Archive for John Best

Comment/question

“Energy in organized from (mass energy, mechanical energy, electrical, chemical, nuclear, etc.) always eventually transforms to heat energy.” – This is similar to the “heat death of the universe” predicted by some as a consequence of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

“The transformation of energy is what we mark as ‘time’.”  – What I mark as time is the number of revolutions of the hands of my watch. I don’t understand how this relates.

Magnetic Field of a Wire

The transfer of spin from one charge to the next along a wire, which is current, also causes the charges in the wire to acquire spin in the plane perpendicular to the wire, resulting in a magnetic field. This spin, and the resulting magnetic fields of the charges, has the same orientation for all the charges along the wire because these fields can be thought of as “stacked” sort of like a stack of records on a turntable, or clutch plates, so that if one of the fields rotates, the rest of the fields in the stack are dragged into rotation with the same orientation. Current in the wire causes spin in the perpindicular magnetic planes of the charges because they have a somewhat staggered arrangement with respect to each other along the wire. They assume such a staggered arrangement because this allows charges with like spins, which repel, to distance themselves from each other to a greater extent. This staggered arrangement of charges along the wire allows spin in their magnetic planes to be created by the “bevel and miter” mechanism described above.

Fission versus Fusion

The current conventional view of nuclear fission is that energy is released when unstable matter is struck by energetic particles, sort of like a ball of compressed springs exploding. A similar explanation for release of energy by fission also appears satisfactory under the Universal Lattice Theory. However, release of energy by fusion, the forcing of matter together so that it combines into new types of matter, presents a paradox under current mainstream theory:

In fission, energy is released by blowing matter apart, while in fusion, energy is released by an opposite process of forcing matter together. Attempting to explain how it can be both ways becomes very convoluted under conventional theory. Many would have us believe that matter is converted into energy, a process they claim is described by the famous equation, unjustly attributed to Einstein, E=mc². It should be pointed out that this equation existed long before Einstein was even born – it is merely the classical equation for kinetic energy, E = mv2 (without the constant factor of 1/2 that is customarily included), with the v in the equation being replaced by c which is the velocity of light. All this equation really represents is how much kinetic energy a mass traveling at the speed of light would have. If one believes (erroneously in this author’s view) that the speed of light is some universal speed limit that cannot be exceeded, then it would represent the maximum amount of kinetic energy that a given mass could have. To interpret this equation as meaning that mass and energy are equivalent or convertible is an egregious misuse or misunderstanding of mathematics. Nevertheless, it is claimed that mass is lost in nuclear fusion processes. How can a loss of mass accompanied by a release of energy be explained in a sensible manner?

Perhaps fusion is the same process previously described by which matter is destroyed by black holes by being compressed into the lattice by intense gravitational pressure, except that the intense pressure is artificially created by explosive compression or collisions between particles at extreme temperatures. This would account for the disappearance of matter, and the release of energy which is caused by disruption of the lattice structure, with the energy propagating as compression waves in the lattice.

Electrons

One must wonder how classical models of atoms and molecules with electrons “buzzing” around in regions exterior to the nuclei can fit with the model presented in this theory of matter and the particles that comprise it being simply stable arrangements of electric charges held together by mutual attraction. As heretical as it may be, possibly there is no need for the concept of electrons. A number of phenomena can be satisfactorily explained by the idea that electricity is the spin of charges, and current is transmission of spin. We have seen how current in a wire can be explained as the transmission pf spin from one charge to the next along a chain of charges (the wire). Static electricity can easily be explained by the “rubbing” together of adjacent charges causing acceleration of their spins and thus augmentation of their electric charges. Van der Waals attraction might be explained by the field alignment model of gravity that is presented in the next section of this treatise as simply being gravitational attraction between molecules in very close proximity. While it is beyond the capability of myself or any other single individual to explain all phenomena attributed to electrons in terms of this new theory of matter, there are enough that can be simply explained without the necessity for the concept of electrons that this line of thought and inquiry is worth pursuing by open minds.

Need for a complete circuit

The reason why a complete circuit is needed for electric current to flow in a wire is because it is not possible to apply much torque to a chain of spinning charges that is open at the end, because the charges can spin freely; therefore no power can be transmitted.

The earth is a bubble?

The temperature of some magma
exiting volcanoes is higher than the melting point of iron. It seems
reasonable that the magma would have cooled some on the way to the
surface and would therefore have been even hotter where it originated
from underground. I am thinking that the earth is really a bubble of
molten magma and metals or whatever, surrounding gases undergoing
fusion at extremely high temperature on the inside (of
course the bubble is surrounded by a solid crust formed by cooling of
the surface of the bubble). Change of pressure of the gases
inside the bubble as they undergo fusion to heavier elements (such as
carbon and oxygen) could cause seismic activity on the surface and
provide an explanation for the carbon dioxide emitted by volcanoes. The
bubble may be stratified with magma on the outside of more dense molten
metals.

How can Jupiter be a methane ice planet if there is an ongoing fusion reaction?

The idea that there is an ongoing fusion reaction in the giant red spot seems to run counter to Jupiter being an ice planet. It would seem like such a fusion reaction even on a planet so large would raise the temperature above that needed for MGH to remain frozen. Additionally, one would expect the extreme heat of the fusion would dissociate the methane gas, releasing elemental hydrogen which would then sustain or even increase the fusion reaction reaction. This differs from the idea expressed in the theory that the fusion reaction is waning

Can a collision with another massive body begin a fusion reaction?

What evidence is there that collision with another body in the solar system could have produced the enormous temperature needed to begin a fusion reaction?

Note that the idea of a fusion reaction does square well with the Wikipedia data that the atmosphere of Jupiter is rich in hydrogen and helium, since this corresponds to conditions on the sun where hydrogen fuses into helium.

What evidence is there for so much methane?

The claim that methane or methane hydrate is a major component of Jupiter is in major disagreement with other sources regarding the composition of Jupiter, for example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter which claims approximately 0.3% methane and 0.003% hydrogen deuteride. How do you reconcile this difference?

What About Photons?

The description of electromagnetic radiation as waves or vibrations in the medium of the universal lattice makes no mention of photons. One might wonder how this theory corresponds with experimental evidence showing a particulate nature of EM radiation. The answer to this is that the experimental evidence does NOT show that EM radiation has a particulate nature. This is merely an interpretation of the experimental results. What the results of the experiments in question actually show is that under certain circumstances, EM radiation is absorbed or emitted in discrete quantities of a certain magnitude called quanta. This phenomenon could equally as well be attributed as a characteristic of the absorbing and emitting mechanisms, rather than a characteristic of the radiation itself. This is likely the case.