Very few people may be interested in the theme of these notes — the mechanics of the interaction of space and matter.
The presentation will be mainly in form of statements and will require reflection; many ideas will cause immediate rejection. Readers are guaranteed that it will be difficult to step over the absorbed from the school bench and accept what is presented here. If everything around is clear to you, this site is not for you.
These records are for those who wonder: “Where I am?” (veriam)
Preface
Modern physics, and the science in general, have been in crisis for a long time.
The problems of science originate from classical mechanics, that is, they have their roots in the ideas and theories that appeared long before the notorious relativism.
The key problems of the modern scientific worldview are the erroneous concepts of Newton, Galileo and some of their predecessors.
Science turned to a dead end when it rejected the views of Aristotle, who claimed in particular that emptiness in nature can not exist and that “a Moving body stops if the force pushing it stops its action.” These obvious and confirmable provisions were replaced by the speculative idea of the eternal motion of free bodies in empty space, which underlies the Newtonian doctrine.
Since the 17th century, and especially at the turn of the 20th century, science has had difficulty explaining multitude of newly discovered phenomena. Such phenomena as stellar aberration, optical, electrical and magnetic processes.
Advances in technology and experimental physics in the late 19th and early 20th centuries created the conditions for overcoming Newton’s delusions and bringing physical science out of the crisis. But instead, through the combined efforts of many scientists, a new, reformed system of delusions was created.
Unfortunately, error multiplied by error does not result in truth, mathematical tricks do not work here.
Science is still unable to explain many phenomena of the material world. The beginning of the list of the main, unsolved problems inherited from the Newtonian teachings may look like this:
misunderstanding of the sources of mechanical forces
lack of understanding of the nature of inertia and mass
lack of understanding of the physics of rotational motion
false idea of universal gravitation, as the inherent property of the substance
lack of understanding of the mechanism of gravity and sources of gravity
misunderstanding of the role and nature of accelerations, which led to a crisis in understanding the nature of thermal, electrical and magnetic phenomena; instead of the natural and harmonious spread of the laws of mechanics on these phenomena
…
Further in this work, criticism of official science will be limited to a minimum level, and attention will be focused on the Law of interaction of space and matter, or simply “the Law of Mechanics”. The consistent application of the simple principles of the Law of Mechanics leads to a radical revision of ideas about the material world in the fields of cosmology, the theory of heat and electricity, the structure of matter, etc.
The law of mechanics makes it possible to understand the mechanism of gravity, the mechanism of energy release in stars and planets, the mechanism of their rotation and rotation of their satellites, the mechanism of evolution of planets and stars, the nature of galaxies, and the General structure of the universe.
The Law of Mechanics radically changes the traditional picture of the universe, therefore, one can expect some new ideas in relation to the concept of time.
In the previous articles it was established that the real physical Space is the eternally moving ether. The next step is to consider what Time can be.
So, from the point of view of the Law of Mechanics:
True Space has all the attributes of Time.
In other words: space, as defined by the Law of Mechanics, has all the properties of time.
That is, the ether is also a temporal reference system, – the time is the equivalent to the space.
The main theses declared by the Law of Mechanics in relation to time:
1) The “past” and “future” do not exist, there is only the present.
So, for example, dinosaurs did not exist in the “distant past” but “far from here” – in the same “present”, but in a different place. That “far from here” place is several million Earth spirals around the Sun back from our present position in space.
2) That “far from here” place cannot be reproduced. Time travel is not possible, as time does not exist.
It is impossible to create a “Time Machine” that will take us into the past, since the “past” does not exist. But in the same way it is impossible to have a “Space Machine” that will take us back to the place where we were just a moment ago. Even if we did not move at all, we were already in a different place, and we will never return to the same place. It should be noted here that the concept of “a moment ago” can be replaced by “microscopic distance back”.
No technology will allow us to turn the entire universe in the opposite direction, exactly along the same path as it moved forward.
3) There is no difference between time and space, they are one and the same. Each moment of time is alone and unique, and each position in space is along and unique.
Even in the case of rotation, each rotation takes place in a different place, which cannot be reproduced in the full physical and philosophical sense.
“It is impossible to step in the same river twice” – Heraclitus.
The Law of Mechanics clarifies this statement: “It is impossible to stand in the same river.” And more precisely: “It is impossible to stand in the same place.” It is impossible to be in the same place, since the “place” is constantly changing.
“The arrow of time”
The irreversibility of movement from the past to the future is called the arrow of time.
Rejecting the reality of the existence of time, and, accordingly, the “arrow of time”, let us show instead the reality of the existence of the “arrow of space” – the process of irreversible changes in space (ether) at any point of it.
Let us recall that the Absolute space, as the coordinate system that contains the moving ether, is invariable .
All further reasoning concerns the real space of our world – ether.
There are several levels of irreversible changes in the ether – the space of our world (hereinafter simply Space).
The first, most obvious level of irreversibility of space changes is changes in the positions of material objects, especially celestial bodies – planets, stars, interstellar gas.
Their movement is irreversible, since it is impossible to force all celestial bodies to stop, or move in the opposite direction along the same trajectories that brought the celestial bodies to these points in space. From the point of view of the Law of Mechanics, in order to achieve this, all gravitational aetheric vortices must begin to move in the opposite direction.
The second level of irreversibility of space changes is the movement of light and other types of radiation.
The movement of light, radio, infrared, ultraviolet, gamma rays cannot be reversed. It is impossible even to formulate the conditions necessary to reflect back all radiation at all points in space, in all directions. The atoms that have absorbed the radiation must emit all the received radiation back in the same form, but with the opposite direction of motion. And then, the radiated atoms must return to the places of their radiation, and absorb back everything that was radiated.
The third level of irreversibility, and apparently the most insurmountable, which makes an “unrecoverable harpoon” out of an arrow of space, is the process of Gravity, accompanied by the transformation of ether into matter. It is impossible even to imagine the behavior of bodies on the surface of planets in the case of replacing the acceleration of free fall by “slowing down of free ascent.” Such anti-gravity would lead to the destruction of planets and stars, instead of bringing them back to their previous place. Maintaining the normal direction of gravity does not provide a condition for the return of everything that exists to its former places.
Let us note in this connection that the phenomenon of the irreversibility of the gravitational process does not exist in Newtonian or relativistic mechanics. The concept of gravity as a universal property of matter does not imply the irreversibility of the gravitational process, therefore, in particular, the phenomenon of the irreversibility of space eludes the perception of organized science.
Finishing with the topic of the irreversibility of space, it is necessary to mention the process that closes each cycle of transformation of space into matter. There is a process opposite to the process of transformation of ether into matter, this is the process of disintegration of matter. But this process of decay does not repeat gravity in a mirror image, but follows a completely different path than the process of creation. The disintegration of matter occurs much faster and the process of disappearance of matter is accompanied by the absorption of energy by the ether. The stars simply suddenly disappear from the sky, which leads to the restoration (increase) of the ether density. In this case, only large enough fragments of planets and stars have a chance to survive. Almost all information about the previous material world is irretrievably erased. The past structure of space and matter will never be revived.
Summing up all that has been said:
In the world of the Law of Mechanics, space is constantly changing, and has all the characteristics of time, such as – unidirectional movement, uniqueness, fluidness (changeability), etc. Thus, there is no need to introduce an additional category – time. Space is self-sufficient for describing the positions of bodies or radiation. “Before”, “now”, “later”, “when” are replaced by “there”, “here”, “where”.
Thus, the idea of the mutability and uniqueness of space, introduced by the Law of Mechanics, finally allows us to define the problem of Time as a psychological phenomenon, and not a physical object or process.
***
Now more about time as a psychological phenomenon.
The main idea presented in this section is that Ether, which forms physical space, is also the physical basis of psychological time .
Let us emphasize that we are talking about the physical basis of time, and not about time as a physical object.
A physical object means, for example, an additional dimension, state or property of the material world.
The physical object “time” does not exist ( at least in our etheric world ).
But “time” exists in the form of an informational model and this model is quite material, that is, it has a physical basis. There are two physical (material) components of Time.
The first physical component of psychological time is the object of the model – what is modeled – the physical space and the material world.
The second is the subject of the model – that which simulates – a physical object with consciousness (the brain), which forms a model of the surrounding material world inside itself.
That is, time, as a material object, exists only as a special structure inside the brain, encoded in accordance with the principle of the brain itself. The physical carrier of the information object “Time” is the brain.
***
Time is an illusion by which consciousness connects together events in local areas of space.
This ability to create time (the illusion of unified space) is apparently a distinctive and necessary (defining) feature (quality) of consciousness, even in its most primitive form (in the simplest organisms).
Without this ability to create a model of space, i.e. to endow the picture perceived by the sense organs with an additional time dimension, it is difficult to imagine an organism effectively operating in real three-dimensional space.
The relativists’ hypothesis about four-dimensional space-time is, in principle, correct – time serves as an additional dimension in our three-dimensional world. But this extra fourth dimension is not a material object. It is just an informational model for orientation in a dynamic three-dimensional world.
Time in our representations is a kind of common frame of reference that unites events occurring in different areas of space. Events unite in the sense of emanating at the same moments and in a unified space, as if uniting together.
This is especially evident in various graphical representations, where time is one of the coordinate axes. So it is possible to combine not only the same processes occurring at different points in space, but also completely dissimilar phenomena. Thus, the correlation between different processes occurring “simultaneously” or between homogeneous processes occurring in different places is revealed.
This unification is “realized” only in our consciousness. Nothing of the kind is possible in reality. But we believe in it, otherwise it is impossible to function in our three-dimensional world. This ability of our consciousness allows us to anticipate events occurring in other points in space and adjust our behavior accordingly. To navigate in space means, being at your point in space, to simulate what is happening at other points in space. And foresee what will happen at your own point in space and at other points in space as the ether continues to move.
***
Further, we will talk about time as about space, since it is actually one and the same physical object.
Time is always local.
There is no universal time. There is no simultaneity.
Simultaneity is as much a fantasy as action at a distance. By the way, the concept of simultaneity is very close to the result of the “action” of long-range action. Simultaneity presupposes long-range action (instantaneous communication) between different points in space.
Real space is extremely local, that is, interactions between bodies and ether (etheric grains) are carried out only at microscopic distances comparable to the length of etheric components.
This also means that time is extremely microscopic (since time is space).
The locality of action leads to the locality of time.
The same idea can be formulated in another way: Time is distributed (dispersed) over space.
Dynamic space is equivalent to time. The dynamism of space means its equivalence to time.
Simultaneity is a product of consciousness – an invention that is the essence of time as a psychological phenomenon.
A glance from a large scale is just a glance, an illusion (non-physical category), for any phenomenon is always local. Only abstract imagination creates the illusion of a large space as a whole, with time and simultaneity. But in fact, any interactions in the universe occur at the micro level in collisions of ether particles with each other, and there is no other reality.
The gyroscope confirms the view of the Law of Mechanics on the structure of space.
In the beginning we define the terms:
All over this article, the term “space” can be
replaced with “frame of reference”, and vice versa.
The space, which is fixed relative to the stars, we call
absolute space or absolute reference frame, which is equivalent.
The space in which the Earth’s observers operate and all
experiments are carried out, we will call the real Earth space, or the Earth’s
reference frame.
The main property of a free gyroscope (a gyroscope that is not affected by external forces): the main axis of the gyroscope keeps the direction in space unchanged regardless of the movement of the base. It is this property that we are interested in, since it allows us to determine what in any situation is a true reference frame (real space).
So if the space is stationary relative to the gyroscope,
then the gyroscope axis of rotation must remain stationary in any position it
was set. If the space moves relative to the gyroscope, or gyroscope moves
relative to space, the gyroscope axis of rotation should repeat all the
movements of space – which, as noted above, is the main property of the free
gyroscope.
In order to understand the argumentation of the Law of
Mechanics, one need first to familiarize yourself with the description of the
structure of space presented in the sections “Fundamentals of space
Mechanics”, “Gravity and the structure of celestial bodies”, and
in other articles presented on this site.
Briefly, from the point of view of the Law of Mechanics, the
real local space anywhere in the universe is the free ether.
Free ether is a discrete gaseous matter, the size of
particles (grains) of which is vanishingly small compared to elementary
particles of matter, which in turn, themselves consist of grains of ether
condensed into a solid phase.
The ether, which absorbed by the Earth forms a vortex. This vortex is our space, and it is curved in the shape of the earth’s surface and it is rotating synchronously with the Earth.
Space (local reference frame) in this case is the ether adjacent to the area of the Earth’s surface, on which all experiments with gyroscopes are carried out. That is, the gyroscope retains the position of its axis of rotation relative to a given place on the Earth (more precisely, relative to the ether of near-earth space).
Therefore, the gyroscope axis of rotation changes its position relative to the absolute space (fixed stars), as it makes daily revolutions with the Earth. Daily revolutions have a speed of 15° per hour (360°/24 hours), such gyroscope’s rotation relativeto the Earth would be very easy to detect if it existed.
Simultaneously with the daily rotation, the gyroscope axis
changes its position relative to the
absolute interstellar space, by making annual revolutions together with the
Earth. If such changes in the position of the gyroscope relative to the Earth would exist in reality, they would also be
quite detectable (angular velocity is almost 1° degree per day).
Thus, the bases of gyroscopes together with the Earth make a
complex rotational movement, following a double spiral relative to interstellar
space. The gyroscope’s rotation axes precisely repeat this movement, as if the
real Earth space was tied to a particular point on the Earth’s surface.
In other words: gyroscopes ignore fixed interstellar space
(absolute space). Gyroscopes move relative to this fixed abstract space as if
it does not exist, without interacting with it at all.
Based on the above, it can be concluded that the Gyroscope
is a device that allows to determine the real reference system with respect to
which material objects move (i.e., the gyroscope allows to detect the position,
movement and even the shape of the reference frame).
The conclusions made by analysis of a gyroscope’s behaviour:
Conclusion 1. The statement that the space (reference frame),
with respect to which the gyroscope retains the direction of its axis of
rotation, is fixed relative to distant stars — contradicts the observed facts.
That is, attempts to detect the movement of the Earth relative to the assumed stationary
interstellar ether were doomed to failure. In order to come to this conclusion,
it is enough simply to consider the behaviour of the gyroscope. In other words:
the hypothesis of motionless ether, which physicists adhered to in the past,
does not correspond to reality.
Conclusion 2. True space moves synchronously with the
movement of the Earth’s surface on which experiments with the gyroscope are
conducted. The gyroscopes, as well as all other material objects being on Earth
and in near-earth space, exist in this moving real space.
This conclusion coincides with the statement of the Law of
Mechanics that every celestial body possessing its own gravity forms a rotating
etheric vortex around itself, which is the local reference system.
Here we will make a small digression from the topic of
gyroscopes and talk about space. How space behaves from the point of view of
the Law of Mechanics, we have just reviewed. And now, for comparison, let’s see
how space is understood by organized physics.
For example: a typical Orthodox depiction of the behaviour of gyroscopes, and gyroscope’s reaction to the rotation of the Earth. Figure taken from the description of the principle of the gyrocompass. https://maritime.org/doc/gyromk14/index.htm
Figure caption: “the gyroscope, with its rotating axis set in the East-West position at the equator, seems to rotate around its horizontal axis every twenty-four hours.”
That is, – the rotation of the gyroscope relative to the Earth is presented as the real observed fact.
In reality, this is not so. Nothing like this happens with
gyroscopes. But the fact of the falsehood is not as interesting as the
perception of reality that is behind the advent of this fabrication. The story
of observing the rotation of the Earth with a gyroscope appeared in 1851 due to
Leon Foucault. Since then, this false information has acquired the status of
truth as a result of numerous repetitions. Methods of propaganda are universal…
Foucault conducted experiments with gyroscopes after his
well-known performances with pendulums. It is possible that he was sincerely
mistaken, attributing the changes of plane oscillations of pendulums
coincidence with the Earth’s rotation. He just wanted to see what he believed
in. But that does not do credit to his scientific scrupulousness. As for his
numerous followers, they have demonstrated the blind faith in the authorities.
In the case of Foucault’s pendulum and the free gyroscope,
we have an example of how experiments, when honestly interpreted, should have
served to disprove the relevant hypotheses, but as a result of falsification
became their confirmation. In this particular case, forgery has been going on
for one hundred and seventy years.
It is sad to admit that the absurdity of the ideas of
official science about the surrounding space is not obvious to everyone, and it
must be demonstrated.
We will mention only a few nonsenses that science does not
notice in the model of the universe promoted by it, in which the myth of the
rotation of the Earth in a fixed absolute space occupies a fundamental role.
If the Earth were rotated relative to a fixed space,
Foucault’s pendulums would have a period of rotation of the oscillation plane
close to 24 hours, and this rotation would have a direction opposite to the
rotation of the Earth. The difference in the positions of the pendulums in
latitude would only lead to changes in the shape of the dependence of the
rotation of the oscillation plane, but the period of rotation of the
oscillation plane for any latitude should remain unchanged – one day. Arguments
about the influence of Coriolis force leading to an increase in the period of
rotation of the pendulum are outright speculation, since no Coriolis force at
the pendulum suspension point can arise, and even more so, – it could not
affect the rotation of the swing plane. The pendulum suspension point is the
only place in which the pendulum interacts with the Earth, all other parts of
the pendulum (in vacuum) interact
only with the space in which, even if we assume its immobility, no Coriolis
force can arise.
Moreover, with the rotation of the Earth relative to the
fixed immediate space, it would be impossible to have any pendulum resting in balance
on the Earth. Since any sufficiently long pendulum would constantly experience
deviations in the direction of a fixed reference frame.
The fluctuations of the plane of oscillations of pendulums
and gyroscopic axes of rotation would be affected not only by the daily but
also by the annual circulation of the Earth, plus the movement of the Sun. So
as a result, the movement of these devices would be very chaotic and resting
pendulums would not exist. Also it would be impossible for gyroscopes remain
fixed relative to the Earth in an arbitrary position. As the result, there
would be not possible to use gyroscopes for orientation purposes, as it is done
in reality.
Newton introduced the concept of gravity in part to answer
the ages-old question: “Why don’t we fall off the Earth if the Earth is
spinning?” The issue with the absence of falling was solved, but remained
in the shadows the problem with inertia, which was not resolved. Popular
science has not resolved unambiguously the concept of Inertia, as also the
space, which is now invented many varieties. The space continues to be assumed
to be fixed relative to the stars in all experiments related to the rotation of
the Earth (such as Michelson – Morley, Canterbury Ring Laser or Gravity Probe).
For rectilinear motions, which always have arbitrary
directions, a fixed absolute space is not a self-evident problem. Inertia in
these cases is instantaneous and is always opposite to the direction of
acceleration, so the reaction of a stationary absolute space is difficult to
distinguish from the reaction of space moving with the Earth’s surface.
It is quite another matter in the case of rotational motions,
here the body tends to maintain the direction of its axis of rotation relative
to space. Therefore the time of inertial interaction of the body with space is
not limited (much longer) than it is in the case of rectilinear accelerations.
As noted in the section “Application of the Law of
Mechanics for the analysis of rotational motion” – rotational motion is
the simplest example of the interaction of a body only with space, and nothing
but space. This long-term interaction allows us to discover the true position
of space in relation to the rotating body. And it is evident that space does
not change its position in relation to gyroscopes for an indefinitely long
time. That is, the true space in which the gyroscope operates moves with it
completely synchronously.
Analysis of the behaviour of real bodies leads to the only
possible logical conclusion: gravity forms our space and this space is dynamic.
Any attempt to consider space as static leads to absurdity. Space is dynamic,
that is, moves together with the specific point of the near-earth volume, only
such an organization of space can ensure the immobility of space relative to
the processes taking place in the sphere of Earth’s gravity.
Here we have another example of a dialectical pair: dynamic – stationary (mobile – motionless). The immobility of the space of the earth observer can only be provided by space that moves synchronously with the observer.
Well, for the sake of humour it can be mentioned “the theory of stationary Earth”, which has received quite widespread popularity in recent years. Paradoxically it sounds, but the belief in stationary Earth is generated by modern science. Since the progress achieved in technology makes it easy to reproduce fairly accurate experiments and verify claims of the official science. In particular, experiments with gyroscopes and pendulums.
It is worth to praise stationary-earthers for their enthusiasm for the experiments and for perseverance in the combat with obvious fictions, which are prevailing in the physical consciousness of society. It is a pity that stationary-earther’s are seeking the answers to their legitimate questions in the same philosophical impasse in which all were directed by the dominant paradigm.
Supporters of stationary Earth conclude that the Earth is motionless. And this conclusion is absolutely true, but incomplete: the Earth is motionless relative to the moving space. To accept the reality by taught mind is difficult, the obstacle is the “taughtness” – the state of been trained. (Real disaster from being trained…)
The organized science is absolutely helpless in a dispute with supporters of the stationary Earth; by its illogical answers it only delivers arguments helping to support idea of the motionless Earth. The problem lies in the understanding of space by classical physics as an absolute and fixed frame of reference. Even relativists talking about curvature of space do not encroach on its static nature, and if they talk about the dynamism of space-time, it is still space tied to the absolute reference system.
Only the Law of Mechanics defines space as a real local material formation consisting of eternally moving free ether. This representation of space provides answers to totally fair questions that some are trying to resolve with the help of the insane hypothesis of stationary Earth. The behaviour of gyroscopes is very clearly explained by the Law of Mechanics, so “and yet it moves”…
But in one subject stationary Earth supporters are absolutely right – gyroscopes do not prove the rotation of the Earth. Neither gyroscopes nor Foucault’s pendulums can prove the rotation of the Earth, they are not suitable for it (at least in the form as it implied by organized science). Gyroscopes prove something completely different – the rotation of space together with the Earth.
In conclusion, three questions relevant to our topic:
1) If space moves synchronously with the Earth, what makes
Foucault’s pendulum change the plane of its rotation?
As we have already noted, the Earth’s space is very curved. Its shape near the Earth’s surface is close to spherical, repeating the shape of the Earth. Such a complex form is created by the motion of gravitational ether flows, that is, the curvature of space is not static, but dynamic. Space is constantly moving. The Earth is forced to repeat all the movements of space, and since the Earth is a solid body, there are always local discrepancies between the shape and velocities of the flows of space (ether) and the shape and velocities of the areas of the Earth’s surface. These speed differences produce changes of the plane of swing of pendulums, and the axes of the gyroscopes. Such fluctuations can be both chaotic and periodic, such as tides.
2) How do optical gyroscopes detect the rotation of the
Earth?
As we have already discussed, if the space would be
motionless relative to the stars, the gyroscope located on the Earth would make
turns relative to this space with the period of rotation of the Earth.
Accordingly, the signal of the gyroscope installed on the Ground should be
periodic (with a period of 24 hours). The same applies to the signals of laser gyroscopes;
they would also have to have a period of 24 hours. In fact, there are no large periodic
signals, and only small chaotic noise signals in the form of shifts relative to
the mean value. That is, gyroscopes both mechanical and optical work in full
accordance with the Law of Mechanics.
The Sagnac effect was originally discovered in the experiment with a rotating platform relative to the Earth back in 1913. And here the Galileo’s principle of relativity, or rather blind faith experimenters in the validity of this principle, played a cruel joke with the experimenters. They believed that the rotation of the platform is equivalent to the rotation of the Earth, and this illusion still prevails in the minds of scientists. They tried and try to detect the shift of fixed to the Earth interferometers. It’s a fruitless effort, because by this arrangement it is possible to detect only a small distortion of space (tides, differential rotation, super-rotation, shifts of poles, etc.).
But in contrast, the rotational motion of interferometers relative
to the Earth is very easy to detect.
It is simply required to overcome prejudices and accept
reality. Nevertheless, all these researchers have done a tremendous job to
increase the accuracy of the experiments, which only confirms the almost
perfect match of the shape and motion of the Earth with the shape and motion of
the ether.
One can only wonder at the amazing blindness of these
talented experimenters “standing on the shoulders of giants” and led
by blind prophets.
Absolutely identical situation is observed with mechanical
gyroscopes, as we have already discussed at the beginning of the article – the
shift of the axis of rotation of the free gyroscope fixed relative to the Earth
can not be detected, but the movement relative to the Earth with the most
microscopic angular velocities immediately leads to shifts in the axis of
rotation, and the resistance in the axes of rotation of the gyroscope
suspension somehow in this case does not interfere with the effect. The space simply
rotates the Earth.
3) Does the work of gyroscopic compasses prove the fact of rotation of the Earth relative to space
(reference system)?
Gyroscopes in “pure form” as we have considered do
not react to the rotation of the Earth explicitly. But the question remains
related to gyrocompasses, how could these devices track the direction of
rotation of the Earth to the poles?
First, the function of gyrocompasses is fundamentally
different from the supposed ability of gyroscopes to follow the rotation of the
Earth relative to absolute space. Moreover, if gyroscopes had this ability, it
would not be possible to talk about using them as gyrocompasses in the form in
which they exist now. Since the nature of the gyroscope reaction to the change
of position relative to the Earth’s surface would be different, instead of a
smooth follow-up direction to the Meridian, the gyroscope would make a complex
rotational movement with a period of one day, superimposed on the rotation with
a period of one year.
Second, gyroscopes in gyrocompasses have a limitation in the
degree of freedom, which makes them different from the free gyroscopes that we
consider in this article.
The topic of gyrocompasses is very interesting by itself, but
it would lead us away from the main goal of this article – to show that
sometimes simple mechanical devices can give an answer to the most complex
questions of the structure of the universe. It is only necessary to follow the
logic of rational thinking and common sense honestly and impartially.
First, let us clarify that the term
“reciprocating-rotational motion” here will be called movements
similar to the movement of pendulums.
Consider the behaviour of a physical pendulum, performing a
reciprocating-rotational motion with a span of 180 degrees.
Reciprocating-rotational motion has unique properties.
The body making a reciprocating rotational movement changes
the direction of movement at the extreme points of its trajectory. At the same
time, if the rotation of the body is limited to 180 degrees, then immediately
before the passage of both extreme points, the direction of movement of the
body relative to space is identical. Accordingly, in the first moment after
passing the extreme points, the direction of motion of the body relative to
space is also identical.
Consequently, the system of two bodies performing anti-phase
reciprocating rotational motion does not change the direction of its linear
acceleration in space during the entire cycle of motion. At the same time, the
centrifugal accelerations of this system also do not change their direction in
space during the entire cycle of motion. But the directions in the space of
linear and centrifugal accelerations are mutually opposite.
These properties of the system of two pendulums allow to
create on its basis “reactionless” thrusters.
The term reactionless is not the most appropriate, but it has already come into usage and therefore we have to use it, prefacing by the necessary explanations: “reactionless” drives actually have a support (reaction), and this support is the ether. The best definition is a more detailed one: “propulsors without jet mass ejection”, therefore further in the text under the term “reactionless” we will mean the propulsor without jet mass ejection.
“Legalization” of the reactionless movement is a long-overdue necessity. Inventors of functioning reactionless devices have to justify violations of the laws of Newton, devising “evidences” of the conformity of their inventions to these laws. This is a completely absurd situation, as Newton’s laws distort the real picture of the world and are an obstacle to technological progress.
It is time for the enthusiasts of the reactionless (support-less) motion to stop feeling like outcasts, and finally gain confidence in their rightness. The Law of Mechanics serves them in this task as the support (intentional pun), as a powerful tool for investigation of the physics of reactionless motion. Functioning reactionless devices are a convincing confirmation of the validity of the Law of Mechanics, and in turn, the Law of Mechanics allows the creation of such devices.
When creating reactionless devices using centrifugal forces,
the primary task is to obtain unidirectional linear acceleration.
Simple (unidirectional) rotation inevitably causes an omnidirectional centrifugal acceleration, of which it is necessary to separate a unidirectional linear acceleration and to compensate for the opposite direction. Such compensation complicates the system, and reduces the efficiency of the drive, as it is a partial compensation that does not eliminate completely negative acceleration.
Unlike a simple unidirectional rotation, the rotation with a
cyclic change of direction, which is the characteristic of the pendulum, allows
one to completely avoid the formation of reverse linear accelerations.
Consider the behaviour of the body performing a cyclic
reciprocating motion (180 degrees rotations) under the action of some internal
force (for example, a spiral spring).
The first part is the analysis without centrifugal accelerations.
Figure 1 shows the position of the pendulum load at the beginning of the cycle in the direction of the black arrow. In this position, the speed of the load “V” is minimal and the acceleration “a” is maximal. In accordance with the Law of Mechanics, the load will experience the force “F” applied to it from the ether and directed opposite to acceleration.
Figure 1.
This is the force of inertia, and it occurs due to the
acceleration of the ether relative to the load. The ether is stationary, and
the acceleration of the load relative to the ether is equivalent to the
acceleration of the ether inside the load in the opposite direction.
With the accelerated movement of the load in the first
sector, an external force will be applied to the entire system, moving the
entire drive in the opposite direction.
Figure 2 shows the position of the load in the middle between the first and second cycles. In this position, the speed of the load “V” is at maximum, and the acceleration “a” is zero; since at this point the acceleration changes its direction, and then begins to act in the opposite direction, slowing down the load. Accordingly, the force from the ether caused by the linear acceleration of the load at this point will be absent (zero).
In fact, the force applied by the ether at this point still exists, it is a centrifugal force, but in this part of our analysis, we do not consider it yet, since now we are interested in the acceleration resulting from the “simple” linear motion of the load.
And the purpose of this limited analysis is to show that rotational motion provides a smooth change in the direction of linear motion of the body to the opposite direction, without intermediate stop of the body.
Such a stop is inevitable in the case of reciprocating
motion. But in the case of reciprocating-rotational motion, the change of
direction occurs without linear acceleration.
Stops and subsequent linear accelerations occur at the beginning of phase 1, and at the end of phase 2, and at both of these points accelerations have the same direction with respect to the surrounding space. As a result, the load acquires unidirectional accelerations, i.e. it can move pushing off from space.
Figure 2.
In fact, the system will move in the opposite direction, and
we will discuss this fact later, but for now we will continue to consider the
process of reciprocating-rotational motion.
Figure 3 shows the position of the load at the end of the driving cycle. In this position, the load speed “V” is reduced to a minimum and the braking (negative acceleration) “a” is maximum. In accordance with the Law of Mechanics, the load will experience the force “F” applied to it from the ether and directed in the opposite to direction of acceleration, that is, in the same direction as before (in position 1).
Figure 3.
As we can see, an external force applied from the ether
accompanies the reciprocating-rotational movement of the load. This force has
the same direction in the mirror-symmetrical points of the trajectory of the
load, that is, the load does not change the direction of its acceleration
relative to the ether. This is due to the fact that the load changes the
direction of speed and at the same time the sign of acceleration changes (i.e.
acceleration is replaced by braking).
After that, all the processes are repeated in the opposite
direction. And again there is an inversion of the acceleration of the load in
the second half of the cycle, as the direction of movement of the load changes
due to its rotation.
Below are the graphs of the load speed “V” and the projection of linear acceleration on the horizontal coordinate axis. The velocity is a monotonically increasing (the acceleration “a” = const) to a maximum at the point of 90 degrees, and then decreases to zero at point 180 degrees.
The scale of linear acceleration on the chart is enlarged by 10 times, otherwise the acceleration chart will be almost indistinguishable from a straight line.
The following graph is supplemented by centrifugal acceleration.
Finally, the sum of linear and centrifugal accelerations
As can be seen from the last graph – linear acceleration does not play a significant role in the total acceleration, since the centrifugal acceleration is in the quadratic dependence upon the linear velocity.
But it is noteworthy here that the linear acceleration is
perfectly symmetrical with respect to the axis passing through 90 degrees.
Therefore, in the total acceleration of a system consisting of two coaxial or symmetrical antiphase pendulums, there are no components causing lateral displacements. That is, despite the rotational nature of the movement of loads, the resulting force is linear, unidirectional.
Now on the dependence of the resulting accelerations of the system on the linear accelerations of the weights that generate them. Take the radius of rotation of the load equal to one unit, the mass of each load one unit, and the total mass of the system consisting of two loads and the surrounding mechanisms and payload for 16 units (that is, the total mass of the system is 8 times more than the mass of weights). The full cycle of movement of weights (acceleration plus braking) will take equal to 35 seconds. Then the acceleration of weights equal to 0.01 units of length per second squared, will cause ten times greater acceleration of the system at the time of passage of load through the axis of symmetry (90 degrees). Acceleration of load equal to 0.1 units, will lead to a hundredfold acceleration of the system. A acceleration of load equal to 1 unit, will cause a thousandfold acceleration of the system.
Finishing with the first part of the section devoted to the reciprocating-rotational motion, we note that the priority for the reciprocating-rotational engine “Inertor” belongs to E. I. Linevich, who presented the geometric justification for its work based on Newton’s laws.
“Inertor” differs from invented in the 1930s by V. N. Tolchin mechanism “Inertoid”, which used unidirectional rotary motion with variable angular velocity. As we have already noted — unidirectional rotation leads to the appearance of oppositely directed accelerations, which have to be compensated.
First, the definition: propulsor (mover, propeller) — a device that converts the energy received from the engine into useful work that ensures the movement of vehicles.
Consider the different types of movers, as they are
classified by Orthodox science. We exclude from consideration propellers
working on natural sources of energy, such as sails.
All propulsors can be divided into two categories: 1)
reactive and 2) others -“non-reactive”.
A special third category of propellers, which are considered
inoperable and pseudoscientific – various, so-called “reactionless” drives.
Further analysis from the point of view of the Law of Mechanics.
First, reactive motion and opposed to it a “regular” non-reactive motion.
Non-reactive motion implicates repulsion from surrounding bodies. The class of surrounding bodies also includes the environment, as in the case of movement in the air or in water. Thus, the “normal” non-reactive movement is carried out by repulsion from the substance (material bodies). Let’s call these bodies “supportive bodies”. And the bodies that repel are “repulsive bodies”.
Since any physical body has a mass, that is, resists to the change of its position in space under the influence from the outside, the body-supports allow repelling bodies to push off from them. At the same time, the greater the mass of the body-support, the less they move in space, and accordingly, the better support they are.
Let us repeat: Due to the fact that the support bodies tend
to maintain their position in space, repelling bodies can change their speed
and position in space after repelling from the support bodies.
Thus, the movement by means of rotation of the wheels,
repelling paddles, blades, legs, wings, etc. is carried out due to the inertia
of the repelled substance. In the case of repulsion from the Earth, this is
less obvious, but fundamentally indistinguishable from repulsion from air.
Jet propulsion is quite wrongfully opposed to “normal” non-reactive movement. Reactive and “non-reactive” movements are essentially the same. From the point of view of the physics of the process, it is insignificant that in the case of jet propulsion, it is necessary to spend part of the substance of the propulsor. Or in accordance with our terminology: the repelling body is gradually consumed as the body-supports. This does not change the principle of motion; it is still the same repulsion from the substance, only less effective than the “usual”, since the repelled support substance has to be carried with it.
Sum up:
1) to realize the movement, it is necessary to push off from the support.
2) Support in all known modes of motion is a substance.
The first statement from the point of view of the Law of
Mechanics does not trigger objection.
But the second statement is wrong and is an illusion.
Let’s deal with this illusion.
In fact, as we have already mentioned, the repulsion from
the support is possible due to support’s inertia, that is, due to the
interaction of the support body’s substance with space. Thus, ultimately, the
repulsion of the body materializes actually by repulsion from the space, and
the body-support is only an intermediary link, providing interaction with the
space due to its inertia.
That is, with any method of movement, there is a repulsion
from space. The greater the inertia of the support (the greater the mass /
resistance to acceleration through space), the tighter the connection between
the support and space, and the more effective is the support.
Thus, based on the logic of orthodox science, any of the
considered types of propulsors should be called reactionless, along with the
above-mentioned “pseudo-scientific” propulsors.
Later we consider the example of “reactionless” propulsor, which repels directly from space. Such a drive has obvious advantages over non-reactive and especially reactive propellers, since it does not need a body-substance support. But its main advantage is not in this…
So, from the point of view of the law of Mechanics:
1) there is no fundamental difference between reactive and non-reactive movement.
2) both of these types of movements are push off space /
repelled from space, that is, in fact, are “reactionless”, using the
dictionary of orthodox science.
3) there is no fundamental difference between
“pseudoscientific” reactionless and “true scientific” reactionless
movement with an intermediate material link from the point of view of the
physics of the process.
There is a fundamental difference between the standpoint of
the Law of Mechanics from the generally accepted point of view.
The difference between the two approaches ultimately boils
down to understanding the nature of mass.
The orthodox approach considers mass to be an intrinsic
property, which is inherent in the substance itself without relationship with
space.
This approach inevitably leads to the need to have different
types of masses responsible for different conditions in which the mass
manifests itself. Two main different conditions are inertia and gravity.
Each of these conditions is subdivided into more specific
“sub-conditions”. So for inertia it is necessary to consider the
conditions of rectilinear motion and the conditions of rotational motion. Both
of these sub-conditions require the existence of a specific mass, which is reflected
in the difficulties of orthodox science in designating centrifugal forces. But
the difficulties do not end there, because for each sub-condition it is
necessary to distinguish even smaller sub-conditions.
They are: uniform motion and motion with acceleration. The behaviour
of the mass under uniform motion differs from the behaviour under acceleration.
Gravity also requires special properties of the substance
responsible for the ability to attract any other substance and for the ability
to be attracted by another substance.
Well, at the junction of inertial and gravitational masses,
a special explanation is needed for the reasons why the inertial properties of
mass in the conditions of gravity on the surfaces of celestial bodies differ
from the properties of mass in the absence of gravity. But at the same time,
for some reason, the behavior of the mass in the conditions of free fall does
not differ from the behavior in the absence of gravity.
The choice between points of view depends on the individual thinker. And the point of view “Believe because it is absurd” has the right to exist, along with “Believe because it is logical”. After all, any logic is based on the belief in some more fundamental postulates. But for a conscious choice it is necessary to have the information that the Law of Mechanics provides.
Dodecagraf is derived from the word “dodecahedron” and “graf” – mathematical collection of sets (as usual, “f” instead of “ph”). Dodecagraf, or just graf.
In this section, we
will present all the layers that can be formed from dodecahedrons by gradually
increasing their quantity, starting with a single central dodecahedron.
We will distinguish
rigid structures from ordinary non-rigid ones.
A rigid structures, so-called FROIMs is a Phenomenally Rigid Objects of the Initial Matter (see the appropriate section of this site). These structures provide strength to the whole structure of the nucleus, since they can not change its shape during collisions and under the force of external pressure.
Let us suppose that external forces are always applied centrally symmetric with respect to atoms. This is a logical assumption, since the outer atoms can be either other atoms (the maximum difference in the size of the atoms is less than 3 times), or the ether surrounding the atoms (applying the same pressure on all sides, which ensures the stability of the substance).
External forces are
always directed to the compression of FROIM structures, since they are applied
perpendicular to the touching faces of the dodecahedrons.
Conventional non-rigid structures from dodecahedrons are arranged at gaps inside FROIMs. Dodecahedrons of non-rigid structures can be separated from FROIMs with application of an external pressure or strokes. Since the external forces in this case are aimed at separating the dodecahedrons from each other.
All images are taken
from the same distance from the camera to the Central dodecahedron. This should
be considered when comparing the sizes of the components.
So layer 1 is the Central proton:
Layer 2 (12 protons located on all 12 faces of the central proton):
Since the Central proton is completely hidden from the outside world by side protons, in all subsequent structures we will not take it into account, that is, the total number of protons will always be reduced by one.
The first part of Layer 3 (rigid FROIM structure consisting of 3 layers):
A three-layer rigid structure of 24 dodecahedrons (FROIM actually consists of 25 protons, see explanation above)
Layer 3, fully filled — added 20 dodecahedrons between twelve dodecahedrons of rigid structure:
Completely filled three-layer structure of the 44 dodecahedrons (24+20)
The previous image is completed with the first part of Layer 4 (rigid FROIM structure supplemented with 60 dodecahedrons):
Added 60 dodecahedrons of the fourth layer. The result is a four-layer, partially filled structure of 104 dodecahedrons (44+60)
Layer 4, fully filled — added 20 dodecahedrons (blue) between sixty dodecahedrons of rigid structure:
Added 20 dodecahedrons to the fourth layer. It turned out completely filled four-layer dodecagraf of the 124 dodecahedrons (104+20)
The previous image is supplemented with the first part of Layer 5 (rigid FROIM structure consisting of 30 yellow dodecahedrons):
Added 30 dodecahedrons of the fifth layer. Obtained five-layer partially completed structure of the 154 dodecahedrons (124+30)
The previous image was supplemented with the second part of the Layer 5 (FROIM a rigid structure consisting of 12 multi-colored dodecahedron the pentagonal centers of the rosettes):
Added 12 dodecahedrons to the fifth layer. Got five-layer partially completed structure of the 166 dodecahedrons (154+12)
The previous image is supplemented by the third part of Layer 5 — a structure consisting of 60 multi-colored dodecahedrons, 12 pentagonal rosettes:
Added 60 dodecahedrons to the fifth layer. As a result we have five-layer partially completed structure of the 226 dodecahedrons (166+60)
The previous image is supplemented with Layer 6 (rigid FROIM structure consisting of 12 red dodecahedrons). Total number of dodecahedra (nucleons) 238 :
Added 12 dodecahedrons of the sixth layer. The end result – six-layer dodecagraf containing 238 dodecahedrons (226+12)…
We continue
to analyze the properties of FROM structures. It is known that other regular
polyhedra — cube, octahedron and tetrahedron-can be sequentially inscribed in a
conventional dodecahedron.
Such a
property is inherent in the structures, which we analyzing here.
Thus, the first structure is an analogue of the cube “inscribed” in the seven-layer “large dodecahedron”, which was presented in the previous section.
In the
presented animation to facilitate the analysis it is shown only the upper four
layers and Central dodecahedron. And the prototype cube inscribed in the
dodecahedron is presented below for comparison.
Next in line FROM – the analogue of the tetrahedron:
Octahedron, more like a ball, and below its prototype – an ordinary polyhedron:
A more subtle version of the octahedron, devoid of most of the fourth layer dodecahedrons:
Another variant of the octahedron-like FROM structure, which differs from the previous one in the absence of the fifth layer dodecahedra:
And finally, the tetrahedron-like structure of the dodecahedrons, this time also four-layer:
We continue to add the layers on our FROIM. The 115 elements FROIM has 20 triangles; on each of them we place three dodecahedrons, which form the sixth layer of 60 dodecahedrons. Thus the simplest FROIM of the sixth level will consist of 115 + 20 x 3= 175 dodecahedrons.
The six-layer FROIM again resembles an ordinary icosidodecahedron, as it is composed of 12 pentagonal structures and 20 triangular. But pentagonal structures are not very obviously expressed, and triangular structures have smaller relative sizes as compared to pentagonal structures. But nevertheless, there is a formal similarity with a conventional icosidodecahedron.
As before, when we talked about a four-layer FROIM the structure of a six-layer
FROIM is still not maximally rigid, the dodecahedrons formed a tight connection at
the points of contact with each other. But this contact is made only along the edges
of the adjacent dodecahedrons.
A much more rigid structure is formed with the addition of the next layer (the seventh).
The outer shell of the seven-layer FROIM is a giant dodecahedron composed of 20 elemental dodecahedrons. The total number of elemental dodecahedrons in the minimal set of a seven-layer FROIM is 195. This (again, as in the case of a five-layer FROIM) is a completely rigid structure, since the dodecahedrons of the last seventh layer ideally fit the dodecahedrons of the underlying sixth layer.
Ordinary classic polyhedrons are volumetric structures that are bounded by planes
(flat shapes, polygons). The principal difference of the structures discussed in this
article is that they do not represent a single closed volume, but consist of a set of
interconnected individual volumes of the elementary dodecahedrons that together
form structures of the appearance of regular and semi-regular polyhedrons. A kind
of a “poly-polyhedrons”.
Since polyhedrons are composed of dodecahedrons that are in close contact with
each other, the result is a mechanically stable structure. Layers of structures
consistently change their external shape, depending on the number of the layer.
So down to the third layer, the structure retains the appearance of a dodecahedron.
The next fourth layer takes the form of truncated icosahedrons.
Fifth layer takes form of an icosidodecahedron.
The sixth layer keeps the appearance of icosidodecahedron, but with different
proportions than icosidodecahedron of the fourth layer.
The seventh layer returns to the shape of the dodecahedron, but having a size
(approximately) 6.7 times larger than the elementary dodecahedron.
The main phenomenal property of FROIM structures is their rigidity. This is
explained by the fact that the FROIM structures are characterized by a perfect fit
between their component parts, that is, there are no gaps in the direction from the
periphery to the center of the structure. Assuming that each individual
dodecahedron is a rigid, incompressible body, we inevitably conclude that the
resulting FROIM structures have rigidity equal to the rigidity of their constituent
parts. Rigidity here refers to the ability to resist external pressure. In other words,
FROIM structures are equally incompressible, as are their constituent elements. The
condition for opposing external pressure is that external pressure must be applied
strictly normally with respect to the center of FROIM structure (centrally
symmetrical).
Full name of structures “FROIM” is (Phenomenal Rigid Object (of) Initial Matter), in
this case, replacing the English digraph “Ph” with a more rational “F”.
I hope readers by this point have already caught the analogy of FROIMs with atomic nucleases. This analogy is especially evident in the quantitative matching of the constituent elements.
195 dodecahedrons FROIM
structure
Layers from 2 to 7 are
visible
To begin with, we will add only 30 (thirty) dodecahedrons to the existing ones in our structure.
The total number of dodecahedrons in a five-layer FROIM becomes 115. Obviously, there are many unfilled places where additional dodecahedrons can be placed, but we are now interested in the minimal possible structure that is most convenient for analysis. Let’s show that the resulting five-layer FROIM structure of 115 parts is similar to a Icosidodecahedron. A regular icosidodecahedron consists of 12 pentagons and 20 triangles.
For comparison, two images are presented:
On the left is separately reproduced upper (fifth) layer of our 115-element FROIM
with translucent pentagonal planes superimposed on it. The dimensions of these
auxiliary planes approximately coincide with the dimensions of the pentagonal
structures formed by the dodecahedrons of the fifth layer. This technique helps to
clearly visualize the general shape of the fifth layer of the resulting FROIM.
The gaps between pentagons have a triangular shape, as in the normal
icosidodecahedron presented on the right for comparison. The number of
triangular structures is also equal to 20, as in the classical icosidodecahedron.
Now we can talk in more detail about the rigidity of the resulting structure. The image below shows in enlarged view of the conjugation of dodecahedrons of the fifth layer (yellow) with the underlying dodecahedrons of the fourth layer (burgundy, purple and gray).
As you can see, the fit between dodecahedrons is perfect, there are no gaps. This fact
suggests that the FROIM of the fifth order has the maximum rigidity with respect to
external pressure. This stiffness is determined by the stiffness of the individual dodecahedrons that make up the FROIM structure.
We continue to add the layers on our FROIM. The 115 elements FROIM has 20 triangles; on each of them we place three dodecahedrons, which form the sixth layer of 60 dodecahedrons. Thus the simplest FROIM of the sixth level will consist of 115 + 20 x 3= 175 dodecahedrons.
The phenomenon of formation of symmetric crystal-like structures in the shape of regular and semi-regular polyhedrons
Rules of formation of structures referred to in the article:
1) Structures are formed from elementary dodecahedrons of the same size.
2) Adjacent faces of neighboring dodecahedrons are perfectly attached to each other
with a complete alignment of vertices.
Generally accepted approaches to the construction of structures from polyhedrons
imply the fullest possible filling of free space. The formation of cracks and gaps
considered as a flaw and minimizing them constitutes the main purpose of
packaging.
Described in the article method of constructing of three-dimensional structures is
fundamentally different from the generally accepted approach in that the presence
of side slots between the constituent elements of the structure is a necessary and
desired condition. Packing of elementary dodecahedrons as dense as possible is not
the major objective for our approach.
The construction of the structure begins with the central dodecahedron, by adding
to it the outer dodecahedrons. One external dodecahedron to each of the twelve
faces of the central dodecahedron. The outer dodecahedrons are held in place by
mechanical bond with the central dodecahedron. As such, the mechanical bonding
by abstract glue, having the same strength as the material of dodecahedrons, can be
provisionally accepted.
As the layers of dodecahedrons add on, mutually coinciding and repeating geometric
structures are formed. The specific shape of the “shells” of dodecahedrons formed
by different layers is uniquely determined by the number of the layer of
dodecahedrons in the structure.
The resulting structures are analogues of regular and semi-regular polyhedrons
(Platonic and Archimedean solids). In particular, they are: Truncated Icosahedron,
Icosidodecahedron, and a composite large Dodecahedron.
These unique structures are given a name FROIM, resembling FRAIM – obsolete form of frame. We will begin the examination of the FROIM structures from a simple to complex. First structure is consisting of thirteen dodecahedrons: one dodecahedron in the center, and twelve surrounding dodecahedrons (one on the each face). The resulting structure has one layer around the central dodecahedron. Please take attention to the presence of gaps between the outer dodecahedrons. In this case, the central dodecahedron is completely blocked from the outside world; there are no gaps between the central and outer dodecahedrons.
Let’s add one dodecahedron to the outward-facing faces of the dodecahedrons of the first layer. We have formed a second layer of dodecahedrons. At this stage, we will not fill all free faces of the second layer, but will limit ourselves to the twelve most remote from the center upper faces, as that will allow us to obtain a rigid structure with the minimum possible number of dodecahedrons.
So far, in our construction consisting of three layers, twenty-five dodecahedrons are used (two layers of twelve dodecahedrons in each and one dodecahedron in the center). As before, there are gaps only between the side faces of the dodecahedrons, the axial faces have a perfect backlash-free fit.
Let’s expand our structure by adding fourth layer.
As can be seen from the figure, the fourth layer is added to the outward-facing side
faces of the dodecahedrons of the third layer. To each of the 12 dodecahedrons of
the third layer, five dodecahedrons of the fourth layer (60 in total) have been
attached. The top faces of the third layer remain vacant. In this sense, the operation
to fill the fourth layer is the opposite of the operation to fill the third layer, where
we added dodecahedrons to the upper faces, leaving free the side faces of the
second layer.
Now in our design we have four layers containing a total of eighty-five dodecahedrons. The dodecahedrons of the fourth layer formed pentahedral cells around each dodecahedron of the third layer. And every three neighboring pentahedral cells formed hexahedral cells, in which two dodecahedrons from each pentagon take part. In general, the resulting figure resembles a classic Truncated Icosahedron. The image of the truncated icosahedron is given for comparison on the right side of our four-layer FROIM. Classic truncated icosahedron has 32 faces: 12 pentagonal and 20 hexagonal. Four-layer FROIM truncated icosahedron also has 32 faces-sides: 12 faces made up of five dodecahedrons and 20 sides of the hexagons (made up of six dodecahedrons). The four-layer structure is still not rigid enough; the dodecahedrons formed a tight connection at the points of contact with each other. But this contact is made only along the edge line of the adjacent dodecahedrons. A much more rigid structure is formed with the addition of the next layer (the fifth).
Historically
established ideas about electricity, in particular such concepts as electric
current and voltage, conductivity and resistance of the circuit, have little in
common with the physical nature of the phenomena that they are suppose to
describe. This is seen as one of the reasons for the lack of progress and
long-term stagnation in this area, and the difficulties of orthodox science in
the comprehension of electrical phenomena.
The
magnitude of the electric current, from the point of view of the Law of
Mechanics, is the power characteristic of the ether vortex, similar to the
mechanical force. And like mechanical force, the force of the electric current
is equal to the product of the mass of the ether involved in the movement by the
amount of acceleration of the ether relative to the body.
Let us explain this idea. (The physical meaning of Ohm’s Law)
In
conventional (not electrical) mechanics, we deal with bodies accelerating
relative to stationary ether. Accordingly, the mechanical force is the product
of the mass of the body by acceleration of the body relative to the ether.
In the case
of electricity, we have the opposite situation: the ether is accelerated
relative to the stationary body. The body is motionless relative to the ether constituting
the surrounding space, and only a small part of the ether inside the body is
involved in electrical movement.
According
to the Law of Mechanics, the result of the acceleration of the ether relative
to the body is a mechanical force applied to the body in the direction of the
acceleration of the ether.
Thus, the
“electric current” is equal to the mechanical force resulting from the
acceleration of the ether inside the conductor.
Therefore,
to determine the force acting on the body, we must take into account only the
ether accelerating relative to the body.
Further, in this section, speaking of electrical resistance and conductivity, we will show that the conductivity of the body is proportional to the volume of free ether inside the conductor, that is, the ether that participates in electrical motion. Thus, we can assume that the mass of the ether accelerating relative to the conductor is equivalent to the conductivity of the conductor:
And the acceleration of ether (a) is equal to the difference in ether velocities, that is, the voltage drop (U) on this conductor (part of the circuit):
So, multiplying the acceleration of the ether by its mass, we find the force with which the accelerating ether acts on the conductor:
Or in other words: multiplying the difference in voltage by conductivity, we find the current:
where:
– voltage drop across the circuit
– conductivity of the electrical circuit section
This expression is one of the forms of writing of Ohm’s law for the circuit section, expressed through conductivity (parameter reverse to electrical resistance):
The usual form of Ohm’s law:
So, we can conclude that the physical meaning of Ohm’s law
is analogue to:
in both
cases, we are talking about the mechanical forces acting on the body from the
accelerating ether.
It should be noted here that the expression F=am is also a mathematical notation of Newton’s Second law. However, the Law of Mechanics, using the formula F=am puts in it a different meaning than the official science. Details of the differences in these approaches are given in the section “Similarities and differences between the Law of Mechanics and Newton’s laws”
The
electric current in the conductor can be represented as the rotation of the
volume of gas limited by the semipermeable walls of the conductor in such a way
that the rotation is partially transmitted to the gas outside the conductor.
The
rotation of the ether gas outside the conductor gradually attenuates inversely
to the square of the distance from the conductor.
The rotation of the ether inside the conductor must also overcome some resistance of the internal atomic structure and the crystal lattice of the conductor. As a consequence of this resistance, the ether loses its speed, which leads to a drop in voltage. Thus, electrical phenomena are the simplest phenomena in which the decelerating effect of ether on bodies moving relative to it at a constant speed is manifested. This is what the Second part of the Law of Mechanics, which can be called the Law of Speeds.
The
rotation of the ether inside the conductor is an electric current, and the
rotation of the ether outside the conductor is a magnetic field.
Constant
current has a constant speed of rotation on each individual section of the
conductor. But each section has a different speed of rotation of the ether,
depending on the position of the section along the length of the conductor.
This speed
in our model represents the electric voltage. The speed of rotation in
different areas is different, due to the fact that the ether gas has to
overcome the resistance of the internal crystal structure. As a result, the
speed of rotation slows down, that is a voltage drop.
So, in our
model there is braking (negative acceleration) of gas (ether) rotation. And the
acceleration of the ether, according to the Law of Mechanics, is proportional
to the force applied to the lattice. Under the influence of this lattice, and
the conductor as a whole, subjected to mechanical deformation.
Part of the
ether gas, colliding with the lattice deviates from the rotational motion set
by the electric source and produces local chaotic vortices around the lattice
elements. According to our model, these swirls are heat. The rotation speed of
these chaotic vortices in our model is equivalent to the temperature of the
conductor.
The more thin
the grid cells, the greater the grid resistance, and the greater the negative
acceleration of the gas (voltage drop), the lower the current, and the greater
the release of thermal energy.
The greater
the chaotic vortex motion of the ether, the higher the resistance to the
externally excited ordered electric vortex. This is confirmed by the increase
in electrical resistance of ordinary conductors with increasing temperature.
The most
extreme on acceleration is a situation of short circuit of an electricity
source. In our model, this is the situation when the gas rotation speed at the
end of the cylinder is zero. That is, there is a complete deceleration of the
gas rotation throughout the length of the cylinder. As the length of the
cylinder (or its resistance) decreases, the negative acceleration of the gas
tends to infinity, since the velocity of the ether gas varies from its initial
value to zero in a very short distance.
The
electric voltage characterizes the rotation speed (assume that this is the
angular velocity) of the ether vortex:
U (voltage) = ω
The
conductivity of the electrical circuit is proportional to the volume of free
ether inside the conductor, which can be involved in the vortex motion. The
amount of free ether inside the conductor depends on the characteristics of the
internal structure of a particular conductor, and determines its conductivity.
Accordingly,
the electrical resistance is inversely proportional to the amount of free ether
that can be involved in the ordered vortex motion inside the conductor. In general,
the electrical resistance is inversely proportional to the volume of the
conductor. For a circular conductor, the electrical resistance is inversely
proportional to the radius of the conductor:
R(resistance) ~ 1/r, where r is the radius of the ether vortex
It becomes
clear observed in practice the correlation of electrical conductivity and
thermal conductivity for many substances.
For both of these properties (both for electrical conductivity and for thermal conductivity), it is necessary to have free ether in the structure of the substance. And also it is necessary to have stable structures serving as centers (supports) of vortices, which in turn should be located between themselves at distances allowing to form closed (continuous) extended structures of ether vortices.
The chart of values of the electrical conductivity superimposed on a graph of the thermal conductivities of the elements of the periodic system. Almost perfect correlation of these properties is obvious.
As an
analogy, electricity can be compared to a concentrated and ordered form of
heat. This ordered form of heat needs external excitation (power supply) to
maintain its continuous internal structure.
The
empirical Wiedemann – Franz law (according to which the ratio of the
coefficient of thermal conductivity to the coefficient of electrical
conductivity for all metals is approximately the same and varies in proportion
to the absolute temperature) naturally follows from our explanation of
electrical phenomena. In addition, our approach explains the properties of all
elements, including semiconductors and nonmetals.
Also, our
theory makes it easy and logical to explain:
— poor
electrical conductivity of gases
— increase
of electrical conductivity of gases with pressure decrease
— features
of electrical conductivity of liquids
—
electrical properties of vacuum (mere ether)
Here it makes sense to return once again to the definition of the mass of bodies from the standpoint of the Law of Mechanics, which, as we established earlier – can be represented as a coefficient of resistance to the leakage of ether through the body. Absolutely identical to the definition of the conductivity (ether mass) as “the coefficient of resistance to leakage of ether through the body” we use in the case of electrical phenomena.
Next, we
will consider in more detail some specific electrical phenomena and effects. In
all of them, the electric current plays a role, but the degree of influence of
the current on the final effect will always be different, depending on the
nature of the effect.
The Law of Mechanics 