I was a good student in my high school physics class. I was even accepted to Berkeley with honors at entrance in physics. I sometimes wonder what would have happened if I’d taken that offer. I absorbed science like a sponge. I was on the math team, too, so I understood Plank’s Law, Hook’s Law, the Law of Universal Gravitation, and all of the stuff that started modern physics when we discovered a conservative universe; a universe that didn’t have magic or miracles. I took chemistry, too. It, too, was definite about things: nothing was really created or destroyed. We counted valence electrons and atoms and molecules and even energy and we knew, back then, that what you put into an experiment was still there in one form or another at the end.
This was the entire story: outputs = inputs. Action = reaction. My take on Einstein’s famous equation was that mass = energy; that if you destroy a small amount of mass, you get a rather large, but precisely equal amount of energy.
And I didn’t make anything of Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle except than that you can’t shed light on the atomic level without the light itself influencing the results. The more you try to precisely locate a particle, the more you distort your results. He doesn’t say that it doesn’t have a precise location; only that it’s impossible to know it using electromagnetic energy.
Then I hit a wall: atomic clocks, vectors that don’t add and a universe that created itself out of nothing. Like Mom’s church, I just didn’t buy it … and I still don’t.
When I looked at the 2-year experiments of Michelson and Morley looking for the effects of “ether,” I see the effects of working in an almost-vaccuum and (though Morley was an expert in error theory) their results were almost all off the real speed of light, which might have led our theoretical physicists off on a wrong path to begin with.
Negative matter is, so far as I can ascertain, a figment of someone’s overactive imagination. No such thing has yet been encountered. Like the square root of -1, it may exist in our minds, but that doesn’t automatically grant it “reality.” We have anti-particles. And, as far as I can tell, they are matter that, when some goes away, an equal amount of energy is left in its place.
And, likewise, negative energy doesn’t exist. When you heat things up, there’s no upper limit, but when you cool things down, it turns out there’s 0 degrees Kelvin which can’t be reached, let alone passed.
Show me an unequal equation that isn’t a boundary condition or entropy. Even Einstein’s equations are equal. Certainly E=mc2 is an equality!
According to all proven physics and chemistry, the universe today is equal in the sum of mass and energy to the universe yesterday and the day before and the day before that (given a fixed relative position and context) … as far as we know, even in black holes and quasars!
Furthermore, there’s this thing called entropy. It is, at least theoretically, the concept of disorder and dispersion. If you have hot and cold, they will interact until you have warm. Yes, gravity pulls mass together, but gas will tend to disperse and fill empty spaces and even electrons flow from higher concentrations to lower concentrations according to their own concept of equal radial directions.
My education didn’t end in high school, either. I took physics courses in college, university and graduate school.
In graduate school, we did an experiment. We sent light through a polarizing filter, which blocked half its energy and aligned the other half in the desired direction. Another filter at 90° blocked the other half, leaving a dark spot. However, a third polarizing filter at 45° to both and between them actually allowed some light energy to get through all three.
From this, I deduced that light isn’t a wave or a particle, but energy which gets re-emitted constantly. The collapsing electric field creates an expanding magnetic field and vice versa. I developed my own ideas about distant light and the Big Bang.
I convinced myself that there is a singular “now” which includes the entire universe for a fraction of an instant to be followed by another equal and similar “now.” I rejected the idea that time has “paths” by which relativistic substance gets somewhere quicker than substance that’s relatively stationary. For one thing, it is entirely arbitrary which is stationary and which is relativistic, except that one atomic clock accelerates and decelerates relative to the other. I attribute this to the unreliable nature of atomic clocks under acceleration rather than to the unreliable nature of time.
I summarily rejected the Big Bang. There is absolutely no physics behind it: no negative matter, not one iota; no unequal experiment; no spontaneous emergence of anything from nothing. I’m not even sure what the red shift shows. Maybe there is some small, almost insignificant interaction between light energy and interstellar hydrogen that absorbs minute amounts of light before re-emitting the rest, thus draining light of its energy over 13 or 14 billion years but re-emitting that energy at a later time. If this were happening, what we see is only the visible universe, a portion of an even larger universe. Or maybe the red shift is an indication of age or something else.
The visible universe was 26,000,000,000 light-years across 13,000,000,000 years ago, since we can now look out over an incredibly long history and see galaxies and clusters and superclusters of galaxies as far and as long ago as the ubiquitous loss of light energy can allow us to see. Even the Lynx Supercluster was composed of many galaxies spread in all directions when the image we now see was emitted 12,900,000,000 years ago. Where’s the Big Bang in all this?
I try to talk with cosmologists about this. To a person, they are “too busy” or certain that I misunderstand my textbooks and my teachers. The possibility of any of this being in error is, apparently, inconceivable.
Today, they spend billions looking for the elusive gravitational wave and making grandiose declarations about the age of the Universe.
I comfort myself with a quote from Carl Sagan: “Science requires a tolerance for ambiguity.” Until someone can show me where I’m wrong, I will continue to scoff at the theoretical physicists of today and to question how an entire branch of science got so far out on a limb with so little supporting them.
Meanwhile, I’ve devised a rather simple experiment to prove me wrong!
Time beams of light both ways through a low-density, high-velocity wind tunnel. If they register the same exact elapsed times, I was wrong. If the difference in time relates to the speed of the wind, then I was right.
Has anyone out there done it? What were the results?
©David N. Dodson, December 2016, 2019