The authors began their philosophical and scientific studies together in 1998. In developing their theory of omnipresence-the timelessness of mass-energy through which consciousness flows-they concluded that even though the concept of time provided consciousness with the ability to sequentially order events, it didn't function as a physical reality weaved into the fabric of space. They specifically questioned the premise of time dilation in Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity. As one thought led to another, this inquiry eventually led to a quantum model for momentum, movement, relativity, and gravity, uniting the physics of Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, and Werner Heisenberg. What makes this work significant is their absolute confidence in timelessness. Taking time out of Einstein's theories unravels the mystery preventing Einstein's work from being explained from a quantum perspective.
Einstein Continued ...
The Missing Model of MotionBy Martin O. Cook David D. MilleriUniverse, Inc.
Copyright © 2009 martin o. cook and david d. miller
All right reserved.ISBN: 978-1-4401-7621-0Contents
Preface.............................................................................ixIntroduction........................................................................xiAcknowledgements....................................................................xiiiChapter 1 Einstein Continued........................................................3Chapter 2 A Fifth Grade Science Fair Project........................................5Chapter 3 The Michelson and Morley Experiment.......................................13Chapter 4 The Missing Model of Motion...............................................19Chapter 5 Quantum Momentum..........................................................21Chapter 6 Quantum Movement..........................................................25Chapter 7 Quantum Relativity........................................................27Chapter 8 Quantum Gravity...........................................................43Chapter 9 The Illusion of Time......................................................51Chapter 10 Timelessness.............................................................55Chapter 11 The Past and Future......................................................61Chapter 12 Infinite and Finite......................................................65Chapter 13 Was Einstein Wrong?......................................................69Appendix 1: Gravitational Energy....................................................73Appendix 2: Questions and Answers...................................................77
Chapter One
Relativity Continued ...
A complete, consistent unified theory is only the first step: our goal is a complete understanding of events around us, and of our own existence. Stephen Hawking
After General Relativity, Einstein sought to unite his macro theory of gravity to the micro wonders of quantum mechanics. It makes sense that if the macro is made from the micro, there must be a valid connection between the two. Unfortunately, he died before he could accomplish this realization. The task we put before ourselves is to bridge the gap between these two divided theories, General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. For this reason, our efforts are a continuation of Einstein's work.
Four of Einstein's important big breakthroughs, including three in 1905, began with imaginative insights that led to the solutions: stirring sugar cubes in coffee, conceptualizing light frequencies as quantum particles, visualizing time as a variable, and connecting gravity and acceleration. This last one being his happiest thought. Through these insights came the mathematical validations.
Mathematics is the language of science. It is more precise than words. Yet, with Einstein, mathematics was secondary, at least for the initial breakthroughs mentioned above. Philosophical insights developed into working mathematical theories. In the same vein, we attempt to continue Einstein's work into the quantum level, providing the foundational philosophical insights into quantum momentum, quantum movement, quantum relativity, and quantum gravity. Our insights are futile if they do not yield mathematical proof.
The Role of Philosophers
It may seem strange that a scientific theory of great significance is being presented in this book by people who were not trained at the university in the art of scientific and philosophical thought. In essence, we are adding insight into a 100 plus year old theory that withstood the onslaught of the Nazi regime and its attempt to discredit it. As hinted by Einstein-when one hundred or so scientists challenged in a formal statement one of his theories-if he were wrong, it would only take one.
As we question the validity of Einstein's use of time in the Special Theory of Relativity and the creation of space-time in the General Theory of Relativity, we admire Einstein's imaginative thinking and brilliant insights. In our opinion, he was a great philosopher and thinker who practiced mathematics and science.
The role of philosophers and thinkers is to question, to explore, to propose, to stretch the imagination beyond its present bounds, to turn things upside down, inside out, and right side up until the truth is made manifest for all to question and experience. Since our thinking is open to the potentials and consequences of timelessness, we are worthy candidates for this present task. The following is our current work on timelessness and physics.
Chapter Heading Quote: (Hawking, A Brief History of Time, 186.)
Chapter Two
A Fifth Grade Science Fair Experiment
How can the same falling object travel two different differences?
The catapult of inspiration that led to the development of the Missing Model of Motion came from an unlikely source, helping my daughter with her fifth grade science fair project. Before I get into the project, I want to walk you through the events that eventually led to the Missing Model of Motion. It started back in 1998 when I met David at a part time job at Sears. Due to the nature of the job, answering incoming repair service calls, we had a lot of time to talk between calls on the graveyard shift. Within weeks before meeting David, I had come up with the idea of omnipresence from a spiritual and philosophical perspective, the emphasis for the follow-up book to this one. As David and I discussed and further developed the ideas of omnipresence, we were naturally led into the idea of timelessness. This led to a discussion that if timelessness was a reality, then time-as we experience it-was a concept of consciousness and not a physical actuality. This realization naturally led us to the work of Albert Einstein.
Special Relativity has changed the way people think about time. Time became the fourth dimension, being weaved into the fabric of space. The basic principle of Special Relativity is not that complicated. Special Relativity is the marriage of two contradicting principles, Galilean Relativity and Maxwell's constant for the speed of electromagnetic waves. It is the mathematics and consequences of Special Relativity that indulges in complexity. One important consequence of Special Relativity is time dilation. It stands in direct opposition to timelessness. If time dilation is a physical reality, then time exists and timelessness need not be further explored. On the other hand, if timelessness describes the perpetual state of mass-energy, then there is a problem with time dilation and Special Relativity because they depend on the physicality of time.
In trying to solve the time dilation dilemma, David and I worked out the basis for a theory that we called The Propagation of Light independent of Uniform Motion. This theory predicts that the speed and direction of light travels independent of the motion of the object emitting it. At first, we believed this in and of itself would answer the dilemma of the Michelson and Morley experiment. (Some encyclopedia examples of time dilation show the speed of light independent of the motion of the object emitting it, but the direction of the light-as demonstrated by a light pulse in a light mirror following the same pattern of a bouncing ball in Galilean relativity-remains dependent on the motion of the object emitting it-see Illustration-8 and Illustration-9.) I wrote a paper and sent it off to Galilean Electrodynamics, an organization I found on the Internet. To their kindness, they reviewed the paper and sent it back saying that our theory doesn't work. It didn't solve the Michelson and Morley dilemma. This left us perplexed. We were looking for a quick answer to our time dilation dilemma. We then postulated that the speed and direction of light traveling independent of uniform motion must impact the shape and movement of matter at the quantum level, meaning that the independent nature of light was the cause of the contraction measured in the Michelson and Morley experiment. We just couldn't explain how.
Insight From a Fifth Grade Science Fair Project
The year prior to the science fair I entered with Sarah, the school where I teach sixth grade conducted a science fair and picked out sixteen students to send to the next level, the district level. I participated as a first time judge at the district science fair. As judges, we were informed not to worry about noticeable parental help as long as the students were highly involved. In the end, my school only sent one student to the state level, a student who apparently had parental help. I left discouraged, not wanting to participate in a science fair again, not as a judge, teacher, or parent. This attitude permeated my thoughts going into the following year's science fair.
The following year, for the best interest of my students, I decided my school would participate in the science fair process again. My goal as a teacher was to learn how to help students advance to the regional level. My plan consisted of helping my daughter Sarah, who was in an accelerated 5th grade program at a different school, do an extraordinary project. We were going to do it on the impossibility of time travel but struggled to find an applicable experiment as a lead for the topic. Then the idea came to experiment with Galilean relativity. We would compare the distances of travel of the same falling object from two different inertial frames.
Because of the complexity of the question for her project, how can the same falling object travel two different distances, my struggle to find an answer helped me formulate quantum relativity. This eventually led to developing quantum momentum and quantum movement, and then quantum gravity. These four ideas fit together so well that they became four aspects to the same model: the Missing Model of Motion. When I began this project with my daughter, I didn't think it would lead to these revolutionary ideas that extends Einstein's work to the quantum level.
The funny thing about Sarah's project is that the judges from her school didn't forward it to the district level. I was astounded as only a dad and science teacher could be. Now what? Since my school was granted seventeen slots and I only planned on using sixteen, I received permission from the person over the science fair on the district level to send her project to the district level as a representative from my school. At districts, she won and earned the privilege of going on to the state level, which is held at Brigham Young University every year. Unfortunately, to our disappointment, she didn't place at the state level. Instead of focusing on Galilean relativity, I went for it all and wanted to show the obvious flaw in Special Relativity. Sarah wasn't quite ready to expound on ideas I was still in the process of formulating. My heart goes out to Sarah as she gave her best effort to please her dad. She learned as much as she could about ideas swimming around in my head.
Here is the question that we came up with for Sarah's science fair project:
Question
In Galilean Relativity, how can the same falling object travel two different distances?
Imagine two observers. Observer A is on a train going 100 miles per hour. Observer B is watching from a stationary position on the land. Imagine observer A drops a ball to the floor of the train. How will each observer see the path of the falling ball?
The results are bizarre. The same falling ball actually travels two different distances.
We set up our experiment. Thomas, Sarah's older brother, would be in a car traveling at the uniform speeds of 0, 5, 10, 15, 20, and 25 miles per hour. At each speed, he would drop a beanbag at a designated spot 48 inches above the ground. He dropped it out the car window to the ground. Sarah would then measure the distance the beanbag fell from the designated drop off spot to the spot where it landed. When we performed the experiment, the results were interesting.
Even though the uniform speeds and distances measured were not precise scientific measurements, the results clearly demonstrated a pattern. With each increasing speed, the path of the beanbag increased for Observer B, Sarah. Yet, for observer A, Thomas, the beanbag fell the same distance of 48 inches every time on the assumption that he observed it falling in a closed environment. Because Thomas was dropping it from the window of a car, we could see the beanbag fall the two paths - the path observer B, Sarah, saw and the path observer A, Thomas, saw if he were in a closed environment. In the end, it was obvious to all of us who participated that the beanbag fell one distinct path, but depending on the relative position of the observers, the same falling beanbag could accurately be measured to fall different distances. How could the same falling beanbag be in two places at the same time, traveling through two different measurable amounts of space?
Drop a beanbag to the floor. As you watch it fall, ask yourself if it is possible for this beanbag to take two separate paths? Common sense dictates that the beanbag only travels one path. Yet, how is it possible that two observers in different inertial frames can measure different distances of movement or travel for the same falling beanbag?
As mentioned above, we concluded that the falling beanbag traveled one path. We then concluded that the differences in the observed distances were the result of the differing energy levels of the inertial frames. Observer A, Thomas, observed the falling beanbag from a higher energy level, the same energy level of the falling beanbag. Observer B, Sarah, observed the falling beanbag from a lower energy level of the falling beanbag. The greater the differences in energy levels, the greater the differences in measured distances of travel. A friend of mine pointed out that the distance Sarah observed was the simple formula of A squared + B squared = C squared. A squared is the distance Thomas saw the beanbag fall. B squared is the perpendicular distance from the dropping point to the landing point. C squared is the actual distance Sarah saw the bean bag travel from the time it was dropped to the time it hit the ground. The Pythagorean theorem:
To us, this experiment proved that the overall energy level of the beanbag increased with each increased incremental change of the uniform motion speed. Another friend brought up an interesting point. For Thomas, if he were to drop the bag and then quickly reach down and catch the bag, he would only feel the effects of gravity on the beanbag. He wouldn't experience the increased energy level due to the increased uniform motion. Yet, if Sarah, from her lower energy level, reached out and grabbed the beanbag while it was falling, she would not only feel the influence of gravity, she would also experience the increased energy level of the beanbag caused by the increased energy acquired by the increased speed of the inertial frame from which it was dropped.
Here is another way of explaining what my friend was saying. If Thomas were on a train at the increased uniform motion and dropped the beanbag into a box of sand that was on the floor of the train, the indent created would be the effects of gravity only. This would be the same indent for all the differing inertial frames dropped in the same manner. Yet, if he dropped the beanbag from the train's increased inertial frame into a box of sand outside the train in Sarah's inertial frame, the indent would be larger because the beanbag would be carrying the effects of gravity plus the effects of increased energy of the inertial frame from which it was dropped. With each incremental increase of speed of Thomas' inertial frame, the indent would incrementally increase in Sarah's inertial frame.
The transfer of energy from a falling beanbag into a sandbox in the same inertial frame is the effect of gravity only because the sand and the beanbag are at the same energy level. When the beanbag is dropped into a sandbox at a lower energy level than the beanbag, the transfer of energy is greater because the sand in the lower energy level is absorbing the effects of gravity and the effects of the increased energy within the falling beanbag due to the increased energy level of the inertial frame from which it is dropped. It must absorb the gravity plus the extra energy of the increased motion. The insight was that the increased energy manifested by the beanbag was not a force acting on the beanbag, but rather, it was actual energy absorbed within the beanbag. With each incremental increase in the uniform motion, the beanbag literally absorbed more energy into its atomic structures. The measured differences of distances observed by Sarah were due to changes taking place within the beanbag on the quantum level.
This provided a major insight into quantum relativity of different inertial frames. The same object in different inertial frames contains differing amounts of energy, which translates into differing amounts of mass. Energy is absorbed or released with increases and decreases of movement. A simple science fair experiment led to new insights into Newtonian motion, Galilean relativity, Einstein's Special Relativity and eventually General Relativity. Before we explain these insights in greater detail, we will discuss the importance of the Michelson and Morley experiment to Special Relativity.
(Continues...)
Excerpted from Einstein Continued ...by Martin O. Cook David D. Miller Copyright © 2009 by martin o. cook and david d. miller. Excerpted by permission.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.
