Physics or Fantasy

Distortion of Experimental Results Caused by Equipment

NOTE: THIS POST WAS ACCIDENTALLY PUBLISHED AND HAS STILL A LARGE AMOUNT IF WORK TO BE CARRIED OUT ON IT.

————————————————-

It is essential when carrying out experiments, to understand how and why the equipment may effect the results. Consider the following drawing.

Swing Spectrum

When you view  light passing through a slit,  what you actually see depends on the angle that you are viewing the slit.

More on the Higgs Bosun

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. (I think).

A computer-generated image of a Higgs interaction

“The Higgs boson (or Higgs particle) is a particle that gives mass to other particles. “

What do they actually mean by this statement? To detect any particle, that particle must have mass already. All particles have mass, they don’t need another particle. This whole argument stems from the fact that physicists don’t understand what mass is, they don’t understand what gravity is, they don’t understand what electricity is, they don’t understand what light is and , in general, they don’t seem to understand anything about physics. See “What Gravity is and What Causes It”, which gives a preliminary insight into both mass and gravity.

Brian

“Peter Higgs was the first person to think of it, and the particle was found in March 2013. It is part of the Standard Model in physics, which means it is found everywhere. It is one of the 17 particles in the Standard Model. P”

“The Higgs particle is a boson. Bosons are particles responsible for all physical forces except gravity. “

There are only two types of atomic force: A force of attraction and a force of repulsion.

The force of attraction is the nuclear force that includes both gravity and magnetism.

The force of repulsion is that between electrons.

Note; The repulsion force between electrons only operates between electrons, it does not operate between nuclei and electrons, there is a mutual attraction.

Brian.

Other bosons are the photon, the W and Z bosons, and the gluon. Scientists do not yet know how to combine gravity with the Standard Model.

There are no such things as photons. Photons are relatively slow speed electrons.

“It is very difficult to detect the Higgs boson with the equipment and technology we have now. These particles are believed to exist for less than a septillionth of a second. Because the Higgs boson has so much mass (compared to other particles), it takes a lot of energy to create one. The Large Hadron Collider at CERN is the equipment scientists used to find it. The collider has enough energy that it is able to make Higgs bosons. When you smash particles together, there is a small chance a Higgs Boson will appear, so the Large Hadron Collider smashed lots of particles together to find it.”

See “How physicist ‘find’ their particles.”

“Higgs bosons obey the conservation of energy law, which states that no energy is created or destroyed, but instead it is transferred. First, the energy starts out in the gauge boson that interacts with the Higgs field. This energy is in the form of kinetic energy as movement. After the gauge boson interacts with the Higgs field, it is slowed down. This slowing reduces the amount of kinetic energy in the gauge boson. However, this energy is not destroyed. Instead, the energy is converted into mass-energy, which is normal mass that comes from energy.

This is based (as stated below) on Einstein’s incompetent mathematics relating to the Mickelson-Morley experiment. Because of the complete lack of understanding of mechanics by the physics establishment, (this was a mechanical experiment, subject to the universal laws of mechanics and the rules of mathematics), they did not understand the results of the experiment, which was not what they expected. The results obtained were exactly in accordance with the laws of mechanics and the rules of mathematics. The physics estrablishment refused to accept this fact. Einstein fiddled the mathematics to suit the result the physicists expected and wanted.

Brian.

“The mass created is what we call a Higgs boson. The amount of mass created comes from Einstein‘s famous equation E=mc², which states that mass is equal to a large amount of energy (i.e. 1 kg of mass is equivalent to almost 90 quadrillion joules of energy—the same amount of energy used by the entire world in roughly an hour and a quarter in 2008). Since the amount of mass-energy created by the Higgs field is equal to the amount of kinetic-energy that the gauge boson lost by being slowed, energy is conserved.”

Note; The Michelson-Morley experiment was expected (By the physicists) to show a time difference between two light beams travelling different paths. No time differences were found. The physicists therefore decided that light must travel at a constant speed and therefore the speed of light must be a constant. E=mc² is derived from the standard mechanics formula for moving bodies E = mv ²,

Unfortunately, by making c² into a constant and using in all sorts of silly unproven formula they come up with daft statements like “1 kilo of mass is the equivalent of 90 quadrillion joules of energy”. IF the 1kilo was travelling at 300,000 x the speed of light its energy due to its MOMENTUM would probably light more than a few houses. The energy would be entirely due to its velocity. The energy of the 1 kilo, whilst sat on your desk, would depend on what the material was.

Note;  Mass (m) is a real item (Primary Quantity). Velocity (v) is a real item (Secondary Quantity, composed of two Primary Quantities, distance and time.).    However, v² is an irrational quantity i.e. it has no reality, it is only a mathematical concept. You cannot (in reality) multiply time x time.  A real quantity times an irrational quantity =  (E) an irrational quantity.

Like most mathematics you must consider the logic of what you are doing. Energy is a mathematical concept, momentum is an actuality. (See “Understanding Momentum”).

I have never found a full study on the the mechanics and mathematics of the Michelson- Morley experiment from the physics establishment. For this  reason my first book concentrated on these matters.

Author – Brian Williams

The Mechanics of True Perspective.

INTRODUCTION.

 Throughout known history man has produced pictorial representations of his environment, from the earliest cave paintings of animals, hunting scenes, weapons, & man, through to the masterpieces of the great painters of the renaissance. Bearing in mind the wide variations in artistic talents of the general population of today, and considering the extremely low population of early man, one is tempted to conclude that early man had a greater artistic capability. Many cave painting have great technical assurance, and considering the severe circumstances in which they were produced, would indicate an enthusiasm beyond that of most artists. Produced on rough rock faces, using charcoal or home-made dyes, applied with sticks, fingers etc., carried out in semi-darkness by the light of guttering torches, and in an atmosphere full of smoke, it is doubtful that many of our great painters could have done better in the same circumstances.

If these same cave painters had sable brushes, stretched canvases, and the wide variety of painting media that we have today, they would be world famous artists. It is sad to consider that their greatest works would have been done outside the caves, in more congenial circumstances, but these would have been destroyed by weather and erosion.

It is clear that these cave painters understood the importance of perspective, demonstrated in many of the their paintings. Even the artists of ancient Egypt, often unjustly accused of not being able to ‘draw properly’ (See later note.), understood the basic requirements of perspective.

The technical aspects of perspective were intensively studied during the renaissance, and in fact our present systems of perspective show no improvement on these early studies.

I first became interested in perspective whilst a student at Bolton Municipal College of Art, where, having a keen interest in mechanics as well as art, I was intrigued by the apparent incompatibility between the art of perspective and the mechanics of perspective as given in all the text books on the subject.

One of the points that emerged from my later research was the practical incompatibility of the art of perspective, with the mechanics of perspective. This will become apparent as we continue.

A further point relates to what in many cases are referred to as ‘ optical illusions’, or faults in our eye or brain. In fact, many of these are accurate assessments of the information (in the form of light) that is arriving at the eye.

Note: – The stylised ‘side only’ drawings on most Egyptian artefacts were certainly not created due to any lack of ability to draw full frontal or angled drawings. The artists’ abilities are clearly demonstrated by the large number of superb statues, masks etc. in existence. There are also full frontal drawings in existence that were patterns for statues. There are various possible reasons for the stylised form of art;

a. Economy. It is easier to draw figures in this way, and the large numbers of figures in most tombs etc. would made this an economic method of drawing.

b. Suitability. Most figures are carrying out some form of activity. It is easier to show these activities in a side view rather than a full frontal or angled view. This style of drawing figures is often used in instruction manuals today.

c. Labour. It is unlikely that the master artist carried out all the paintings, therefore numerous other artists or semi-skilled technicians would have carried out the work. ‘Patterns’ would be used for guidance by these ‘auxiliary’ artists.

d. Style. More realistic drawings methods would lose much of the important aspect of the drawings, i.e. they are primarily a means of recording messages. Every picture has clarity of meaning, even if the picture is not truly realistic.

——————————————————

True Perspective.

The simple drawing below is of a group of buildings. This is actually what you see, even though you will initially argue against my statement.

 Let us look at Fig.2 which shows four areas to consider.

Let us now look at these areas in isolation.

Looked at in isolation, as happens with the human eye’s small area of high definition, I think you will agree that they do not seem to be particularly distorted.

Normal Methods used in Perspective.

Author – Brian Williams

Much more to come on this subject.

Entropy – Not for the Squeamish.

I have decided to approach this subject in the form of a story.

——————–

Meeting of the International Science Safety Sub-Committee 2. August 12th 2556

Professor Jason King, Chairman

Ladies & gentleman, may I bring this meeting to order.

It is exactly 3 years since our last meeting, but I feel that during the next few months our meetings will become more frequent. I assume that you have all consented to help by turning up for this meeting. I have set aside 1 week to allow for preliminary work on your summaries. This is little enough time for what may be the most important meeting ever held by mankind.

I will spend the next few minutes with a summary of our overall aims.

In the last 70 years of the 20th century much thought was given to the problem of entropy, the heat death of the universe. 99% of the Earth’s population are unaware of the problem, even in the year 2556, after 700 years since the of the realisation of the problem. Most of the world’s intellectuals of whatever general or specialist persuasions are in a state of depression.

We therefore have what may be called a problem. Admittedly, a problem that makes other problems look microscopically small. We do have the capability of erasing the knowledge of the problem from mankind; this would only take a few hundred years. However, knowledge of the problem would continue to surface at intervals. We could ‘invent’ a plausible solution to the problem, which would satisfy all but a small number of people. We could even produce ‘cast iron evidence’ to prove that there never was a problem.

However, the problem will still remain.

I have always been convinced that the problem is capable of a solution. You people were chosen because I feel that you had the necessary persistence, bloody mindedness, call it what you will, to at least arrive at a feasible programme that will enable us to finally produce a solution. You are all, individually, capable of doing this. None of us will see the final solution, even though our life expectancy is now approximately 125 years. The value of the work that you do may not be known in your lifetime. However, we must find a solution or all humanity’s evolution will be a complete waste of effort & time. The dinosaurs etc. were wiped out after an evolutionary period far greater than that of humanity, and we do not want the same thing to happen to us.

I call on Dr. William Hartson to give us a summary of his group’s findings. As you know this relates to human psychology.

Dr. Hartson.

Thank you Professor King. Ladies & gentlemen, our summary is shorter than we expected it to be in the early days. Our initial thoughts were that we would have to work on a need to know basis as regards the general public, in affect, hiding the problem from the public. However, our researches indicate that the opposite is true. In fact we find that unless the public is aware of the problem we will be unable to proceed with our intentions.

My team have interviewed over 15,000 members of the public in virtually every country in the world, and we find that 98% of them could understand the problem and, if possible, would like to be involved in some way to help. Obviously they all can’t be directly involved, but even 1% would be an enormous pool of intellectual & physical potential. When considered along with the backing of an informed population, we feel that we could have over 10,000,000 man-years/annum of manpower available to any programme that is finally decided on. Although I said that all the people could not be directly involved, there is no reason that all the people cannot be indirectly involved, or intermittently involved. This would generate a greater feeling of universal goodwill than excluding the bulk of humanity from the project.

We consider that it would be possible to use all the people some of the time, by using them for a short period, say 12 months, working on the many probable projects. Obviously many skills & capabilities are going to be required, and everyone has something, which they can bring to a project, even if it’s only supplying beverages or running errands.

As the average lifespan is now just over 100 years, the donation of 12 months work is 1% of a person’s life, not a particularly onerous burden on the individual, and one that most people will give quite happily, and gain much satisfaction from.

Obviously we do not know what projects will be required, but we feel that we can arrange a satisfactory system whatever is decided. A complete copy of our report will be given to each member at the end of the meeting. Thank you.

I now call on Dr. Isaac Singh, whose group has been looking into possible investigation paths, and to investigate any possible solutions that appear viable at the present day.

Dr. Singh.

Thank you. Ladies & Gentlemen, I have some good news & some bad. The bad news is that our summary is considerably longer than Dr. Hartson’s group. The rest of our summary contains a mixture of good & bad. We have split our summary into what we consider to be the most significant categories. Our 1st category is:-

Time Scale.

This has been rather a difficult subject, with much of the available documentation being based on the work of 20th century physicists. Very little work has been carried out in the last 500 years mainly due to the depressing nature of the subject. However we have unearthed some research by an amateur physicist, Williams, which gives us some hope that our time may be extended by 25% or more. This obviously does not get rid of the problem, but allows us more time to find a solution. Unfortunately, we do not know what our baseline is. We therefore can say that we have   x + 0.25x  years to find a solution, (x being whatever existing estimates you like to use.). At this stage it can be considered as good news. From the notes unearthed various experiments become obvious targets for research, from which we should be able to come to a reasonable estimate of the timescale. At present we do not know if we have 10 thousand years or 10 billion. It should be noted that the final time scale consists of 2 important sections,

1. Time to find a solution.

2. Time to carry out the solution.

For obvious reasons item 1 is unknowable. When a time scale is worked out, any solutions found can only be considered as solutions if there is time to carry them out.

However, the first solution found must be considered feasible if it only exceeds the estimated timescale by 25% or less, in the hope that our estimates are wrong in the right way.

Preliminary Work.

We consider that there is much auxiliary work that can be carried out prior to finding a solution.

This is itemised below.

A.        Survival systems.

These include planetary survival systems and off-planet survival systems. In essence, we  should ensure that all humanities eggs are not in one basket. Some preliminary planetary systems are already in place such as the Meteorite Detect & Destroy Group on the moon. A large amount of research & development work must be carried out on small self-sustaining ecosystems, hydroponics etc..

The most important survival system is to get out to other planets & moons to ensure that disaster does not strike humanity in the form of disease. It is also important that our interstellar space travel capabilities are rapidly enhanced, as the solution may rest on this.

B.        Knowledge.

Knowledge is an essential ingredient in any survival system.

It is crucial that we set up a system of information gathering that is all embracing but giving us rapid access. Although we have fast access data systems at present, we estimate that our information systems will need to increase by a factor of ten in the next 15 years, just allowing for increases in technical information.

This apparently large increase is not to allow for newly developed knowledge, but to bring in information that is not considered as ‘acceptable’ by present or past establishments, i.e. goes against current theories. When one considers the delays in accepting the facts actually proven in the late 1900s that we could get considerably more than 100% ‘efficiency’ from equipment, even though it was later shown that the physicists hypotheses on atomic structure were at fault, and the claimed possible 100% in relation to many items of equipment, may in fact be less than 1% of the actual possible. Some of you may be aware that we have some equipment operating at 250% efficient relative to the 1900s hypotheses. We will come back to this later in our report.

We suggest setting up multiple groups of people to sift through all available literature, however obscure, to extract ideas which may help us in our ultimate goal.

We propose that these people should generally be non-technical to prevent subconscious or deliberate suppression of ideas. Particular attention will be paid to ‘science fiction’ publications, as many of the major scientific breakthroughs in the last 600 years have been initially introduced as sci-fi stories, many dated in the 1900s and early 2000s.

Existing Possibilities.

A. Accelerated evolution to allow humanity to function in harsher conditions. The weakness of this idea is that it only delays the final disaster. However it has the advantage that it does give us more time to find a solution.

B. Reducing the rate of conversion to total entropy. Again, the same advantages and disadvantages as the above. This would require shutting down unnecessary suns, as there is little else that would have any significant effect. We have various ideas how this could be done, but we do not have the capability at present.

C. To continue Willams’ work on Matter/Mass/Energy transfer. The initial work indicated that both energy and mass are increasing.

Although this goes against current thinking, which is based on Einstein’s hypotheses, there is sufficient evidence available to indicate that Williams was right. The dissipation of energy from the sun does not appear to have reduced the rate of its increase in mass. The outer planets certainly appear to be increasing in mass, with a corresponding increase in energy radiation. The arguments put forward for the hypothesis that the Earth may have increased its diameter by approximately 25% in the last 50,000,000 years has been around for well over 500 years If this turns out to be correct then it would explain many of the structural anomalies in the dinosaurs, which appeared to be far too heavy to operate efficiently at our present gravity. See Dinosaurs and the Expanding Earth – The Earth Mechanics.

D. To assess the basics of the problem.

Logically there is a problem. Have we defined the problem correctly? Is the problem universal, or just within our own small part of the universe? Is the problem self-correcting? Are others within the universe already working on the problem? Has a solution already been found? If the universe is infinite and only our part of the universe has the problem, will heat dissipation to the rest of the universe solve our problem? Our known universe may be only a bright spark in the darkness of infinity, (See Out from Earth.). If the problem is truly universal are we receiving more than our ‘fair’ share?

In general we feel that it is necessary to proceed on all of the above, but with priorities on earth based safety, and the rapid development of interstellar travel. Again, work by Williams indicates that the only restriction on speed of travel will be related to the detection & destruction/avoidance of space debris. We feel that we can create a faster than light spacecraft within 35 years.  We suggest initially sending a dummy craft containing full life support systems, communications, and full monitoring of all systems.

The biggest problems will be detection of space debris, and communications. Speed of communications over long distances using existing technology is still limited to approx. 450,000km/sec., [Only outside the influence of stars] but work on modulated magnetic waves have indicated that almost instantaneous communications are possible over short distances. If we can find or construct a magnetic field that will operate at the vast distances required, then communications will be less of a problem. Unfortunately this is a big if. However, if it is possible, then the space debris detection problem will also be solved.

That concludes our summaries, thank you ladies & gentlemen.

————–

Out from Earth.

October 3012

350 years had passed since they had set out from Earth.

The captain was carrying out his official weekly check on the bridge. He had carried out this check for the last 15 years, since he had been elected Captain. He normally spent only the regulation 1 hour on the bridge, has had the captains before him for the last 150 years.

He was the great,  great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great,  great grandson of a drive technician of the original crew, and was the third member of his family to hold the position of captain.

In fact the position of Captain was almost a honorary one, he had had no official duties to carry out other than the weekly check. The only requirement of a captain was that he knew the full history of the flight, and have a good working knowledge of the operation of the ship. Most of this knowledge he had gained in his childhood, from friends, relatives, operators and engineers who had been generally happy to assuage his curiosity.

The bridge was normally manned at all times by two observers, who only spent 3 hours on shift. There were no technical requirements required for the observers other than to be alert. In over 300 years no observer had seen anything through the observation screens, it was completely dark outside. The only indication of the fact that they where actually moving was that the main thrust engines were still firing.

After the initial disaster, in which the ship had reached a speed 20 times the expected speed, they had managed to jury rig a speed indicator. This currently gave them a reading of 1.5million miles/second. This was considerably less than the maximum speed reached of approximately 6 million miles/second estimated whilst they were within the outer limits of the known universe.

Their inability to shut down the thrust engines in the first 10 years had been caused by a malfunction in the hydrogen scoop. This had caused the engines to operate like ram-jets, and the normal shut-down systems had no effect. The vast quantity of hydrogen available, and their high velocity created a self-sustaining reaction.

By the time they managed to weld a safety cage to the outside of the ship to enable them to repair the hydrogen scoop, many months elapsed. This was because they had to operate under the force of a 2g  acceleration force and it was extremely dangerous operating outside the ship. It was even more dangerous close to the hydrogen scoop, and extreme safety measures were required to prevent the engineers from disappearing into the scoop and feeding the engines.

They were well outside the boundary of the known universe, before they realised that the rate of acceleration was gradually falling. By this time the visible universe had appeared as a large sphere of bright lights.

Anyone like to complete this story? I have never come across a Sci-Fi story covering this subject.

I have never been good at story telling, although my mother could keep a child’s adventure story going for months.

You can certainly publish under your own name.

—————————-

Time to reach the claimed speed of light at 1g acceleration.

The equation for acceleration is a = (v-u) divided by t.

a = acceleration  = g = 9.8 m/s/s
v = final velocity =300,000,000 m/s
u = initial velocity=0
t = time

9.8= (300000000 – 0) / ‘t’
9.8 X ‘t’= 300,000,000
‘t’= 300,000,000 / 9.8
Time to reach 300,000 kilometres/sec.  (The claimed maximum speed of light) at an acceleration of 1G = 30612245 seconds divided  24 x 60 x 60 = approximately 353 days., (roughly one year)
—————————————–

Entropy.

Basically, Entropy is the amount of heat energy unusable in a system. It can be likened to a car engine system where parts of the engine may rise to 300°C or higher, but this heat is of no use to the operation of the engine. A car cooling system is designed to keep the engine temperature down to about 100°C.

A better simile would be a stream running down a mountain towards a lake. Along the stream we could place waterwheels with generators.

The water in the stream itself contains usable energy whist it is running down the mountain, but on arrival at the lake no more energy is available.

The lake is the entropy of the stream/lake system.  If the lake emptied into the sea then more energy would available from the stream water which would become part of the stream/lake/sea system, the sea becoming the entropy of this system. The water is still there but is unusable for us but is quite handy for the fish.

Some scientists ARE very worried about entropy, some arguing that it would be the heat death of the universe. Fortunately, energy of all kinds is involved in entropy.

There will be a follow-up post relating to this subject but not until I’ve sorted out all my web problems.

Author – Brian Williams

How Gravity Works and What causes it.

To understand gravity you have to throw out all the present silly hypotheses relating to the atomic structures that have never been able to explain a single aspect of matter. If ALL matter can be explained using atoms composed of only two types of particles, why do we need all these other mythical particles?

All matter is composed of ‘crystal-like’ structures that are atoms. People think of crystals as rigid and hard but this is not necessarily true. The crystal-like structure of the atoms was briefly considered in the late 1800s, but was rejected because the physicists  argued that it did not allow for all the known elements.  (The possible configurations of crystal ‘Atoms’ using a maximum of 150 electrons is 570, and the crystal-like structure gives explanations of all aspects of matter.)

Another problem lies with the ‘atomic number’. The ‘atomic numbers’ are derived from a ‘decision’ made by the physics establishment that hydrogen, being the lightest ‘known’ element would be given the number 1 to indicate that it had only one electron. This decision was not based on any logic or scientific evidence, it was just decided. It was also decided,  using the same lack of knowledge and evidence, that heavier atoms must have more electrons.

Heat is moving electrons. The element that gives up electrons the easiest is hydrogen. It is therefore reasonable to argue that this shows that the hydrogen nucleus has the least ‘grip/attraction’ on its electrons.

Now consider a magnet. If you pick up ball bearings with the magnet, you will reach a stage when no more bearings will be attracted to it. Its magnetic attraction has become reduced by the number of bearings.

An atom has the same problem with electrons, it can only support a certain number.

Atoms compress under pressure. Under pressure they give out heat (Electrons). The mass increases under pressure. Reduce the pressure and electrons are absorbed and the mass decreases.

Very simplistic? Of course it is, but is still essentially correct. The less electrons that an atom has, the greater the mass.The more electrons, the lighter the mass.

This is obviously the opposite of current physics hypotheses and is therefore more likely to be correct.

Under very high pressures electrons are forced out the the atom structures and cannot return. The attraction/pull of the nucleus remains but the pressure prevents the electrons from reducing the mass of the atoms.

In a planet as the pressure increases, more and more electrons are forced out from the centre to the outside.

As more electrons are lost to atoms, the atoms become denser, (become different, heavier  atoms). There will be a relatively continuous flow of electrons from the core to the outside of the planet.

The nuclei of the core atoms do not have the number of electrons to blanket the nuclei attraction/pull which now combine to create a nuclear force that we call gravity. Gravity is a nuclear force, the combined forces of trillions of atomic nuclei. Unlike a magnetic force, gravity acts on all matter. Note; A magnetic force  is a very weak force caused by displacement of the nuclei of certain atoms.

We have here a concept that most people will find difficult to understand, that is that any individual atom can become hydrogen or lead.

We also have the concept that electrons are essentially anti-mass particles. However, you should really visualise that mass is actually a nuclear force not a lump of lead. Not easy, I grant you.

——————————

The Tractor Beam.

I have always been a science fiction fan. I feel that science fiction (SciFi) can expand your mental horizons far more than any other type of literature. Completely new concepts are brought before you for your consideration. Some SciFi can be really bad, some better and some excellent. Some handle the psychology of situations very well, others ignore it totally.

Many aspects of SciFi I consider to be fantasy but I can allow because it helps the story along. Among my ‘Fantasy’ categories are time travel, alternative universes, black holes, time dilation, constant speed of light, pressor beams/repulsers, tractor beams and gravity waves. (Also, virtually every hypothesis of the physics establishment.)

Unfortunately, whilst I was writing ‘How gravity Works and What Causes it’. I realised that I would have to remove tractor beams from my science fantasy list.

Tractor beams are scientific possibilities.

I have known how gravity works for over 35 years, and I have read virtually every story ever written which includes attractor beams, yet I have only just realised that it is possible to make one.

Difficult, impractical, outside our current technical and scientific capabilities, but certainly possible.

Even with our rapid technical advances it is likely to be at least 500 years before we could produce one.

It would be dangerous and difficult to handle, and it could not be done on Earth.

So, how do we build a tractor beam?

A Find a piece of planetary core material.

B. Insulate it from electrons.

C. Design a shutter mechanism to act as a trigger.

D. Mount it on a space craft.

So, how do we find a piece of planetary core material? There ought to be some hanging about in the asteroid belt, shouldn’t there?

I don’t really think so. The very high gravitational force field would have collected all the asteroids in a very short time. No, I’m afraid that any wandering core material would have collected a lot of planetary debris and either disappeared into space, headed into the Sun or is now a planet or moon. Let us ignore that for now and go on to Item B.

How do we insulate it from electrons? The problem here is that the insulation would have to be light and dense at the same time. 4,000 miles thickness of roof insulation would make our tractor beam a little bulky for welding onto our spaceship.

Let us consider that our core material is a 10 cubic metre sphere, and it had not attracted any debris or electrons. Let us also say that it came from a planet the same size as Earth. Could we assume that it would have a gravitational force of 1g? Certainly not. Earth’s gravitational force is well shielded by the material between the core and the Earth’s surface. The G-force at the core could be 10g, 50g 100g or more, we just don’t know. We are having difficulties insulating the core material to prevent the gravitational force decaying. We would not be able to withstand the possible g-force itself. Neither the crew nor the spaceship  could work within a 100g gravitational force field.

What would the mass be of 10 cubic metres of core material? 100tonnes? 1000 tonnes? 1,000,000 tonnes?

More to come on this later. (My wife said that I could have my dinner or play on my computer. Our dog thinks that I should play on my computer.)

It is now later, and I have decided that attractor/tractor beams are definitely going back on my fantasy list.

——————————————

A Point to Ponder

The present method of deciding if a substance is an element or not is based on a ‘breakdown’ process, i.e. if a substance will breakdown into other substances then it is a molecule.

This is an illogical idea as I will demonstrate.

If we have a 10 link chain, and we stretch it until it breaks, we could end up with a 5 link piece and a 4 link piece. A strange type of logic might prompt you to conclude that the original chain was constructed from a 5 link chain and a 4 link chain.

If we consider a molecule consisting of 2 identical atoms joined by a shared electron, and we pull these apart, it is reasonable to assume the possibility that we will end up with one atom having 1 electron more than the other. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that if we have a substance consisting of identical atoms, and break this down, we will end up with two type of atoms. Conversely, if we produce a substance from quantities of dissimilar atoms, we should not be surprised to get a substance consisting of identical atoms.

———————————————

 Author – Brian Williams.

Analysing Your Website

Yesterday, the 6th January 2014,  (after being annoyed at another SEO ‘specialist’ claiming he would improve my web ranking) I decided to carry out a quick analysis of my website. I selected 39 of my posts (Out of 68 published posts). These 39 posts are each ranked in the top 100 in regard to their title, i.e. they are located within the first 10 pages of a web search. I very rarely search further than this myself in any web search.

Now although this does not comply with ‘Google Ranking’, it is still the way that most people search the web, and if your web post is not in the first 10 pages, most people will not read it.

Of my 39 posts, 8 of them were were at number 1 on a Google search.

One of these was number 1 out of 54,000,000 entries. What does this really mean? It certainly does not mean that 54,000,000 people have looked at the post, in fact it could be that only 2 people had looked at the post, but only 1 person had looked at each of the other peoples posts.

However, the page/ranking position during a web search cannot depend on people searching through 54,000,000 entries to find your post. Google or other search engines must have an auxilliary process to monitor posts. Unfortunately, I have no idea what method they use but whatever it is I am grateful. (I know that it does not depend on employing SEO experts.)

Most of my posts are written to supply information, some for amusement, some from annoyance, (as in the Shaken Baby posts) and some posing questions.

The most surprising one for me is Contractors in your home – Hints and Tips. I wrote this after helping out our local Post Office with some advice about roofing repairs and I have given copies to many people including contractors.  Its page ranking is at number 7 out of 1,150,000,000 (the highest search engine list I have ever come across) Note; I have just checked again (7/01/2014) to  ensure that I had not added too many noughts, and find it is at number 1 out of 1,200,000,000 entries. I just cannot understand this. The number of entries has risen by 50, 000, 000 overnight and the post has risen from number 7 to number 1?. Early yesterday I did not even expect this post to be in the first 1000 pages. (Its not on the first 10 pages of Bing or Yahoo).

A SEO  ‘experts’ Google search produces   11,200,000 claimed experts World wide. A few thousand of these have contacted me over the last 12 months claiming to be able to improve my Google ranking. 11,199,900 of them have been unable to get themselves into the top 100 places. If they were all experts they would all know exactly the same as each other, so how does Google manage to rank them? See ‘What is an ‘Expert Witness?

Does it depend on hits only? Contractors in your Home has not received many comments since I posted it, so comments received is not indicative of the success of a particular post. I was told that most of the light hearted posts were totally useless for the web, by a genuine computer expert, but posts like ‘The Invisible Crane Fly’  and ‘Strange Wasp Behaviour are’ are at number 1  and number 8 on Google .

Spam. Is it a help or a hindrance?  In the early days of my web site I did get some spam but very little. Most were just slightly irritating, being requests to contact them about things that I obviously have no interest in, if they had actually even read the post. It was only when some of my posts started to appear in the first 100 entries, did the spam start to drastically increase. This would indicate that spam does not get you up the rankings, and that spammers tend to target posts that are already high in the rankings. Therefore spam is of no help in the rankings. I do not get any spam on my posts relating to the Shaken Baby Syndrome, yet my post ‘Shaken Baby Syndrome and the Justice System’ is at 64 out of 94,800 on Google, and at number 1 out of 2,190,000 on Bing/Yahoo.

————————————————-

In the list below the posts in BLUE are those included for general interest and which I find very surprising in their ranking.  Some are very serious, some are light hearted. They give ideas for the type of post that can generate high rankings. NOTE: These are not for free publication.

The remainder are physics related and are covered by the comments in Copyright and Intellectual Rights.

SORRY ABOUT THE LISTING, ITS GONE WRONG AGAIN. I’M STILL HAVING PROBLEMS WITH GRAPHICS AND ALIGNMENTS DUE TO WordPress/Hosting ODDITIES.

List of PHYSICS OR FANTASY post positions in top 100.

6/7th Jan 2014

Origin of the Golden Section                 49 of  25,200,000        Google

1+2  of 115,000,000      Bing

Understanding Vacuum & Pressure       1   of  10,500,000        Bing

19 of  66,700,000        Google

Understanding Momentum                       1   of    4,460,000        Bing + Yahoo

Newton’s Colour Wheel                            5   of    3,720,000        Bing

Physics or Fantasy                                    3   of   41,000,000       Google

Colour Filters – The Mechanics                1    of  54,000,000       Google

Design Problems of Modern                      1    of   11,200,000      Google

Road Lighting

Boil or Carbuncle?                                       7    of        277,000      Bing + Yahoo

91  of        234,000      Google

Dinosaurs and the Expanding Earth          1    of      8,470,000     Google.

-The Earth Mechanics.

Understanding Stress & Strain                  2    of      9,830,000     Bing

8    of   19,200,000     Google

Lightning Strikes Upwards                           33  of           85,500     Google

The Invisible Crane Fly                                   1    of          61,300      Bing + Yahoo

3    of         226,000     Google

Williams’ Taper Silhouette                              1    of          95,800     Yahoo + Bing

Experiment                                      1,2,3,4, & 5     of   5,110,000     Google

Williams’ Taper Slit                   1,2,3,4,5, & 6     of           51,500     Google

Experiment

Colour and the Prism                                   1     of     4,474,000     Bing + Yahoo

Colour Filters – The Mechanics.                 1       of    2,720,000    Yahoo+Bing

1       of    3,190,000    Google

Einstein’s Wrong Formula                            1       of         334,000    Bing

Basic Principles of Research                       1       of  45,900,000    Bing+Yahoo

-Physics

Light Passing Through a Dense               2+9   of   26,100,000   Google.

Media

Projected Light.                                    1+5        of    112,000,000   Yahoo+Bing

Strange Wasp Behaviour                      8        of         18,700,000   Google

1        of          88,000   Bing/Yahoo

Colour Test Bars                                      8        of       254,000,000 Google

1        of  126,000,000 Bing+Yahoo

Prams – Design Gone Mad?                  1        of       292,000,000  Yahoo

1        of        778,000  Google

1        of 388,000,000  Bing

Contractors in your Home                     1    of  1,200,000,000  Google (7/01/2014)

Hints & Tips.

My Fight with a Prehistoric                   1        of     7,700,000  Yahoo+Bing

Monster.

What Happened to the Anti-                 2        of   10,500,000  Bing +Yahoo

Matter Particles?                                    98      of     25,400,000  Google

Shaken Baby Syndrome and                 1        of    20,400,000 Bing+Yahoo

the Justice System.                                69      of               96,900  Google

Physics in the News                         7+11      of      48,100,000  Google

6       of     47,900,000 Bing/Yahoo

The  Difference Between                1       of      6,270,000  Google

Reflected Light and

Projected Light                                     1      of    44,600,000  Bing

—————————

Author – Brian Williams

Expert Witnesses

What is an ‘Expert Witness’?

Perhaps we should really ask ‘What is an Expert?’.

A genuine expert is someone who knows everything about a particular subject. There are very few subjects that anyone could claim that they know everything about. There are many subjects that very little is known about and therefore no-one can claim to be an expert. I worked with a man who had spent 30 years calculating the settings and other parameters for pressure control valves. In this very narrow field he could be considered to be an expert. ( He did have the unfortunate habit of going to sleep whilst working, still holding his slide rule up in front of his eyes, but totally asleep.)

Would he classified as an expert engineer? Not really, there are thousands of such narrow specialisations possible in engineering, although generally engineers tend to have a wide range of knowledge within engineering and prefer not to specialise because it is boring and reduces your job prospects. (I once interviewed a candidate for a job that needed a reasonable proficiency in steelwork construction. He had worked in the engineering office of a company involved primarily in structural steel for the oil and gas industry. He told me that he had worked for this company for 24 years, producing manufacturing drawings, but then stated that he did not do calculations! I questioned him further on this point and he told me that he had never, ever,  done calculations in his job, and wouldn’t know how to start!)

An expert chemist would be able to give you the exact formulation for any substance you required to suit your exact specification. There are no expert chemists. This is not the fault of the chemists, there is so little knowledge available on chemistry. Most chemists are involved in finding knowledge that in the far future may produce ‘An Expert Chemist’.

The same problem applies to biology, both human and animal. We are probably 2000 years away from producing a ‘medical expert’, even just considering human biology. Even this may never happen due to variables caused by the Golden Ratio in biology. (See “Origin of the Golden Section _ Rev 2.”).

Someone could have all the knowledge that is known or has ever been known about a particular subject and yet be essentially ignorant of the subject.

It is essntial that people should be aware of things that they do not know. A child of age five can be forgiven for thinking that he/she is an expert on language after learning to read. By the age of 11 years they should start to understand that they are not experts. At the ages of 15 and 18 there are more shocks for them. At university they start again being ‘dumb kids’ (according to their teachers).

We now come to a further problem. Tuition is about passing knowledge from teacher to student. The knowledge passed on is limited to the knowledge available to the teacher. In subjects like medicine and chemistry there is very little actually known about the subjects. ( If you are a university student you may argue that there is too much to learn already, and you would be correct.) To become  expert in these subjects you would spend your whole life at university just covering existing knowledge. But humanity is still at the very beginnings of its knowledge of these subjects. Obviously, we cannot wait a thousand years for an expert to finally come along to solve our medical problems, so we have to guess, keep trying different options etcetera in the hope of finding something that works. This struggle is part of human evolution.

So, when you refer to an expert in medical terms, you are referring to someone who has a very small amount of knowledge of a subject that is colossal in scale.

Over 50 years ago I was suffering from quite severe stress and depression (work related). I finally went to my local chemist. and I was given a quarter pint bottle of a oily looking yellow liquid. I was told to take two tablespoonful per day until I was OK. In three days I was fit and raring to go. I did not have any more of the medicine, nor have I ever needed it since. It was highly effective and was not addictive. Compare this with the £millions spent on addictive drugs that just don’t work for stress and depression patients. This remedy cost me about 6 shillings, a minute fraction of the cost of (non-working) modern equivalents. It should be clear that that the  ‘medical experts’ were not actually experts then, nor are they experts now. The same argument must apply to the manufacturers of the high priced ‘non-working’ medicines. I do not know if the medicine I received was a proprietary product or was prepared by the chemist himself.

So what is an “Expert Witness”?

First of all he/she will probably be a ‘specialist’ not an expert. Secondly, the word ‘witness’ means that you have seen and/or examined something.

In a law court  an ‘expert witness’ may say that he examined a victim and observed spots on the victims back, or an axe embedded in the victims head, or cyanide in the victims organs. He will be able to supply photographs or test results to prove his statements.

Unfortunately, he is then asked for his opinion on what these results mean. Only ‘expert witnesses’ are ever asked for their opinions, ‘ordinary witnesses’ are banned from expressing opinions.

However, ‘opinions’ should never be considered as evidence.  Preconceived ideas affect opinions. An ‘ordinary witness’  may or may not have any preconceived ideas about the evidence, but an ‘expert witness’  almost certainly will. His opinions will generally be governed by the opinions of his teachers and those of the authors of books on his specialist subject, and almost certainly by the current medical ‘fashion’. It wasn’t so long ago that any man visiting the doctor was first asked if he wore tight underpants. If you unfortunately said yes, you were told to go home, buy some new underpants and come back in 6 weeks if that didn’t cure the problem. That is now out of fashion, because I have not been asked that in over ten years.

This is a problem of education. Technical subjects have a fairly intense educational programme that means the student must pass the exams every year. Examination success depends on remembering the information that you have been taught. The student does not have time to analyse what he is being taught, he just has to believe that it is the truth. If he passes all his exams he then starts his career and then for years he does not have time to analyse the validity of what he is practising. (Years ago I often visited hospital accommodation blocks across Britain. In most cases the doctor residents appeared to need medical attention more than the patients they were looking after.)

It is only a few years ago when younger doctors were working over 100 hours per week. This does not leave a lot of time for eating, sleeping, recreation and a love life. It leaves no time for medical research or analysing the work that they do.

The Shaken Baby Syndrome.

Author. Brian Williams

—————————————————-

Further Reading from other sites

The Five Percenters
PO Box 23212 Newcross. SE14 5WB
London
England.

Tel. Number:  020 7639 0942.

email: sbs5@dircon.co.uk

—————————————————-

http://medicalmisdiagnosisresearch.wordpress.com/

——————————————————-

New Research on SBS.PDF

University of Winconsin Law School

Legal Studies Research Paper Series. Paper No. 1195

Shaken Baby Syndrome, Abusive Head Trauma, and Actual Innocence:

Getting it Right

This paper can be downloaded free of charge at;

http://ssm.com/abstract=2048374

What happened to the Antimatter Particles?

The short answer is “Nothing”. Antimatter is a figment of the imaginations of physicists.

Therefore there are not nor has there ever been such things as “Antimatter Particles”.

The Hypothesis of antimatter derived from the misunderstanding (by physicists) of the mechanics of cloud chamber experiments.

As explained in my post “How physicists  ‘Find’ their particles”,  the physicists are not actually seeing particles, they are seeing the tracks left by the passage of particles (or atoms or molecules).

If a particle (or atom or molecule) is not moving, there are no tracks. Unfortunately. when a track stops for some reason the physicists argue that this means that the particle (or atom or molecule) has been annihilated.

When you consider that tracks are being left in a substance composed of thousands of billions of atoms and molecules it is not surprising that particles get stopped. However, many of these “disappearances” are claimed to be annihilations caused by impact with “antimatter particles”.

Author; Brian Williams

Shaken Baby Syndrome and the Justice System.

The modern version of the Shaken Baby Syndrome presents some rather novel aspects of the justice system.

1.         The accuser is nearly always the main suspect, i.e., the hospital.

2.         The accused are nearly always the person or persons least capable of defending themselves.

3.         The accused are nearly always prevented from accessing evidence.

4.         The so called ‘investigators’ are all part of the prosecution team.

5.         No evidence is necessary to obtain a conviction, but evidence is needed to obtain an acquittal.

6.         The accused are deemed to be guilty unless proven to be innocent.

Intriguing, isn’t it?

Let us consider the above statements.

1          Most shaken baby cases arise after hospital births. Births are traumatic and cause  damage to both child and mother. That this trauma and damage is generally unavoidable does not alter the fact that the hospital were involved with this trauma and damage. Even the ‘real’ indications of  Shaken Baby Syndrome (damage to arms and neck) could be caused during the birth process.

Therefore the hospital must be considered to be the prime suspect.

2.         A young couple are expecting a happy event. The happy event happens and the couple are deliriously happy. After a few weeks it becomes obvious to the parents that there is something wrong with the baby and they take it to the doctor or to hospital. They are obviously worried. They are then accused by the doctor of deliberately causing injuries to the child. Not accidentally, but deliberately.

The parents are then in a state of shock from which they will never completely recover.

This mental trauma is deliberately caused by people whom the couple trusted implicitly, and is normally a knee jerk reaction from the doctors. Previous medical problems or birth problems are not checked until long after the charges are made.

3.         The doctor now informs the Social Services (SS) that he has charged the parents. Any investigation is then supposed to be handled by the SS. However, they no not  have any expertise in medical matters, nor do they seem to have any investigation experience. Any experienced investigator would recover/copy all medical records  immediately before they can even start an investigation. This never happens with the SS. Months can go by before any records are made available, especially to the defence. Without full medical records the defence cannot begin to prepare their case.

4.         The Social Services normally only ‘investigate’ the parents, never do they investigate the doctors or hospital. In general, their investigations actually amount to continuous attempts to get one or other of the parents to confess to shaking the baby. Therefore the SS become part of the prosecution team.

5.         Very rarely is evidence pertaining to the cause of the injuries produced in court.   The verdict is usually arrived at by vote amongst the medical experts attending the final hearing. The voting is normally split between the paediatric ‘experts’ who vote guilty and various other experts who’s vote can be split.

However, usually the other experts votes are dependant on the information supplied by the paediatrics department of the hospital in which the birth occurred.

6.         From the instant that the doctor makes the charge against the parents there are assumed to be guilty. Added to this problem is that the SS department try to insist on secrecy between them and the parents during the claimed ‘investigations’. This normally prevents the parents from obtaining expert help. A further problem is that the defence is prevented from presenting evidence before the court case.

The problem with expert witnesses is that they may arrive at a situation were they ought to vote one way, but doing so would invalidate their decisions in previous cases. Therefore their decision making is affected by their statements made in other cases.

Shaken Baby Syndrome has nothing to do with retinal haemorrhages or brain damage. It is strictly related to damage to the arms and/or neck.

The triad of symptoms currently being claimed by paediatricians to be caused by baby shaking are actually symptoms commonly caused by birth trauma.

Damage to the child’s head during the birth process can cause subdural haematoma that in turn can cause hydrocephalus (brain swelling), which in turn can cause retinal haemorrhages.

What hospitals have done is to take the symptons of the Shaken Baby Syndrome, (which is a sensible, scientific and logical set of symptoms), added in symptoms that are common in child birth, and then deleted the symptoms actually relating to the Shaken Baby Syndrome.  Justice or corruption?

See Retinal Haemorrhages on this web site.

Author; Brian Williams.

See also; http://medicalmisdiagnosisresearch.wordpress.com/

Retinal Haemorrhages.

NOTE:- All names and dates have been changed apart from in extracts from medical literature.

RETINAL HAEMORRHAGES.

Consider this extract from ‘CLINICAL EXAMINATION’, page 384. “ The use of the ophthalmoscope is dealt with in Chapter 11. The difficulties of this examination in children are often considerable. To maintain the young child’s gaze in a fixed direction it is usually necessary for a second person to arrange some diversion which for the child has an element of expectancy about it. The examiner, after positioning the patient may say ,’Tell me when the torch flashes’, the torch being held in an appropriate position by a helper who may be mother or nurse, or ‘Tell me how many fingers nurse has up – how many now?,’ the nurse changing the numbers of fingers and thus maintaining the child’s attention. With younger children sedation may be necessary and in certain circumstances even a general anaesthetic may be required.

Extract from Medical Literature.

“They [Retinal haemorrages] are also reported to occur in a percentage of new born infants e.g. 14% in a study by Sezen:(……) and 20% Small(…) who found evidence of retinal haemorrhages but no evidence of intracranial injury on Magnetic Resonance Scanning subsequently. These retinal haemorrhages resolve within a short time after birth e.g. 10 days…….”.

Here is an argument stating that there is evidence of  ‘spontaneous’ retinal haemorrhages’ in a significant number of the newly born, but that these normally clear in 10 days.

It is evident from the above extract that retinal haemorrhages are commonly caused by extremely minor ‘trauma’ and are not particularly indicative of a shaking injury.

One should remember that blood circulates by surges in pressure. Restriction of the veins leading away from any part of the body cause excessive pressure surges in that part of the body.

Place an elastic band on a finger or around your wrist and this excessive pressure can be clearly felt in the extremity. This is because the elastic band only restricts the veins carrying blood away from the affected part, but the arterial blood flowing into the hand or finger is not restricted. If the restriction is long lasting then serious damage can be caused to that part of the body. If one considers a blood pressure cuff being gradually inflated over a period of weeks or months, the pressure in the veins will gradually build up until the pressure exerted by the cuff is sufficient to stop the blood flowing. If then left in this state serious damage would be caused.

In regard to retinal haemorrhages, if the veins leading from the eye are restricted, as can happen in hydrocephalus, there can be either a rapid or a gradual reduction in the blood flow. As the veins themselves require blood to sustain themselves in good working order, lack of blood flow weakens them. The areas of the eye being served by the capillaries are also damaged due to lack of blood flow. The increased pressure pulses remain but no fresh blood is being supplied. After a while the weakest veins, i.e. the capillaries in the eye, or the part being supplied, break down due to the increased pressure pulses and the poor condition.

It is evident therefore that there can be no precise time scale for the development of retinal haemorrhages.

My Own Retinal Haemorrhage.

The year following this court case I suffered a retinal haemorrhage.

I was driving out of a city centre when a black spot appeared in my right eye. This quickly changed into a black snakelike shape and then into multiple treelike branches, and finally a deep red haze that completely closed all vision in my right eye.

Luckily, having worked on the above case I immediately understood what had happened. I asked a passer-by for the location of a doctor, and within 20 minutes I was on my way to hospital by ambulance. A week later I had the first laser treatment.

Discussing the problem with the surgeon, she said that I must have an infection or I must have had a bang to my head in the last couple of days. Tests showed no signs of infections, and I certainly had no bangs to my head in the last few days.

However, I did have a severe bang to my head 6 weeks before, when I bent down to stroke our  labrador dog who jumped up to lick me at the same time, causing a collision of heads. Both of us ended up on the floor stunned for a few minutes.

For the weeks following, from dusk onwards I was aware of flashing lights in front of my right eye. These continued for the 6 weeks until the retinal haemorrhage occured. I went into hospital for laser treatment for the retinal haemorrhage about a week to 10 days later.

The surgeon was adamant that the dog incident was too early to have caused my retinal haemorrhage, but could not suggest an alternative hypothesis.

Author – Brian Williams