http://nautil.us/blog/the-present-phase-of-stagnation-in-the-foundations-of-physics-is-not-normal

Nothing is moving in the foundations of physics. One experiment after the other is returning null results: No new particles, no new dimensions, no new symmetries. Sure, there are some anomalies in the data here and there, and maybe one of them will turn out to be real news. But experimentalists are just poking in the dark. They have no clue where new physics may be to find. And their colleagues in theory development are of no help.

Ten-thousands of wrong predictions sounds dramatic, but it’s actually an underestimate. I am merely summing up predictions that have been made for physics beyond the standard model which the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) was supposed to find: All the extra dimensions in their multiple shapes and configurations, all the pretty symmetry groups, all the new particles with the fancy names. You can estimate the total number of such predictions by counting the papers, or, alternatively, the people working in the fields and their average productivity.

They were all wrong. Even if the LHC finds something new in the data that is yet to come, we already know that the theorists’ guesses did not work out. Not. A. Single. One. How much more evidence do they need that their methods are not working?

 

Interesting. I suspect others would disagree with that assessment.

But I think the problem is that science works well when data comes first and theories and hypotheses develop to model the data and offer predictions. Science works less well when hypotheses run wild far ahead of data, causing the “theory laden-ness” of the observations. A scant few might get away with it (I’m looking at you, Einstein), but it generally doesn’t work well for most of us.

 

The velocity of matter and the velocity of EM are two completely different things.

The constant velocity of matter has no loss and needs no power.. The constant velocity of EM takes power. Not because it has loss........but because EM can only accelerate. The acceleration of EM is multi-directional. This results in a constant velocity in any one direction.

EM is always expending energy. That's what EM is....the dissolution or dissolving of energy. It's a perpendicular acceleration. IT IS NOT A VELOCITY. IT IS LOSING ENERGY. Mass can only move in one direction. EM spreads or blankets out.

The reason light can change frames and remain constant.......is because perpendicularity remains constant. NOT because space or time or length changes.

Perpendicularity is constant. Therefore c is constant. Find a frame where 90 degrees is off.......and you will see c change between frames.

Time, length, e, and c, never change. Any real science has been dead for one hundred years.

All this time and no one understands EM.

 

All this time and no one understands EM.

This should explain what you mean.

 

I thought I just did.

 

I thought I just did.

That figure was from a crackpot physics spam email. It describes your post exactly.

 

Nature is too consistent to be complicated. The proper dynamic current loop can explain causation for all.

Real science will begin with the investigation of that dynamic.

 

Many mysteries left, I think there is an exciting future.

Here's two electrical physics mysteries:
1. What is the net electric charge of the sun? (hint: Boltzmann distribution, escape velocity, coulombs law). Mainstream scientists do not know.
2. By what unknown mechanism do positively charged particles (protons aka solar wind) travel and accelerate through the solar system? Positive ions flowing away from the sun accelerate as if an inverse square law force were pushing radially outwards from the sun. Nobody seems to understand what this mysterious force could be?

Here's another set of electrical physics mysteries:
1. What is the net electric charge of the moon? (nobody seems to know)
2. Where does silicon dioxide, a major component of moon dust sit on the triboelectric series?
3. Astronaut helmets seem to be getting "shot" by high speed moon dust possibly shooting from the surface, what force could be acting on these easily charged particles? What happens if you place fine glass particles on a van de graaf generator and shine sunlight on the particles? Does charging the van de graaf with positive or negative charge make a difference?
4. High exposure camera photos taken on the moon show large amounts of fine particles in columns and straight lines, what could possibly be causing this? There is an apparent, but poorly understood connection between the suns position and the observed features in the lunar atmosphere.
5. High exposure videos of the moons edges recorded from Earth telescopes show straight jets and clouds/balls being ejected at high speeds from the moon, what material and force could possibly be causing this?

Earth electrical physics mysteries:
- What is the net charge of the Earth+atmosphere?
- Why does the Earth have a negative surface charge? How much charge is flowing in? How much is flowing out?
- Why do positively charged particles (solar wind) fired from the sun consistently slow down as if a radial acting inverse square law force were pushing them away from the Earth? Nobody knows why? NASA and astronomers can not give an explanation for this strange phenomenon.

Plasma space physics mysteries:
- Is the plasma in our solar system between the planets and sun in a constant state of non-equilibrium resulting in physical properties different to what would be expected from a naive first guess of plasma in equilibrium and neutral charge?
- What role do Birkeland currents/magnetic ropes in the space plasma play in our solar system, galaxy and universe?

Fundamental electrical physics:
The electric force and magnetic force have been unified, the magnetic force turned out to be what happens relativistically to an electric field when you move past it. Could gravity and time also be a 'side effect' of the electromagnetic force? Tesla thought so, I wonder if another unification like this will happen?

There's some smart people on these forums, I suspect all but the last question can be answered by an in-depth understanding of plasma, charge and electrodynamics. Scientists who lack a sophisticated background in electronics / electrical engineering / electrical theory have been unable to explain many of these phenomena, could they be overlooking something that people of a different perspective could easily solve?

John M

 

http://nautil.us/blog/the-present-phase-of-stagnation-in-the-foundations-of-physics-is-not-normal

I could not care less.

 

The velocity of matter and the velocity of EM are two completely different things.

The constant velocity of matter has no loss and needs no power.. The constant velocity of EM takes power. Not because it has loss........but because EM can only accelerate. The acceleration of EM is multi-directional. This results in a constant velocity in any one direction.

EM is always expending energy. That's what EM is....the dissolution or dissolving of energy. It's a perpendicular acceleration. IT IS NOT A VELOCITY. IT IS LOSING ENERGY. Mass can only move in one direction. EM spreads or blankets out.

The reason light can change frames and remain constant.......is because perpendicularity remains constant. NOT because space or time or length changes.

Perpendicularity is constant. Therefore c is constant. Find a frame where 90 degrees is off.......and you will see c change between frames.

Time, length, e, and c, never change. Any real science has been dead for one hundred years.

All this time and no one understands EM.

I can remember the time in the past, when it was all about "spin". And it really hasn't been that long ago.

 

What's needed is a 'new' Feynman.