish to explain the finest differences and deviations from ideal terms.
    All ideal terms used in physics are a mere approximation to the real state.
    Thousands of scientists are convinced about that in their struggle for understanding the world.
    But one must express in some way, so he uses ideal terms, such as straight-line motion, ideal circle motion, etc.
    Yes, it is impossible to realize those terms in real world, as even the most precise experiments have deviations, error measurements, etc.
    For more accurate expression it is therefore suitable to use terms with a „quasi-„ (quasi-circle …).

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s