Food for thought
This section is a compilation of personal ideas which to my knowledge have not been tackled by conventional physics teaching, and in some cases contradict conventional physics. Sadly enough, once a certain way of viewing things has won over the opposing theories, a paradigm is cemented and enshrined as something untouchable, even if experiments seem to invalidate its very foundations. It is unfortunate that most books and colleges suggest that the existing explanations of science are final and that after reading the whole book or finishing his course of study, the student should go away satisfied with his wisdom. In reality, both foundations and frontiers of science are still very unclear even to the best scientists around. It is often easy to find out 'what' happens, but much more difficult to understand 'why' it happens. In fact if one would go into such a detail, he won't find any answers.
The rules of electricity, conservation of momentum and conservation of energy have been with us for over two centuries. During this time, most scientists have forgotten or have not even realised that we have no idea of where these rules come from and no concept of what causes them, but simply accepted as the truth. Few are the scientists that are currently searching for such answers, and this is amazing. Answering these challenging questions is potentially the most incredible step science will ever make.
It is not something new, that, as decades pass, science had to be revised from time to time, correcting concepts and introducing new theories. This upgrading process is however not usually done by just changing a constant, or a parameter within a few equations, but whole concepts have to be re worked, books re written, and old theories abandoned. The more time passes between each of these general science upgrades, the more difficult it becomes for the whole scientific community, including the students themselves to accept the idea of accepting a better unified science. If one studies the present day science situation, he can easily notice how fractured, patched and inconsistent, our current scientific knowledge has grown into. This is a sign that time has came for one of those general upgrade process. This is a short list of paradoxes in today's mainstream science:
Archimedes paradox: A massive battleship can float in a few litres of water.
Bell's spaceship paradox: Concerning relativity.
Bell's theorem paradox: Measured quantum particles do not satisfy mathematical probability theory.
Black hole information paradox: Black holes violate a commonly assumed tenet of science — that information cannot be destroyed.
Braess' paradox: Sometimes adding extra capacity to a network can reduce overall performance.
Carroll's paradox: The angular momentum of a stick should be zero, but is not.
D'Alembert's paradox: An inviscid liquid produces no drag.
Denny's paradox: Surface-dwelling arthropods (such as the water strider) should not be able to propel themselves horizontally.
Ehrenfest paradox: On the kinematics of a rigid, rotating disk.
Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox: Can far away events influence each other in quantum mechanics?
Fermi paradox: If there are, as probability would suggest, many other sentient species in the Universe, then where are they? Shouldn't their presence be obvious?
Gibbs paradox: In an ideal gas, is entropy an extensive variable?
The GZK paradox: High-energy cosmic rays have been observed which seem to violate the Greisen-Zatsepin-Kuzmin limit which is a consequence of special relativity.
The Irresistible force paradox: what would happen if an unstoppable force hits an immovable object?
Ladder paradox: A classic relativity problem.
Loschmidt's paradox: Why is there an inevitable increase in entropy when the laws of physics are invariant under time reversal? The time reversal symmetry of physical laws appears to allow the second law of thermodynamics to be broken.
Mpemba paradox: Hot water can under certain conditions freeze faster than cold water, even though it must pass the lower temperature on the way to freezing.
Olbers' paradox: Why is the night sky black if there is an infinity of stars?
Ontological paradox: Can a time traveler send himself information with no outside source?
Schrödinger's cat paradox: A quantum paradox — Is the cat alive or dead before we look?
Supplee's paradox: the buoyancy of a relativistic object (such as a bullet) appears to change when the reference frame is changed from one in which the bullet is at rest to one in which the fluid is at rest.
Twin paradox: A puzzling consequence of special relativity: a traveling person will return younger than his identical twin who stayed put.
In this section, we will investigate some of the 'wrong turns' taken by our teachers, with emphasis to the 'hard particle' paradigm, and solve a couple of the paradoxes listed above. The hard particle paradigm alone, which unfortunately has been carried over for many generations is the culprit for many wrong concepts in conventional science, that led to the excessive amount of 'constants', unnecessary statistical models, and 'blind assumptions' together with the acceptance of inevitable paradoxes. Until one grasps the correct concept of what is matter made of, he cannot say that he understands gravity, energy or momentum, since all these things are inter related. Once science accepts the concept introduced in The Particle section, the present day assumptions and unknown constants will be reduced to the properties of space, which are few and simple. Also, science has to be built upon a unified theory with zero paradoxes, since one paradox is enough to show that something basic is very wrong. Here we also go further to investigate very interesting topics as gravity, the so called particle-wave duality, sonoluminescence, platonic solids, nucleus fractal, sacred geometry, and higher dimensional space.
Recommended readingThese books are highly related to the major topics discussed in this site.Hover on images for details, and click to purchase from Amazon.com. 
|
