Dr. Paul Marmet Paul@Marmet.org View count: 1105 |
Professor of Physics (Deceased) Interests: Newtonian Physics, Big Bang, Redshift Nationality: Canadian Born: Friday, May 20, 1932 Died: Friday, May 20, 2005 (Age 73) Memorial Wall: read / add a dedication Related Websites:
Biography From 1990 to 1999, Paul Marmet was a Visiting Adjunct Professor of Physics at the University of Ottawa. He was a Senior Research Officer at the Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics of the National Research Council of Canada, in Ottawa, from 1983 to 1990. From 1962 to 1983, he was a Professor of Physics and after 1967 the director of the laboratory for Atomic and Molecular Physics at Laval University in Qu?bec City, the same place he receive both his BS and PhD in Physics. A past president of the Canadian Association of Physicists (1981-1982), he also served as a member of the executive committee of the Atomic Energy Control Board of Canada from 1979 to 1984. Marmet was elected Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada (F.R.S.C) in 1973 and was made an Officer of the Order of Canada in 1981. The Order of Canada is the highest decoration bestowed by the Canadian government. An acknowledged expert in the field of Electron Spectroscopy, he authored more than 100 papers on the subject. MARMET, Paul Ph.D., F.R.S.C., O.C. In hospital, on his 73rd birthday, on Friday, May 20, 2005. Dearly beloved husband of Jacqueline Cote. Loving father .... More - Ottawa Citizen, 5/21/2005. Articles: |
View count: 1384 |
Einsteins Theory of Relativity Versus Classical Mechanics by Dr. Paul Marmet KeyWords: einstein Pages: 200 Publisher: Newton Physics Books Year: 1997 ISBN: 0921272189 ISBN: 978-0921272182 Websites: www.newtonphysics.on.ca Read it now online Buy it now Description
It is very important to recognize the fundamental importance of the principle of mass-energy conservation. It took thousands of years of development for scientific thought to finally reject the magic of witchcraft. During the nineteenth century, scientists became convinced that matter cannot be created from nothing. Conversely, matter cannot be destroyed into nothing. It seems that even Einstein believed this, since he is the one who, at the beginning of the twentieth century, introduced the equation E = mc2 implying mass-energy conservation. However, he later developed general relativity which is not compatible with that principle. Indeed, according to Straumann, the "general conservation law of energy and momentum does not exist in general relativity". Twentieth century science moved backward in accepting again the magical creation of matter or energy from nothing, even if this is hidden in complicated mathematics. Contrary to what Einstein did, all the demonstrations in this book are compatible with the principle of mass-energy and momentum conservation. Using classical mechanics, we demonstrate that length contraction is a real physical phenomenon. We examine how this leads to the Lorentz equations. Then, we show how classical principles are sufficient to explain the advance of the perihelion of Mercury and derive Einstein's equation. The fundamental reason for this advance is illustrated with a classical apparatus. We also study the Lorentz transformations in three dimensions and the Doppler phenomenon. Then we see how the problems brought by the relativity of simultaneity and by the principle of equivalence can be explained using conventional logic. We also show how classical mechanisms produce perturbations in the internal structure of atoms and molecules. Finally, we show that the presence of intense gravitational potentials leads to degenerate matter corresponding to Schwarzschild's black holes. Einstein's relativity principles are not needed in these demonstrations. The only principles used are the ones already existing in classical mechanics. All the solutions are based on a physical model compatible with conventional logic. Einstein's theory of relativity is a mathematical model which is not compatible with the physical models described in classical mechanics since it is not compatible with the principle of mass-energy conservation. This is a well-known fact. It is claimed that the theory of relativity is so advanced that it is not possible to give a Newtonian physical description of it. It is also often argued that abandoning classical scientific concepts leads to a scientific revolution. It is erroneous to believe that a new scientific revolution must abandon the fundamental principles brought up by Newton's classical mechanics and logic which gave birth to all our knowledge in physics. Einstein's relativity assumes new mathematical hypotheses and ignores completely the concept of models to describe physical reality. Einstein supposed that time and space can be distorted and that simultaneity is relative but he did not give any serious description of what this really means physically. In Newton's time, physical descriptions of phenomena were accompanied by mathematical equations giving quantitative predictions corresponding to those physical descriptions. Einstein's relativity claims that nature can be described with mathematical equations without any physical description. There is a complete abandon of all the physical models that made physics understandable in Newton's time. Our main argument here is not whether Einstein's hypotheses are true or not. We believe that if Einstein's hypotheses are correct, they must correspond to a real physical mechanism. Such a real mechanism is described in this book using classical mechanics and classical logic. With Einstein's new logic, contradictory results have appeared. For example, Gerald Feinberg developed the theory of tachyons which move faster than the speed of light. There are also mathematical models calculating wormholes, strings, multidimensional space, superluminal objects, time reversal and even time lines. Certainly, these claims do not make sense when we use conventional logic. An expert in Einstein's relativity is described as an expert in the mathematics of relativity. Since the conventional wisdom of classical physics is not used in relativity, an expert in relativity is not trained to deal with Newtonian logic. Consequently, this book on relativity will be much more easily understood by an expert in classical physics since he or she already knows the mathematics and understands the classical mechanisms involved. It might appear surprising to some readers that relativity can be explained with classical principles. However, they will never escape out of their preconceived notions and learn how this is done unless they carefully read this book. - From the Preface. Book Review: Einstein's Theory of Relativity versus Classical Mechanics by Dr. Thomas E. Phipps Jr. |
View count: 1419 |
Absurdities in Modern Physics: A Solution by Dr. Paul Marmet Publisher: Les Editions du Nordir Year: 1993/1995 Read it now online Description When I chose to study physics, I thought that science was always rational. Modern physics has certainly failed to fulfill those expectations. For example, I found that the widely accepted Copenhagen interpretation does not allow us to believe in the real existence of matter and that the law of causality is not applied in quantum theory. David Layzer gave one of the most honest descriptions of modern physics when he said that modern physics is merely a computational device for predicting the outcomes of possible measurements. Unfortunately, his statement is true. Physics can be studied from many different points of view. Its aim can be to make numerical predictions of some phenomena or to present a rational way of explaining physical observations. These are two quite different aspects. Let us consider the first aspect predicting events. Using mathematical equations, modern physics can make predictions with extreme reliability. The mathematical formalism used in physics is so powerful that, when it leads to cases that can be calculated, it gives predictions that are compatible with all known experiments. This book does not directly deal with mathematical physics. Therefore, we will avoid using, as much as possible, most of the equations known in modern physics. We do not challenge any of the mathematical equations of modern physics. The usual aspect of physics, as being a computational device for predicting the outcomes of possible measurements, is not considered here at all. In this book, we consider only the second aspect of physics. When we deal with physics, we must ask: Do rules other than the ones imposed by mathematical logic exist? Yes, there are in physics some elements that do not exist in mathematics. Physics deals with concepts such as mass, length, time and energy. These concepts correspond in our mind to images different from the ones represented by mathematical relations. They have a different representation in our mind because they must be submitted to external tests. They have to comply with observational results. There is no equivalence in mathematics. A mathematical demonstration never implies any experimentation. Mathematics simply deals with the calculation of relations between those concepts. Once available from R. Yergeau, Simard Hall, 165 Waller Street, Ottawa, ON K1J 7N4, CANADA at $20. |
(2006) Dr. Paul Marmet Paul@Marmet.org, www.newtonphysics.on.ca 2006, 13th Natural Philosophy Alliance Conference, Tulsa, OK, United States
(2000) Dr. Paul Marmet Paul@Marmet.org, www.newtonphysics.on.ca 2000, 7th Natural Philosophy Alliance Conference, Storrs, CT, United States Keywords: Light, Deflection, Sun Lookup: light (157), sun (12), deflection (2)
(1990) Dr. Paul Marmet Paul@Marmet.org, www.newtonphysics.on.ca Apeiron, Volume 1, No. 7, pp. 20-27 Keywords: Black Holes, Schwarzschild radius, Big Bang cosmology Lookup: black holes (10), schwarzschild radius (2), cosmology (47), big (24), bang (23), black (22), holes (10), radius (8), schwarzschild (5)
(1991) Dr. Paul Marmet Paul@Marmet.org, www.newtonphysics.on.ca Apeiron, Volume 1, No. 9-10, pp. 119-139 Keywords: Big Bang, observations, redshift, Doppler phenomenon Lookup: redshift (27), big bang (23), observations (4), big (24), bang (23), doppler (15), phenomenon (2)
(1998) Dr. Paul Marmet Paul@Marmet.org, www.newtonphysics.on.ca Christine Couture Ottawa, Canada
(1990) Dr. Paul Marmet Paul@Marmet.org, www.newtonphysics.on.ca (15 pages)
(1989) Dr. Paul Marmet Paul@Marmet.org, www.newtonphysics.on.ca Grote Reber Tasmania, Australia; grotereber@worldnpa.org Volume 17, No. 2, (10 pages)
(1988) Dr. Paul Marmet Paul@Marmet.org, www.newtonphysics.on.ca Physics Essays, Volume 1, No. 1, pp. 24-32
(1998) Dr. Thomas E. Phipps Jr. 908 South Busey Avenue, Urbana, IL 61801, United States; tephipps137@gmail.com, 217-372-9491 Dr. Paul Marmet Paul@Marmet.org, www.newtonphysics.on.ca Physics Essays, Volume 11, No. 2, pp. 332-333 Keywords: Book Review Lookup: book review (2), book (2), review (3)
(2000) Dr. Paul Marmet Paul@Marmet.org, www.newtonphysics.on.ca (10 pages) 2000, Physical Interpretations of Relativity Theory VII, Burnley, Lancashire, United Kingdom Keywords: light, frames Lookup: light (157), frames (5)
(1996) Dr. Paul Marmet Paul@Marmet.org, www.newtonphysics.on.ca 1996, 3rd Natural Philosophy Alliance Conference, Flagstaff, AZ, United States Keywords: Length Contraction Lookup: length contraction (3), length (9), contraction (12) |
Relative Simultaneity? |
(1996)
Dr. Paul Marmet
Paul@Marmet.org, www.newtonphysics.on.ca
1996, 3rd Natural Philosophy Alliance Conference, Flagstaff, AZ, United States
Keywords: Relativity, Simultaneity, Time
Lookup: relativity (390), time (100), simultaneity (20)
The Non-Reality of Time Dilation |
(1996)
Dr. Paul Marmet
Paul@Marmet.org, www.newtonphysics.on.ca
1996, 3rd Natural Philosophy Alliance Conference, Flagstaff, AZ, United States
Keywords: Time Dilation
Lookup: time dilation (19), time (100), dilation (23)
The Apparent Constant Velocity of Light |
(2000)
Dr. Paul Marmet
Paul@Marmet.org, www.newtonphysics.on.ca
2000, 7th Natural Philosophy Alliance Conference, Storrs, CT, United States
Keywords: Speed of Light
Lookup: speed of light (35), light (157), speed (58)
Abstract: When we learn that the absolute velocity of light is c, we must explain: With respect to what, does light travel? For example, when we move away from a source at velocity v, how can we explain logically that these photons are reaching us at velocity c and not (c-v)? No physical description has ever been presented to explain why the moving observer actually measures the value of c instead of (c-v). The standard explanation relies on non-conventional logic such as space-time distortion. This paper explains clearly why the velocity is really (c-v), while the observer's tools always measure a velocity represented by the number c. This illusion is due to a two-way measurement of the velocity of light. The Sagnac effect and the Global Positioning System (GPS) can measure a one-way velocity of light. We show how the one-way velocity of light is measured as "c+v" and "c-v" using the GPS. All these considerations are based on mass-energy conservation, Newton physics, and conventional logic. |
An Alternate Interpretation of the 3 K Radiation |
(1994)
Dr. Paul Marmet
Paul@Marmet.org, www.newtonphysics.on.ca
(Absentia)
1994, 1st Natural Philosophy Alliance Conference, San Francisco, CA, United States
Abstract: |
The Cosmological Red Shift in an Unlimited Universe |
(1995)
Dr. Paul Marmet
Paul@Marmet.org, www.newtonphysics.on.ca
James B. Wright
1995, 2nd (A) Natural Philosophy Alliance Conference, Norman, OK, United States
The Overlooked Phenomena in the Michelson-Morley Experiment |
(2006)
Dr. Paul Marmet
Paul@Marmet.org, www.newtonphysics.on.ca
Galilean Electrodynamics, Volume 17, No. 4, pp. 63-71
Abstract: We show here that Michelson and Morley used an over simplified description and failed to notice that their calculation is not compatible with their own hypothesis that light is traveling at a constant velocity with respect to a rest frame. During the last century, mathematicians uselessly solved the Michelson-Morley equations in numerous ways without realizing that two essential fundamental phenomena are missing in the Michelson-Morley equations. We see that the law of reflection of light on mirrors must be corrected when the mirror is moving. Also, due to the transverse direction of the moving frame, light does not enter in the instrument at 90^{o} as assumed in the Michelson-Morley experiment. We acknowledge that, the basic Michelson-Morley idea, to test for non-isotropy of space-time by comparing times taken by light to travel in parallel directions vs. transverse directions, is very attractive. However, we show here that this test is not valid, because of those two classical secondary phenomena, which have not been taken into account. When these overlooked phenomena are taken into account, we see that a null result, in the Michelson-Morley experiment, is the natural consequence resulting from the assumption of an absolute frame of reference and classical physics. On the contrary, a drift of the interference fringes must be observed in order to support Einstein's relativity. Therefore, for the last century, relativity theory has been based on a misleading experiment. |
GPS and the Illusion of Constant Light Speed |
(2003)
Dr. Paul Marmet
Paul@Marmet.org, www.newtonphysics.on.ca
Galilean Electrodynamics, Volume 14, No. 2, pp. 23-30
Abstract: Special relativity theory is not able to provide a satisfactory physical explanation for the behavior of matter and light. For example, when we move away at speed, from a source emitting light at speed, the photons appear to reach us at speed c and not c - v. This apparent constant speed of light with respect to a moving frame is perhaps the most fascinating phenomenon in science. The conventional explanation in terms of special relativity theory implies an esoteric space-time distortion, which is not compatible with logic. How can we explain the phenomenon more logically? We show here that all such phenomena can be explained using Newton's physics and mass-energy conservation, without space contraction or time dilation. We have seen previously that the principle of mass-energy conservation requires that clocks run at a slower rate in a moving frame, and that physical bodies become longer because of an increase of the Bohr atomic radius. The present paper gives a physical explanation for the apparent constancy of light speed. Constant light speed is an illusion: light speed is really c - v with respect to the observer, even if his tools always measure. The key to the explanation is the question: With respect to what does light travel? A physical understanding is crucial in clock synchronization and in running the Global Positioning System (GPS). |
Incompatability; Simultaneity |
(1995)
Dr. Paul Marmet
Paul@Marmet.org, www.newtonphysics.on.ca
1995, 2nd (A) Natural Philosophy Alliance Conference, Norman, OK, United States
Abstract: |