Gravity:
The Ultimate Force by
Roger Munday
Introduction continued
Current atomic theory is essentially based upon the kinetic theory of gases as
formulated by Clerk Maxwell, who in 1859 made a number of assumptions as to
the characteristics of atoms in the presentation of his ‘Laws of Distribution
of Velocities’.
This theory enabled engineers and technicians to predict
the approximate behaviour of gases, but it was only applicable in
a limited range of conditions, and when advances in technology enabled
gases to be subjected to higher pressures and temperatures, resulting
in reactions or characteristics that apparently contradicted some
of the original assumptions, modifications of these basic assumptions
were necessary and these further assumptions often had no rational
or logical foundation.
It is also significant that it has not been possible to
use the kinetic theory of gases as a basis for quantitative
microscopic theories for the liquid and solid states of matter, in
other words a kinetic theory of liquids and solids has not been formulated.
It seems to be implied, but not stated, that kinetic atomic
theory has been to some extent superseded, or made less
relevant, by quantum theory (Quantum Rules!), however,
as the assumptions of the characteristics of atomic matter that led
to the development of quantum theory were based upon those of kinetic
atomic theory, the basic assumptions of Clerk Maxwell remain as the
foundations of current atomic theory.
The serious faults with basic atomic theory have long been
either ignored or simply not considered and one reason
perhaps is that, as all the eminent scientists in the last
hundred years have accepted the concept of ‘kinetic’ atoms
and as this theory is normally taught prior to tertiary level, most
budding physicists at universities would tend to accept it ‘as proven’
and not bother to subject it to critical analysis.
However while these reasons could explain the acceptance
of a flawed kinetic atomic theory, they do not explain
the general lack of concern shown by physicists about the
serious problems apparent to quantum mechanics (wave/particle
duality) and quantum electrodynamics (the mass of the electron).
These anomalies led to the odd conclusion by some eminent
physicists that, when nature did not conform to the predictions
of these theories, the theories were not at fault, but
instead it was assumed that there was something inexplicably
strange about nature itself.
This implies that the main tool used by scientists to interpret
nature, i.e. mathematics, is unchallengeable and that nature
is the odd one out, in that it does not conform to this
discipline. As Paul Dirac wrote ‘It is more important to
have beauty in one’s equations than to have them fit experiment’.
Man cannot isolate and identify two objects that are precisely
the same in every aspect. No two humans that have ever
existed were of exactly the same composition; the same
applies to apples and to grains of sand.
This is evident if we extend this argument to the larger
bodies of the universe, the galaxies and the stars, but
in the other direction, no proof can be produced, nor can
any assumption of ultimate equality be made of any two
individual atoms that exist in the universe. However any
mathematical calculation is based on the assumption that
the units of each feature involved, the masses, the dimensions,
the velocities, etc. are equal.
A recent book was entitled ‘The Mathematical Universe’,
which reflects the inherent and widespread assumption of
mathematicians, and therefore physicists, that the universe,
including organic life, can ultimately be described or
explained mathematically. But while mathematics, which
was developed and used by man to better understand the
physical world, is undoubtedly a very useful tool, it is
just a tool and it is not the answer, and obviously has
failed to lead us to the answer.
Therefore a new, or rather a return to an old, approach
is necessary to reach an understanding of the forces of
nature that dominate our lives.
Accordingly the numerous examples of natural and experimental
phenomena, where the interactions of matter at atomic level
simply cannot be explained by the application of kinetic
atomic theory, are here described and discussed conceptually.
The conclusions drawn from this analysis lead quite naturally
to a new picture of the structure and characteristics of
atoms.
When this concept is tested against these examples, in
each case it provides a clear, sensible and rational description
of the interactions at atomic level that result in the
observed reactions, but it is of even greater significance
that, when this concept is then applied to the force of
gravitational attraction, a logical description of the
transmission of this force is possible.
These ideas are presented in this book in outline, it is
deliberately not written in an ‘academic’ style, references
and footnotes being kept to a minimum, but is designed
to be readable and comprehensible to the bulk of the general
public. And one purpose of this book is in some way to
attempt to deliver the study of the ultimate nature of
matter back to the public and out of the total control
of the failed ‘high priests’ of science.
All this will be anathema to the theoretical physicists
around the world, the vast majority of whom will, I have
no doubt, find the conclusions I have drawn impossible
to accept and will vehemently oppose these.
This opposition would not necessarily stem from any potential
fault with these conclusions, but because the general acceptance
of this theory would deliver a serious blow to the high
public esteem enjoyed by scientists, and physicists in
general would be seen to have either ignored, or have been
unaware of serious problems and contradictions with successive
hypotheses, or in other words they have not subjected the
problems mentioned above to an objective and critical analysis.
Also such acceptance would lead governments, who are by
far the main suppliers of funding for research in ‘pure
science’ (i.e. science that is concerned with a knowledge
that has no apparent practical value), to consider withholding
funds for enormously expensive projects, such as the space
probe soon to be sent out to try and detect ‘gravity waves’.
A third factor is the bureaucratic inertia of the huge
and worldwide establishment (or rather industry) of science
that stifles any radical new ideas.
This is not a recent development, in 1912 Alfred Wegener,
a young German meteorologist, put forward the theory that
at some time in the past the continents had been joined
together, which was based upon unequivocally sound geological
evidence that pointed to, for example, the fact that Africa
and South America were previously joined.
Eminent geologists, professors and other academics, publicly
ridiculed this idea for 40 years before his ‘Continental
Drift’ theory was eventually widely accepted, long after
Wegener’s death.
However the recent and current crop of academic geologists
have clearly not learnt this lesson, as a logical development
of this, the eminently sensible hypothesis of a progressive
expansion of the earth, as propounded by S. Warren Carey
in his book ‘The Expanding Earth’, has still not achieved
the recognition that it deserves.
All this leads to asking whether the current, wide respect
of the public for scientists and the scientific process
is warranted.
Chapter 1 >
Back to Gravity Contents >
|
