Veritasium explains in this video that light has never been measured in one direction and therefore physicists cant be sure that light does not travel at different speeds depending on the direction. Both Maxwell and my theory of Independent Motion prove very simply that light does travel the same in all directions.
Light is a self perpetuating electric / magnetic field according to Maxwell. The electric and magnetic forces acting on light are therefore always the same. My theory of Independent Motion explains that the energy level of light is always the same regardless of any other motion acting on the light.
This is because light is a process - a repeating process. A repeating process will move with the same speed in all directions, just like a ripple in a pool of water spreads out at the same rate in all directions. Except light won't lose any of it's energy because the force that drives it is continuous and consistent. The forces driving light are the same at 1 kilometre from the source as they are at 1 light year away. Physicists since Einstein prefer to ignore forces, they take the kinematic approach. That's why they have to invent new and convoluted theories to explain simple things.
My first book is now out in which I present a new theory on motion called the Theory of Independent Motion. This theory provides an alternative explanation to the Theory of Relativity which fails to take account of absolute motion. In the book, I argue that a body can have two separate motions - an independent and an absolute motion, which are often combined together as one but should instead be separated in order to understand the true mechanics of motion. By using this new theory, I manage to solve many of the paradoxes of motion presented by Einstein and others.
The following is an extract from my forthcoming first book A Philosophical Critique of Perception and Motion which will challenge long held beliefs and assumptions on motion - flawed assumptions which led Einstein to formulate his theory of relativity.
Brian Cox of BBC presented a slightly different version of Einstein's light on the train paradox. They had Jim Al-Khalili sitting on a chair whilst lifting up and down a light source. Then one of the crew pushed the chair left and right across the floor on tracks. There is no light beam as such unlike in the train example - nowhere does a light beam hit a mirror and then be deflected back, yet a slight of hand is played when Cox later presents it as such at the blackboard. The only light beams involved are those that reach Jim and the audience from the light source.
All relevant motion that occurs during the clip is a combination of relative motion due to the movement of Jim's arm and the absolute motion of the chair. The independent motion of the light must be separated from this motion, that is, the light that reaches both Jim's and the audience’s eyes. These light beams move at the speed of light at all times. They are emitted perpendicular and outwards to and from Jim, while the sidewards and upwards / downwards movement of the light source is entirely due to the chair and arm motion.
So as you can see, once we isolate the separate motions, that of the light beams and that of the light source, we can very easily see through the fog of confusion. During the clip, Cox confuses the light source with the beams of light emitting from it giving the false impression that it is the light beam that is moving as a result of the moving chair, when in fact, it is the light source that is moving. Cox says "the light took a kind of triangular path". While Einstein was referring to the light beam on the train, Cox is talking about the light source. So the BBC presentation is in no way comparable to Einstein's train example.
The triangular path that we see then is caused by the moving light source and it is this which appears different to Jim’s (fact of perception) head camera view showing the vertical motion of the light source. The beams of light emitted from it are at all times and for all observers moving at fixed rates. Think of the light source as a machine gun, and the light beams as the bullets. The bullets are moving at the same rates for everyone, the gun however is moving sidewards and upwards. From the turret, the man pulling the trigger will see the upwards and downwards motion of the gun but he will also perceive the sidewards motion as he moves across the face of the targets opposite with the targets falling horizontally in a line like dominoes. Likewise, Jim also sees the lights behind the audience moving horizontally. But even if he didn't, the light beams would still be moving at the same rate for everyone.
Thus, there is no longer path for the light to travel in either case, the light beams, just like the bullets, travel the same paths from all perspectives, and Cox’s conclusion that moving clocks run slower is therefore false because his analysis is completely wrong. He failed to define properly the components of his experiment and therefore drew completely incorrect conclusions.
Previously I wrote about the forces occurring when a car is braking or accelerating. Suppose that when a car brakes, a torch that is switched on is thrown forwards by the opposing brake force. Is it the light beam or the light source that experiences the force? It is of course the torch, the light source. The light beam moves exactly as before, the only difference is it's starting position changes as the torch moves through the air. The same happens with the Sun, the Sun (the light source) moves through the Galaxy but this does not affect the speed of the light emitted from it.
With the BBC clip, the starting position of the light beams are also continually moving but this has no impact on the independent motion of the light beams themselves.
Therefore the speed of the light does not change with different observers, and neither of course does the distance or the time measured. Appearances and facts of perception are not reality, and the (absolute) motion of a light source is not relevant to the independent motion of the light beam. The existence of this absolute motion does however prove that absolute space and time must exist.
I'm still finishing the book, which I hope to have ready in December.
The solar system is a circular motion system , but as I will now demonstrate for the first time, the mechanism by which it's bodies move in relation to the Sun is based on the triangle. Kepler stumbled upon the idea that a trianglular mechanism governed how the planets moved in 1595 while in the middle of a lecture on the conjunctions of Saturn and Jupiter. Each set of three points he wrote on the blackboard corresponded to a conjunction and formed almost precise equilateral triangles. These triangles rotated around the board to form two circles, with the radius of one half that of the other one, approximating to the distances of Jupiter and Saturn.
Thus, a triangular pattern determined the distances between two planets moving with a circular motion. This may have something to do with the fact that a circle is constructed using three points just like a triangle. He was then inspired by this discovery to fit the five Platonic polyhedra solids into an arrangement that corresponded to the known distances at the time between the six known planets. His completed model was magnificent but a little bit on the complex side (and proven to be a failure over time). He actually missed out on something much more simpler and even more remarkable which I will now demonstrate. He could have realised this after 1619, when he discovered his third law but at that stage his focus had shifted to the musical harmony of the planets. Keplers Third Law states that : D³ 𝞪 T² So if the distance of a planet from the Sun is doubled, 2³ = T² T² = 8 T =√ 8 The change in orbital period is the square root of eight or 2.82. The planet will take 2.82 times longer to travel around the Sun. Now we can work out the change in velocity. Remember the formula speed equals distance over time from school ? V = D / T V = 2 / √ 8 V = 2 / 2.82 V = 0.707 Or we can use my own formula V = √√F. The change in the force of gravity when the distance is doubled is 1/2² or 25% . The double square root of 0.25 is 0.707. So, to sum up when: Distance = x 2 Orbital Period = √ 8 Velocity = 0.707
The great beauty of these numbers is that they are represented perfectly by Pythagoras's Triangle. Once again, remember from school, the square on the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the squares on the other two sides. If the two sides are both two, then the longer side (hypotenuse) is equal to the square root of 2² + 2², i.e. √8, thus representing the change in orbital period.
The connecting line between the 90 degree angle and the centre of the hypotenuse is equal to half of √8 or 1.41.
1.41 divided by the side representing distance 2, equals 0.707. Thus this centre line represents the change in velocity.
Incidentally, Sine 45 degrees also gives 0.707.
So, the solar system is not a complex polyhedral system as Kepler believed, but is actually governed by a much simpler triangular mechanism. The secret to the Harmony of the Planets and the Mysterium Cosmographicum lies not with Plato and his solids but with the first known Greek mathematician and philosopher, Pythagoras of Samos, and his right angled triangle.
On Page 108 of Newton's Principa, he introduces for the first time Kepler's Third Law, without actually naming it's originator :
COR. 6. If the periodic times are in the sesquiplicate ratio of the radii
The sesquiplicate is the square root of the cube, in this case, the Orbital Period is proportional to the square root of the distance cubed. Kepler's third law states that : D^3 𝞪 T^2 Therefore, T 𝞪√ D^3
He then inputs this into a simple speed = distance over time formula :
V = D / T
V= D / √ D^3 V = √1 / D Then, combining the centripetal force formula, V^2 / R, with the above, he arrives at the groundbreaking force equals the inverse of the distance squared formula :
the centripetal forces will be in the duplicate ratio of the radii inversely :
At this point, Newton stops to give credit to other english physicists for the famous formula :
as Sir Christopher Wren, Dr. Hooke, and Dr. Halley have severally observed
But he has omitted the origin of his starting point, Johannes Kepler, a giant whose shoulders Newton was standing on more than anyone else.
Logos most commonly refers to Reason and Order but one of it's other less well known meanings is "proportion". For Heraclitus, the harmonia of the world - the construction of a complex whole according to rational principles and in due proportion - was dependent on Logos. The mathematical form of representing proportional relationships that exist in the world is the ratio. The Latin for Logos is in fact Ratio.
Kepler uses the word ratio roughly 500 times in Harmonices Mundi. Newton mentions ratio about 850 times in Philosophie Naturalis Principia Mathematica. Fast forward to the early 20th century and Bertrand Russell and Alfred Whitehead's book Principa Mathematica. Ratio only appears once in Volume 1 and three times in Volume 2. In Einstein's paper on Relativity, ratio only gets mentioned a couple of times more.
For the early mathematicians and physicists, mathematics was a tool for exploring the underlying relationships (ratios) of the world around us and the cosmos above us. These ratios supported the notion that God had created a divine order to the universe. For Newton and Kepler, the fact that the planets moved in an orderly and predicable way, according to fixed ratios and laws, was proof of God's existence. The ratio aspect of mathematics has in modern times being sidelined and replaced by a more theoretical and measurement based discipline. Newton never actually bothered to calculate the gravitational constant - he was more interested in discovering the underlying relationships of nature that underpinned the force of gravity. When the Irish philosopher, George Berkeley, wrote that numbers were useful fictions without independent reality, he was only partially correct. The ratios and proportions that have existed in nature long before humans became aware of them are real and independent of human consciousness. Without them, the world as we know it, would look completely different. Quantum mechanics presents a non deterministic random molecular world that is at odds with the predictable celestial mechanics of Kepler and Newton. How can random atomic forces lead to a solar system with fixed laws and ratios that applies without exception to all the planets, moons and comets in it ? Mathematics has lost it's Logos.
Last time, I introduced the concept of orbital factor - the change in velocity and orbital period of a body if it orbited a different central body with a different mass. In this blog post I will show that the orbital factor of Jupiter is 17 times greater than Earth and how that relates to their respective masses. Let's say that Io orbits the Earth at the same distance as it orbits Jupiter - 421,700 km. Using Kepler's third law to compare the moon and Io :
D^3 = T^2 (384,000/421,700)^3 = T^2 T = 0.868 So, if the moon takes 27.3 days to orbit Earth, then Io will take 1.132 (1-0.868) times longer, viz, 31 days. We can then use the distance squared law to calculate the new velocity for Io. D^2 = T/V 0.91^2 = 0.868 / V 0.828 = 0.868 / V V = 0.868 / 0.828 = 1.048 This means that the moon's velocity will be 1.048 times that of Io. Given that the moon's velocity is circa 3,683 km/hr , this means Io's new Earth bound velocity would be 3,514 km/hr or 0.976 km/s.
Io in Jupiter orbit
Io in Earth orbit
Difference ∆
(Orbital Factor)
Distance
421,700
421,700
1
Orbit
42 hours
31 days / 744 hrs
17.71
Velocity
17.3 km/s
0.976 km/s
17.72
From Part One :
The square root of the ratio of the masses of two central bodies is equal to the orbital factor of their orbital bodies.
Jupiter has a mass of 317.83 times that of Earth : The square root of 317.83 is 17.82 (a small rounding difference with 17.72 in the above table). In Part One I showed that the square root of the ratio of the masses also works for Jupiter and The Sun :
Io in Jupiter orbit
Io in Sun’s orbit
Difference ∆
(Orbital Factor)
Distance
421,700
421,700
1
Orbit
42 hours
1.3 hrs
32.3
Velocity
17.3 km/s
561 km/s
32.4
The Sun has a mass of 1047.36 times that of Jupiter. The square root of 1047.36 is 32.36. Therefore, we would expect that the Sun would have an orbital factor of 576.6 times that of Earth (17.82 x 32.36). NASA states that the Sun has a mass of 333,000 times that of Earth. The square root of 333,000 is 577.
