East Meets West Logic...

[Lloyd Gillespie]

To be perfectly clear about this replacement of relativity with "absolutivity" the pertinent factors are as follows.
(a) All motion is absolute, that is, it is relative to an absolute, prime frame of reference.
In normal human experience the absolute frame of reference cannot be detected so that motion seems to be relative, but that is only an appearance.
(b) The absolute frame of reference is not a "preferred" frame of reference in the sense of having special or different physical laws. It is a "prime" reference system in that all physical reality is relative to it.
That is why the universe is invariant. For physical reality there is only one grand system of reference for everything. The universe does not "know" about our frames of reference; it simply is in its natural frame of reference, everywhere. It would be ridiculous for it not to be invariant.
This goes counter to some of the most basic accepted concepts of 20th Century physics. Consequently, it requires substantial justification, which is as follows.
(1) A medium is required for electro-magnetic waves. They either propagate in a medium or are themselves propagation of the wave "substance" or else they have no existence. Since they exist, and since their propagation is a transverse wave, not longitudinal, and since there has never been a contention that electro-magnetic waves involve motion of anything in the direction of wave propagation other than that of the wave's energy and momentum, the medium must exist.
One cannot say that there is no electro-magnetic wave medium just "field". "Field" is merely a code-word for "action at a distance", an inability to actually explain the mechanism and actions involved.
A medium is also required to define and set the propagation velocity of the waves to

c, the speed of light. Without a medium there is no cause of a universal fixed value of c nor μ and ε, the dielectric constant and permeability of free space.
(2) As described in the General Theory of Relativity, "curved" space-time, due to the variation of gravitation with the distribution of mass in the universe, and the gravitational field pervading the universe with its shape due to that variation,

4

is itself a frame of reference. Since space-time is not uniformly "flat", the shape variations make possible detection not only of acceleration but also of absolute velocity relative to the total mass as distributed in the universe.
But, that reference frame is identical to the reference frame of the singularity at which the universe started with the "big bang".
(3) There exists throughout the universe a background radiation which is the residual radiation from the immense energy of the "big bang", the start of the universe. The temperature has now cooled down from the extremely high levels at the beginning to only about

2.7◦Kelvin. That radiation is, of course, relative to the beginning, relative to "where the "big bang" took place. Measurements of Doppler frequency shift of this radiation due to the motion of the Earth give an absolute velocity for the Earth relative to the medium of about 370 km/sec. The absolute direction of the Earth's motion as indicated by those measurements is off in the direction from Earth of the constellation Leo.
The absolute velocity of the Earth is sufficiently low that observations from Earth are equivalent (within the accuracy involved] to observations from at rest in the absolute frame of reference.

v

Earth ~ 370 km/sec

┌
┐ │

v2 │½

E

│1 - ─── │ = 0.999,999,2 ...

│

2│

c

└ ┘

(4) The Lorentz contractions must actually occur, not be mere observational effects. According to the theory of relativity, an object in motion experiences slower time. If two identical clocks agree and one clock is then moved away and returned while the other is motionless [in relativistic terminology if one is moved away and then returned relative to the other from which observations are made] the moved clock must read an earlier time than the unmoved clock even when both are again at rest in the same frame of reference. When both are so again together and at rest there can be no observational quirk to cause them to read different times. The moved clock must have actually run slower.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

It could be argued that the moved clock had to be accelerated to be moved so that the overall process was not a constant velocity situation. That is not the contention of relativity, however, which states that the moved clock does run slower and relies on the fact of acceleration to make the distinction as to which clock was moved and which stayed at rest.
(5) Consider three clocks, #1, #2, and #3, at constant velocities

v1, v2, and v3. According to relativity the time of clock #3 is contracted by some amount relative to Clock #1. Likewise Clock #3 is time contracted relative to Clock #2, but by some different amount. But, Clock #3, with a time contraction relative to Clock #1 in an amount based on the velocity difference between Clock #1 and Clock #3, and with a time contraction relative to Clock #2 based on the velocity difference between Clock #2 and Clock #3, cannot be actually contracted two different amounts at the same moment. Since the contraction must be actual, not solely observational, an absurdity results.
The solution to this problem is simple. All clocks are actually, as observed from the prime frame of reference, contracted according to their absolute velocity relative to that frame, not according to their velocity relative to another moving clock. In addition, an observer at a moving clock observes somewhat different results than those actual absolute contractions because his standards of measurement have also been contracted by his own motion [even though they

5

appear unchanged to him]. This produces an observed, but not actual modification of the absolute, actual contraction.
[Of course, if one of the moving clocks is moving at a modest velocity the difference between its at rest dimensions and its actual contracted ones is so small that the observations from that slow-moving clock would be essentially equivalent to from at rest, the very case set out for planet Earth in (3) above.]
In his original paper on relativity Einstein contended that there was no way that an observer experiencing acceleration could distinguish between whether his system was actually accelerating in a region free from gravitation or was actually at rest in a gravitational field. In fact, that contention is incorrect and the distinction can be made by local measurement, as is now known. The distinction occurs because gravitation follows an inverse square law in practice in the real universe and gravitation is inherently radial relative to the gravitating mass.
One could say that Einstein was largely correct but for partially incorrect reasons. The same can be said of the effect of absolutivity on cosmology and space-time physics. The results obtained by traditional 20th Century physics and the theories leading to them are largely correct. Absolutivity only restores the medium and the prime [but not "preferred", special, nor having different physical laws] frame of reference.
The fact that until recently we could detect no absolute velocity and that even now it is only detectable with special scientific effort does not mean that all motion is relative, it only means that we have not developed the means for ready detection of absolutivity. There have been many other things that were undetectable in the past but that are not so now: germs, distant stars, x-rays, atoms, etc.
The Theory of Relativity has required mind-twisting adjustments to way of thinking, adjustments away from the reasonable and "apparent" to a mass of paradoxes and their proposed resolutions. Absolutivity retains contact with reality both in describing physical reality accurately and by doing so in a fashion much more consistent with reasonableness.
With absolutivity the principle of invariance becomes simple, practical and apparent in addition to being necessary as it always was. There is only one "system", the universe with some parts moving in various ways and some parts at rest and that one system has, of course, one overall set of physical laws throughout. Before absolutivity, invariance was necessary but was crying for an explanation, a cause. One can see no particular reason why invariance should be necessarily automatically true in the universe of the Theory of Relativity. Absolutivity solves the problem by showing the natural inevitability of invariance.
Why does this new medium succeed when all prior attempts to define an "aether" without contradictions failed? The reason is the nature of the electro-magnetic wave medium, as follows.
Electro-magnetic field is cyclically changing electric and magnetic field. It is caused by changing motion of electric charge. The changes are changes in the always-present static field of electric charge. The variations in the static field are relative to its average value, the static field amount in the absence of motion of charge. The magnetic field is a further variation in the static field, a distortion of it due to the effect of charge motion.
Static electric field is normally thought of as just that, static. But, if electro-magnetic waves are merely variations in that field and yet they propagate at the speed of light, then the static electric field must be a propagation of some thing at the speed of light,

c. Such a propagation model of static electric field is essential. Otherwise communication at speeds in excess of the speed of light could take place by making static field changes. See Inertial Mass, Its Mechanics - What It Is; How It Operates 2.
That propagation, the static electric field, is the medium, the "aether", and it is relative to the universe' prime frame of reference, that of the "Big Bang", that of where its source charges originated, where they were before motion carried them elsewhere. That propagation emanates from each charge, originally from the origin of the "Big Bang" and now from wherever each

6

charge is. It, itself carries the controlling parameters

μ and ε. See Gravitational Mass, Its Mechanics - What It Is; How It Operates 3.

It is now time to address the apparent paradox that was left as a question at the beginning of this discussion. The apparent paradox had two elements.
First
A charge at rest relative to the Earth's surface exhibits to us, who are also at rest relative to the Earth's surface, no magnetic field even though the charge is clearly in motion with the Earth's surface rotating about the planet's axis, revolving about the sun and moving relative to and with the galaxy.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Second
A charge in motion in an electric wire [as a current] does exhibit a magnetic field to us, who are [in this problem] moving with the same velocity as the charge even though the charge is at rest relative to us.
Although there are these two elements to the problem, they are one overall problem, an apparent inconsistency in physical laws. The inconsistency results directly from relativity and resolves when absolutivity is applied.
Considering first the problem of the wire, absolutivity answers with the solution,
"Since the current in the wire is in absolute motion, it exhibits the usual magnetic field regardless of the motion of the observer. The only effect of the observer's motion is to change his standards of measurement and, therefore, the magnitude of the magnetic field as he measures it."
Relativity responds,
"No, the explanation is that, although the current of the charge moving relative to the wire is zero relative to the observer moving at the same velocity, the overall wire including the charge is electrically neutral so that the wire moving 'rearward' without the charge [as the observer sees it] is an opposite charged wire moving in the opposite direction and produces the same magnetic field to the observer as he would see if he were at rest relative to the wire and he were observing the charge moving 'forward'. In other words, a wire moving 'rearward' while its current stands still gives the same magnetic field as the wire standing still and its current moving 'forward'."
Absolutivity then closes the discussion with,
"If relativity were valid that would be a true and good analysis, but the same problem as that of the wire can be stated for a beam of charged particles in empty space without the wire. In such a case the magnetic field behavior is the same, the paradox for relativity is the same, but there is no 'wire' to travel 'rearward'. Thus, only the explanation of absolutivity will resolve the problem."
[This also illustrates the simplicity of absolutivity as compared to the complications of relativity.]

The first part of the paradox, that of the charge at rest on the Earth's surface, is simply a case of magnitudes. In fact the charge at rest relative to the moving Earth is in absolute motion and does exhibit the expected magnetic field. However, the field is too small to be noticed. The magnitude of magnetic field is less than the corresponding electric field magnitude by a factor of [

v2/c2], the v being the velocity of the charges whose motion, as electric current, produces the magnetic field. The velocity of Earth [presented earlier above] is less than 10-3 of the speed of light so that [v2/c2] < 10-6.

In addition, of course, the Earth is overall electrically neutral and the magnetic field due to its motion in space consists largely of a pair of equal and opposite such fields.

7

PHILOSOPHIC COMMENTS ON THE NEW RESULT:

"ABSOLUTIVITY" REPLACING RELATIVITY

Science on the large scale, that is science dealing with the fundamentals of reality and the universe, has always had and still has a major effect on the non-scientific - social - general philosophic thinking of that science’s society and its leaders.

The beginning of the scientific method and the work of scientists such as Copernicus and Galileo resulted in the new period of "The Age of Reason" and "The Enlightenment" – rationality and empiricism replacing dogma and faith.

The new developments that Newton introduced led directly to the concept of the "clockwork universe" and the strong belief in laws, order and regularity.

And, Einstein’s theory of relativity coupled with the 20th Century’s attribution of actual uncertainty or indeterminism to all physical objects, an extension far beyond the original valid Heisenberg Uncertainty of measurement due to the act of measuring changing the object measured, resulted in our contemporary outlook of a probabilistic reality with no certainty, everything relative with no firm truths, upon which we can lay some of the responsibility for the horrors and tragedies of the 20th Century.

How is that so ?

[Lloyd Gillespie]

In general, a statement and its contradiction cannot be simultaneously true. Therefore, there are some absolute truths. Thus there is absolute truth, which is the collective body of absolute truths.
Not all statements are absolute truths. Aside from error, which by definition is not true, there is opinion. For example:
· Some people state their liking for candy; some their dislike. It is a matter of opinion.
· But, the statement "Some candy has properties that appeal to some people" is an absolute truth.
The point of view that the questions, "What is truth ?" and "What is real ?" are meaningless questions without answers is not only incorrect but quite negative and harmful in that it suppresses inquiry and progress that could otherwise take place.
Truth is that which conforms to and describes reality. Reality is that which is, not only matter and energy in their various forms but also: feelings and emotions, ideas and cultures, languages and arts, and so forth.
Whether we can know, sense, measure, or understand some aspect of reality or not it still, nevertheless, is.
Its being does not depend on our consent nor our observation nor our understanding of it, nor even our own being. We are not gods.
The problem is not whether there is absolute truth or not -- there is. The problem is finding out, coming to know, what the absolute truth is, what is true and what is not. Just what is the "real" reality.
This problem has beset mankind since the earliest stages of the development of our reasoning. It has resulted in a more or less collective decision to grant equal validity to a number of different versions of the truth in spite of their being mutually contradictory.
Not that individuals, organizations and governments hold the opinion that their own version of the truth is not correct. Rather, they ardently believe in the correctness of their own views. But, their inability to prove their views and their inability to defeat differing or opposing
8
views necessitates their getting along in some fashion with those other views and the multiplicity of contradictory views of reality.
That state of affairs has existed for so many human lifetimes that it has essentially implanted in our collective and individual thinking the incorrect belief that there is no absolute truth, that truth is what we say it is -- especially that truth is what we can enforce it to be.
We have gone from inability to determine the truth to non-belief in its existence and then to belief that truth, and reality, are whatever we choose to believe them to be and can force on our fellows.
The most significant characteristic of the 20th Century, other than its explosion of technology, has been its adoption of the attitude that truth is different for each person and each case, that it is what each individual perceives it to be -- that there is no objective reality, only the subjective reality as perceived by each individual -- that all is relative.
The great damage that such thinking does is the license that it gives. It gives license to create, choose, decide upon one's own "reality" and then act accordingly. Such thinking ultimately gives us war, rapine, holocausts.
But, if there is an absolute reality, objective truth, then, even if we are not able to completely know and understand it, we are subject to it. We are measured and judged by it; we experience the effects and consequences of it whether we agree and approve or not, and we feel compelled to behave accordingly.
Thus absolute reality and objective truth,
which indeed exist,
also are desirable and beneficial.
They are, in fact, essential to civilized society.
And, that is the beneficial result of Absolutivity replacing Relativity.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

And now for Mass...............................

[labelwench]

I'm thinking that the fissile properties of Uranium 235 may be the reason that you have selected it for this diagram.

Is this a sustained chain reaction? (I know nothing!)

Can you explain how Krypton and Barium (I believe that's what the symbols stand for) are involved in this depiction?

In really, really simple terms for me, if you please.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

In fission processes of Uranium, whether bombs or nuke plants, transmutations take place producing many other elements, and compounds, of which krypton and barium are two... And yes, the pic depicts a sustained chain reaction__mass to thinner mass states, called energy__massive energy...

Barium (pronounced /ˈbɛəriəm/, BAIR-ee-əm) is a chemical element. It has the symbol Ba, atomic number 56, and is the fifth element in Group 2. Barium is a soft silvery metallic alkaline earth metal. It is never found in nature in its pure form due to its reactivity with air. Its oxide is historically known as baryta but it reacts with water and carbon dioxide and is not found as a mineral. The most common naturally occurring minerals are the very insoluble barium sulfate, BaSO4 (barite), and barium carbonate, BaCO3 (witherite). Barium's name originates from Greek barys (βαρύς), meaning "heavy", describing the high density of some common barium-containing ores.

Metallic barium has few industrial uses, but has been historically used to scavenge air in vacuum tubes. Barium compounds impart a green color to flames and have been used in fireworks. Barium sulfate is used for its heaviness, insolubility, and X-ray opacity. It is used as an insoluble heavy mud-like paste when drilling oil wells, and in purer form, as an X-ray radiocontrast agent for imaging the human gastrointestinal tract. Soluble barium compounds are poisonous due to release of the soluble barium ion, and have been used as rodenticides. New uses for barium continue to be found: it is an essential ingredient in "high temperature" YBCO superconductors.

Barium's name originates from Greek βαρύς barys, meaning "heavy", describing the density of some common barium-containing ores. Alchemists in the early Middle Ages knew about some barium minerals. Smooth pebble-like stones of mineral barite found in Bologna, Italy were known as "Bologna stones". The fact that after exposed to light, they would glow for years, attracted witches and alchemists to them.

Krypton (pronounced /ˈkrɪptɒn/, KRIP-ton; from Greek: κρυπτός kryptos "the hidden one") is a chemical element with the symbol Kr and atomic number 36. It is a member of Group 18 and Period 4 elements. A colorless, odorless, tasteless noble gas, krypton occurs in trace amounts in the atmosphere, is isolated by fractionally distilling liquified air, and is often used with other rare gases in fluorescent lamps. Krypton is inert for most practical purposes. Krypton can also form clathrates with water when atoms of it are trapped in a lattice of the water molecules.

Krypton, like the other noble gases, can be used in lighting and photography. Krypton light has a large number of spectral lines, and krypton's high light output in plasmas allows it to play an important role in many high-powered gas lasers, which pick out one of the many spectral lines to amplify. There is also a specific krypton fluoride laser. The high power and relative ease of operation of krypton discharge tubes caused (from 1960 to 1983) the official meter to be defined in terms of the orange spectral line of krypton-86.

Krypton is characterized by several sharp emission lines (spectral signatures) the strongest being green and yellow.[2] It is one of the products of uranium fission.[3] Solidified krypton is white and crystalline with a face-centered cubic crystal structure, which is a common property of all noble gases.

Metric role
In 1960, an international agreement defined the meter in terms of wavelength of light emitted by the krypton-86 isotope (wavelength of 605.78 nanometers). This agreement replaced the longstanding standard meter located in Paris, which was a metal bar made of a platinum-iridium alloy (the bar was originally estimated to be one ten-millionth of a quadrant of the earth's polar circumference), and was itself replaced by a definition based on the speed of light — a fundamental physical constant. In October 1983, the Bureau International des Poids et Mesures (International Bureau of Weights and Measures) defined the meter as the distance that light travels in a vacuum during 1/299,792,458 s.

[labelwench]

In the diagram, I perceive a force applied to the Uranium, from which the Barium and Krypton are released? or otherwise derived, and then more Uranium followed by successively more Barium and Krypton and so on.

The information you have given thus far is helpful, but does not aid me in understanding the initial force applied, and the mechanism of the continued action.

Perhaps my lack of a foundation in this area makes it too difficult for anyone to provide a comprehensive executive summary of what the diagram represents.

Ah well, it's not likely that I'm going to take up nuclear science as a hobby anytime soon.

I'll go back to nurturing nature, watering the garden, and tending the ranch, before it gets too warm outside.

Thanks for the background on the elements.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Yeah Lorrina, you can either use explosives and added neutron materials like beryllium, etc., in nuclear bombs, or neutron materials alone to excite the initial reactions in nuke plants. Boron is used to brake the reactions in nuke plants...

It's all extremely fast wave and frequency actions multiplying__all the way out__splitting, splitting and more splitting, somewhat like diagram three, but the U-235 producing more radioactive particles than anyone can list... The neutron bombardments split the proton cores in the uranium atoms__basically...

Sorry, in a hurry...

Later

In the diagram, I perceive a force applied to the Uranium, from which the Barium and Krypton are released? or otherwise derived, and then more Uranium followed by successively more Barium and Krypton and so on.

The information you have given thus far is helpful, but does not aid me in understanding the initial force applied, and the mechanism of the continued action.

Perhaps my lack of a foundation in this area makes it too difficult for anyone to provide a comprehensive executive summary of what the diagram represents.

Ah well, it's not likely that I'm going to take up nuclear science as a hobby anytime soon.

I'll go back to nurturing nature, watering the garden, and tending the ranch, before it gets too warm outside.

Thanks for the background on the elements.

[labelwench]

LOL, blame it on the heat.

Presumably, the specifics of the actual goings on at the nuclear level are not intended for complete comprehension by the general public, lest the fringe element undertake to experiment with same in a neighborhood nearby, as witness the political concern regarding nations that are proceeding to develop nuclear science and weaponry.

I shall attempt to refrain from posing you similar challenges in future.

Surely, if we may contemplate the origins of the whole enchilada, then what's a little fission or fusion between friends and colleagues?