Member

Can Coriolis force accurately explain the spinning behavior of cyclones? One obvious observation about cyclones is that they all have converging movement while spinning about an eye, but Coriolis Effect is put up based on diverging movement. Convergence and divergence are two opposite concepts. More physics must have been involved in resulting in the converging movement patterns of cyclones.

This author do feel puzzled what has been found as evidence supporting the idea of a limited, or bounded universe. As far as this author can find, none! (1) Arguments rejecting an infinite universe is self-refuted. (2) Arguments advocating or serving as frame work for a limited universe is self-refuted. (3) No fact preventing the existence of an unlimited universe has ever been found. (4) Facts tolerated and embraced only by an unlimited universe are gaining stronger and stronger credibility as our cosmological observation skill getting more and more advanced. Overall, we have only two versions of argument regarding the size of the universe: infinite and limited. If the version of a limited universe must be rejected by evidence and logic, we have only the version of infinite universe left for choice.

With a down to Earth experiment, this article hopes to introduce a way that can help in principle to solve the mystery how gravitational force is caused. To help us to figure this force out, all we need is to allow an acceptance of a fluid, which not only fulfills all space we can conceive in the universe but also has a high intrinsic pressure. Both such a fulfillment and intrinsic pressure can find its answer in this experiment. Let's call this fluid Aether. This experiment would also lead to a believing that attractive force found in all gravitational interactions is not a reality. Instead, such an attractive force is actually a pair of pushing force acting on a pair of objects. In other words, attraction is a misconception, an illusion.

As the article goes on, it will soon come to a conclusion that Aether as a fluid has an intrinsic pressure in the order of $\times (10^{12} kg/cm^2$). Each particle comprising the Aether fluid has extremely small size, far smaller than any electron. Containing the smallest particles in the universe, Aether fills in every space that human can find, except at where geometry would not allow, such as at the core space of a tetrahedron, which is formed by having 4 Aether particles closely packed together. Of course, to enable the construction of such a tetrahedron with the Aether particles, geometry requires us to assume each of them to be a round ball. Only in such a core space does genuine vacuum exist \textemdash human beings can never reach it.

With the huge intrinsic pressure, all of the tiny particles comprising the Aether fluid must be highly packed with each other. Since we have not developed any instrument to test the mass of Aether, any concept about their density in this article would be expressed as particles per unit volume other than something like gm/cm^3.

Conventionally, electrons in an atom are thought orbiting a nucleus. However, a fact more true to the point should highly be that they just swim in the ocean of Aether when excited by energy, or just motionlessly float by a certain depth from a nucleus if not adequately exited. A state of being not exited for them nearly non-exists. Because of the Aether ocean, the traveling manner of the electrons around the nuclei cannot fit into what the Bohr's model predicts. Instead of circulating about each nucleus, they collectively glide back and forth across some distance covering many nuclei, riding on the support of the floating force provided by the Aether fluid. During each of their journey of gliding, each of them may sometime sink closer to certain nucleus, but sometimes float farther away from some others.

Due to the Aether particles' close proximity between each other and imposing spatial position, when an electron moves through them, the electron must yank the particles on its way of moving. This creates the interaction between the electron and the Aether particles. An electrical field is the manifestation of this reaction, both static as well as dynamic. That an electrical field is inevitably established by Aether at where some electrons appear and that the Aether otherwise stays neutral force us to recognize that each Aether particle is further composed of two sub-particles. One of them is particularly sensitive to positive charge and the other to the negative charge. Not only do they have sensitivity showing particular preference to a certain kind of charge, but each of them also has a shape. When the situation is right, such a shape would allow a big collection of them to line up to enable the appearance of certain helix. Of course, a big collection of such sub-particles would mean a big number of such helixes. Geometry tells us that two parallel helixes but \(180^o\) out of phase can form a spiral ribbon. It is this spiral ribbon structure that hides the secret of magnetism. Depending on the situation, such lining up can appear as a dynamic product due to the activity of electrical charge, or as a static product because of the shape of the nucleons. Any spiral ribbons so formed must withstand the formidable intrinsic pressure of the Aether fluid, which must tend to return the "twisted" arrangement back to a state that is untwisted. This tendency would make every spiral ribbon loop back to itself at where it starts once created. This looping-back characteristic inherently dismisses the existence of any so called magnetic monopole.

As the Aether fluid inevitably responds with its high intrinsic pressure to the movement of the electrical charge, its response would therefore result in work to be done or energy to be transported. The work done or the energy transported by the Aether fluid manifests itself via electrical force and magnetic force. If the response completes momentarily, an electromagnetic impulse appears; if completed periodically, electromagnetic waves are the result.

Gravitational force and the nuclear strong force are established based on the same nature of the Aether fluid. However, because of the scales of distance involved in the establishment of these two forces are so incredibly different, some details that can be extremely trivial in the gravitational force becomes gravely important in bringing up the nuclear strong force. Upon recovering those "extremely trivial" details in the exploration of the strong force, we should find that the Aether's intrinsic pressure should be necessarily revised with a much higher magnitude, in the order of $ imes 10^{14}Newton / cm^2$. This difference thus further brings in the contrasting difference in magnitude between these two forces. Since both of the forces are actually of the same nature, we categorizes them with one new term: condensive force. Although the nuclear strong force never exists without the presence of the Aether's intrinsic pressure, it is a short range force, acting in distance in the order of a nucleus. In such range, the Aether fluid pressure is escalated many folds above its normal intrinsic pressure. This creates a situation in which the strong force also competes with the Aether's intrinsic pressure. Their competition results in the so called weak force.

If the acceptance of Aether would lead to a reasonable explanation of the condensive force and electromagnetic force, coupled with the finding that the theory of relativity is mathematically self-refuted (_{[1]}), the science world may find itself difficult to resign from the task to re-evaluate the validity of the Quantum Theory. At least, as the article develops, the concept of photon is found to be self-refuted, and so is Bohr's model regarding atomic structure.

While the existence of Aether is viewed as a reality in this author's paper Aether, the Mother of All Forces in Nature, any attempt to look for ''Aether wind'' with Michelson-Morley experiment must end up disappointed. The major reason is the insanely high intrinsic pressure of Aether.

The Aether fluid should have made the world of particles. which comprised our universe, far simpler than what we have conceived.

It is the Aether fluid that has made the existence of all life forms possible.

Basic facts common to quasars:

1. Highly compact both in mass and energy,
2. Having a super massive material center,
3. Excluding the material center, the general existence of mass is in a state of plasma,
4. Rapidly spinning,
5. Periodical variation in luminosity,
6. Highly remotely located from Earth with high value of red shift.

In addition to the above common facts, a high percentage of quasars are also found containing jet streams. The strange thing is that the jet always comes in a set, with one from the set pointing in the opposite direction of the other, and both jets are highly collimated.

As far as we know on Earth, to create highly collimated beams of light or particles, technology must rely on lenses; be they optical, mechanical, or electrostatic. Beams that can travel even in the order of millions of light years and still retain their high collimation in many cases should be beyond what artificial lens can handle, let alone that the lens must be able to withstand the destructively high energy that the lens must let through.

As a thumb of rule, the higher the energy content is found in any physical entity, the higher chance of randomness is associated with this entity. Special filtering mechanism must be present for orderly output of anything to come out of this entity. Without a lens-like arrangement, how would the jet stream of a quasar stay highly collimated and remain in pair? Could this pairing have anything to do with the quality of collimation in our interest? In other words, must the collimation rely on some mechanism that produces the pairing? Or, if no pairing were to be present, would the jet stream not be formed at all? In nature, action and reaction always coexist, so do matter and anti-matter, as well as electric and magnetic poles. How should we relate the phenomenon shown by the jet pair of opposite directions from the philosophical aspect in terms of physical interaction?

In modern science, when high energy and high speed are involved, it has been so natural for a big number of science workers to apply Einstein's Theory of Relativity to explain many puzzles about which classic physics seems lead them to no solution. What is odd is that the jet streams from blazars, a special group of quasars, boldly present superluminal movement in our observation. To those who trust relativity, they say superluminal movement so detected is only a mirage, an illusion. Obviously, quasars, with their extraordinarily high energy content, have challenged us with this dilemma: Should this superluminal movement serve as physical evidence to topple the validity of relativity, or should we once again allow our mental work to contort what we observe as illusion? Are we sure we should forever let our mental work overpower the physical world?

Hubble's Law is conventionally expressed with v=H_0 D, where $v$ is the recessional speed of a celestial object, usually a galaxy, $D$ is the distance between an observer and the recessing object, and H_0 is the so called Hubble's constant. However, while this equation does give a straight line diagram between $v$ and $D$ , no publication is found to have given convincing argument regarding what has led H_0 to be resulted. In other words, v=H_0 D is only a convenient summary of phenomenon, but hardly an equation led to by genuine physical analysis.

No material we know of on Earth can withstand the temperature of nearly 6,000k found on the surface of the Sun and still stay in one stable structure as how the sunspots show. The heaviest element Osmium has a mass density of  22.6 g/cm^3 with a boiling point of 5285k, above which no one stable piece of osmium can be found. The next material found with higher mass density is neutron stars. All these potentially lead us to believe that sunspots are composed of material of mass density far higher than osmium. But what is its material nature?

With volumes that can reach even 1,000 times of that of the Earth, together with the unusually high mass density, the sunspots must have response to the gravitational influence from all the planets conspicuously different from the fluidic materials in their environment. The gravitational influence from the planets on the Sun is just an inescapable reciprocal response to the gravitational force from the Sun onto the planets. Therefore, as part of the Sun, the sunspots must be responsible of the exertion of the influence as well as sharing the corresponding reciprocal response from the planets.

When the size of the sunspot is mentioned in our study, we have been getting used to a concept that is portrayed by terms like contract, expand, and decay. If gravitational influence from the planets cannot be excluded in a reasonable speculation, we may have to include one more concept that is portrayed by the term ``buoyancy". As such, the visual effect of contracting in our view happens when a sunspot sinks deeper and deeper below the Sun's surface, whereas the visual effect of expanding happens when the sunspot resurfaces and exposes itself more and more in our view. So, given the unusually high mass density of the sunspots, true decaying of them in the sense of material integrity may not be a reality that our study can pursue.

Looking at whether the sunspots should have response to the gravitational influence from the planets, we cannot escape from the awareness of two numbers that are very close in value. One of them is the more or less than 11 year beat of the rhythm shown by the maximum and minimum of the sunspot population; the other is the 11.86 year period of Jupiter's orbital movement. In case the gravity of Jupiter does have influence on the cycle of sunspots, what about other planets? Further, we must be aware of that the Sun's spinning axis tilts by an angle of 7.5 degrees with respect to the ecliptic, but when a solar maximum begins, the initial few spots always show up near the 45 degrees latitude, north or south. Will the Sun's axial tilt also play a role in affecting the sunspot cycle?

Documents show that the Sun's magnetic field strength distributes itself differently across the surface of the Sun. At its polar field, the strength is found to be 1-2 gauss, whereas it is typically 3,000 gauss in areas where sunspots populate, and 10-100 gauss in solar prominences. Such field strength distribution thus reveals to us the following typical features: (1) the field strength at areas near the equator is far stronger than that near the polar area; (2) while the field is strong near the equator, it is further concentrated at where the sunspots show up; (3) number of the sunspots in our vision displays no direct proportional relationship with the overall strength at where they show up; (4) that 10-100 gauss is found in solar prominences conversely means that the field strength of each sunspot is comparatively weak until some chance is introduced together with a prominence.

Features (1) and (2) can be hypothetically realized by such an arrangement: A strong magnetic bar is placed deep below the surface of the Sun and this bar always has its pole pointing at about the equator, but never at either of the Sun's poles. Feature (3) removes the possibility that the strong magnetic strength near the equator is solely contributed by the sunspots; therefore this reasoning further emboldens a believing that a separate magnetic source other than the sunspots owns this strong field. Being not the source, however, the sunspots' appearance can serve as an index to help tracing how this source has been moving. Is it only coincidence that sunspot never appears at the pole where the magnetic strength is so weak? Feature (4) further witnesses that each sunspot is a weak magnet compared to the one hypothetically assumed existing far below the Sun's surface.

Reasoning in this article based on observation leads to a believing that the Sun is consisted of three basic material layers: (1) the out-most layer, which, in a state of plasma, is the layer in our daily view, and shall be called the fluidic crust of the Sun in this article; (2) deep below this crust is a zone that hosts the absolute major thermonuclear reactions of the Sun; (3) further below the nuclear reaction zone is the core body of the Sun, a spheroidal volume of exceedingly high mass density. This spheroidal dense volume shall be called the yolk of the Sun in this article. This yolk is embraced by numerous nuclear reactions, which happen all over on the yolk's surface in an isotropic manner with respect to the center of the Sun. Floating on this dense massive yolk is a gigantic magnetic material body MMB), which should have contained no less mass than all the sunspots put together, and its material nature should be essentially the same as that of the sunspots.

Floating on the yolk with mass far exceeding what our Earth has, this MMB cannot escape from the governing action exerted on it by the gravitational force from the planets, particularly Jupiter. Being a gigantic magnetic carrier, its whereabouts must in turn orchestrate the debuting and hibernation of the population of those magnetic sunspots through magnetic reaction. In comparison to this giant MMB, each sunspot is merely a magnet droplet, even if such droplet may reach a volume as big as 1000 times of the Earth. From this thread of reasoning, let's further pursue how the MMB and each sunspot are to form various magnetic "tube" that guides the appearance of prominence, solar flare, and subsequently the coronal mass ejection.

If c = 0 is what a physics theory leads itself to conclude for the speed of light, anyone would reject this theory without question. However, c = 0 is exactly what relativity "impeccably" leads itself to, with its own mathematical derivation. Not only this conclusion must violate a well-known fact c = 300,000 km/sec, which relativity takes as an indispensable assumption for the development of its calculation, but c = 0 thus also directly destroys the Lorentz factor: 1/ [ 1−(v/c)^ 2]^(1/2). How much tolerance can the Lorentz factor have if c = 0 is forced in its denominator? If the Lorentz factor’s validity must be removed, all concepts found in relativity, such as length contraction and time dilation and speed limit brought up by relativity, will no longer find any space to survive in the science world. However, c = 0 is a result that relativity’s derivation inescapably leads itself to. The Lorentz factor is an inevitable and solid mathematical outcome of the phenomena called aberration. Invalidating the Lorentz factor by putting up c=0, relativity must ruin its own validity. To see how the Lorentz factor is inevitably brought up by the aberration of a light source, which is typified by the so called stellar aberration, a reader is cordially invited to visit the other two articles of the same series by this author: Relativity Is Self-Defeated (2 of 3) —in terms of physics, and Relativity Is Self-Defeated (3 of 3)—Lorentz Factor, Aberration, and Ether.

The velocity addition theorem that witnesses the "impeccability" of relativity is actually an exact declaration rejecting the existence of the physical world fantasized by special relativity. The physical reality brought up by frequency shift related to movement, or the so called Doppler effect, must also ruin the concept of time dilation advocated by relativity. As relativity can only end up invalidating the physical world it promotes, human beings should have good reason to revive the concept of ether that relativity asserts not existing. 

The Michelson-Morley experiment, devised to verify the existence or nonexistence of ether, turns out that it has just placed itself in a wrong environment for its performance. Therefore, this experiment has actually never done anything to confirm or reject the existence of ether. Of course, then, it has never offered any physical evidence that relativity can use as a support. Possibly it is to many people’s surprise that the Ives-Stilwell experiment and stellar aberration are actually physical evidence demolishing the credibility of relativity while they are still thought supporting.

The Lorentz factor is an inseparable mathematical outcome of the so called aberration phenomenon. This article will show that the aberration phenomenon, an illusion, potentially appears in all observations in which an observer has movement in relation to the light source that he examines.

Detailed analysis on the true nature of aberration ends up giving us confidence on the existence of ether. Without ether, no aberration of anything is possible. Unfortunately, the conventional explanation of this illusion has been misled even long before the debut of relativity, but relativity, with its miss in calculation, just "legitimizes" the misleading, which then in turn gives relativity physical "evidence" galvanizing the "indisputable" look of relativity.

The conventional explanation about stellar aberration relies heavily on one equation, which is tanβ = v/c, where v is the orbital speed of the earth and c is the speed of light. Simple trigonometry mandates that this equation requires the existence of a right triangle that has a hypotenuse of value of √ c^2 +v^2 > c . During the observation of stellar aberration, on the inertial frame attached to the corresponding telescopes, it is exactly along such a hypotenuse that the light leading to the discovery of the apparent position of the star is found. As such, an observer directly facing the oncoming light traveling inside the telescope cylinder must determine whether the light hitting his eye is traveling at speed c or √ c^2 +v^2  . If the observer has doubt, he can just simply asks himself what if this light is the only light that he ever sees in the world during the time he finds this star. No known reason can support him if he chooses to claim that the light he sees is traveling at speed √ c^2 +v^2 .

A more thorough study on stellar aberration helps us to prove that time as one physical element is absolute; time advancement has nothing to do with any clock movement. The Ives-Stilwell experiment, thought to have helped confirming the nonexistence of ether, turns out to be solid evidence confirming the existence of ether.

With the invalidity of relativity displayed in the articles Relativity Is Self-Defeated (1 of 3) and (2 of 3) by this author, all the upcoming consideration in this article has no need to make separate argument to exclude the interference from relativity

The Lorentz factor is an inseparable mathematical outcome of the so called aberration phenomenon. This article will show that the aberration phenomenon, an illusion, potentially appears in all observations in which an observer has movement in relation to the light source that he examines.

Detailed analysis on the true nature of aberration ends up giving us confidence on the existence of ether. Without ether, no aberration of anything is possible. Unfortunately, the conventional explanation of this illusion has been misled even long before the debut of relativity, but relativity, with its miss in calculation, just "legitimizes" the misleading, which then in turn gives relativity physical "evidence" galvanizing the "indisputable" look of relativity.

The conventional explanation about stellar aberration relies heavily on one equation, which is tan(beta) = v/c, where v is the orbital speed of the earth and c is the speed of light. Simple trigonometry mandates that this equation requires the existence of a right triangle that has a hypotenuse of value of sqrt(c^2+v^2) > c . During the observation of stellar aberration, on the inertial frame attached to the corresponding telescopes, it is exactly along such a hypotenuse that the light leading to the discovery of the apparent position of the star is found. As such, an observer directly facing the oncoming light traveling inside the telescope cylinder must determine whether the light hitting his eye is traveling at speed c or sqrt(c^2+v^2) . If the observer has doubt, he can just simply asks himself what if this light is the only light that he ever sees in the world during the time he finds this star. No known reason can support him if he chooses to claim that the light he sees is traveling at speed sqrt(c^2+v^2).

A more thorough study on stellar aberration helps us to prove that time as one physical element is absolute; time advancement has nothing to do with any clock movement. The Ives-Stilwell experiment, thought to have helped confirming the nonexistence of ether, turns out to be solid evidence confirming the existence of ether.

With the invalidity of relativity displayed in the articles Relativity Is Self-Defeated (1 of 3) and (2 of 3) by this author, all the upcoming consideration in this article has no need to make separate argument to exclude the interference from relativity.

A criticism has been found quite popular in scientific study that the acceptance of relativity is based on faith. Tragic to relativity, this criticism is found to be supported by the most fundamental equation from relativity's original paper ?On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies? (herein after referred to as The Paper), published in 1905. Believing in relativity, two observers moving with respect to each other may not feel troublesome to accept that they do not have the same time readings regarding the same sequence of events. What must trouble them is to accept whose time reading should have dilated to match the time reading from the other observer. Of course, to someone who has followed relativity well with an unshakable faith, it may be only a simple mathematical matter to find out. However, can relativity really make things so simple for the two observers? With the same principle that relativity allures them to accept the concept of time dilation, relativity also agitates arguments that are equally legitimate between them to disagree with each other. When they finally settle some physical quantities that both can commonly accepted for time comparison, they found relativity has only left them with 1=0. Faiths from each of them toward relativity only end up with confronting each other, as well as confronting with acceptable mathematical rules.

1=0? One must feel inconceivable after he found that he is so led by one of the most revered mathematical piece in human history. To expose what is found as an error is to confront, no pleasure but only shock can be found when one feels to be compelled to slip into such a stand. This author wish so much that this 1=0 is a result of his mistaken calculation, but not something led by relativity. However, even setting this inconceivable result aside, calculation via different route shows that zero speed is found to be the only physical state in which special relativity can claim validity for itself; and the equations generated by special relativity can verify just that. It can be found, as demonstrated in the case study presented in this paper, that relativity dismantles the constancy of speed of light, and that relativity ?enables? material points of a moving rod to complete extraordinary distance without time consumption in the process of ?length contraction?.

It is well known that constancy of speed of light is the absolute foundation for this theory to be constructed. If light cannot maintain its constancy on speed, it must be of interest to know what is left to support the validity of this theory. While relativity has equations to forbid the appearance of speed that exceeds the speed of light in nature, the same equations either pushes some speed to exceeding such a speed limit or imposes c/2 as another speed limit. Shouldn't we feel irresistible to ask: Why the key points have been so well camouflaged in the derivation of this theory that it can escape the fine-combing done by so many scientists for more than a century? This author believes it is time for us to answer this question. In presenting this review, this author never ceases to wish some people would come forward to help this author realizing how mistakenly this author has been but relativity's integrity is left unchallengeable. Immeasurable thanks to the people who would spend time to examine this paper, or even to correct this author if he would like to do so, are hereby given in advance.