Rhythmodynamics: The Interdisciplinary Institute of Rhythmodynamics & Institute of Energy Strategy
Rhythmodynamics: The Interdisciplinary Institute of Rhythmodynamics & Institute of Energy Strategy
of nature! Aristotle
Rhythmodynamics
Second edition, revised and extended.
Table of Contents
Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . From the author . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rhythmodynamics (RD) : its goals and tasks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6 7
Supplement (115)
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Scientists opinions about this work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Science: privatization of truth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The number of space dimensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Space expansion and the Alices effect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison of the RD and classical mechanics formulas . . . . . . . . . . . Action without counteraction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rhythmodynamics and vibrational mechanics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Phase-frequency tension and gravitational metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Black Holes (phase-frequency interpretation) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . About Louis de Broglies law of phase harmony . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rhythmodynamics place in physics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 116 117 119 121 121 126 127 130 140 146 147 148
Introduction
Truth is one of the ways of distorting reality!
In 1980s lots of science fiction films usually began like this: In the year 2015 after which achievements of the earth civilization were shown, namely ability of a free space travel, not just to the neighboring planets but to the far corners in the Universe. Conviction grew that this would become true. Unfortunately, the qualitative breakthrough in science and technology has failed to materialize for several reasons. One of them is that there is still no reasonable explanation of fundamental natural phenomena, and theres no knowledge of the nature of processes which form these phenomena. There are few of them: motion, inertia, force, gravitation, nature of the fields, nature of electricity and elementary particles. These phenomena and their properties are still considered inherent and therefore require no explanation. But not all think so. May be for this reason opinion was circulated that discovery of the physics aspect of these phenomena is beyond the ability of human mind, the same way understanding of the easiest technical appliance is beyond the mental abilities of a dog. With such attitude to human capabilities one can hardly expect any qualitative breakthrough in science. Therefore dilemma emerges: either to quietly sanctify ones own inaptitude, i.e. declare the modern view of the world final because any other views will never emerge, or to admit frankly ones own inaptitude, and run the risk of being fired, or wait for a messiah who might clarify everything in science. This second coming is actually expected in science; they even revived the practice of fighting dissent there, the so-called committee against pseudoscience. But this is a different issue. In 1997 a book called Rhythmodynamics was published in which the author expounded the results of many years of research of fundamental problematic phenomena. Ten years since lots of additional experiments have been conducted which confirm the conclusions and predictions made in the book. The new edition presents Rhythmodynamics as a method of examining the processes which form phenomena and their properties. The author would like to stress that Rhythmodynamics is not claming the role of a universal paradigm, but it can be quite useful instrument in solving complex tasks in theoretical and applied science. For example, the means of rhythmodynamics helped visualize the process of gravitation formation by the imposition on the elements which make up the body of the oscillators matching the elements in phase and frequency. Interference pattern in the form of a spider-effect has become an illustration of gravitational field impact on a system of two linked atoms. A way to achieve anti-gravitation has been predicted. An interesting formula was drawn up determining acceleration of material system in gravitational field at the expense of discordance of phase and frequency triggered by this field. Eureka! Another example of rhythmodynamics effectiveness is visualization of assumed interatomic processes which form self-propulsion of isolated molecules, like 2. This self-propulsion could well be the cause of Brownian motion. Special attention was paid to the physical phenomenon which the author calls compression of standing waves. This phenomenon was discovered in 1981 after a theoretical analysis of interference processes in Michelsons device. It was discovered that to explain the negative result in Michelsons experiment one had to take into account the wave nature of matter and to base the change in interferometers dimensions on the property of standing waves to compress with speed increase, i.e. on actual physical phenomenon. Such approach makes unnecessary all speculations about invariancy, as well as the postulates of the constancy of the speed of light, of space filled with void, ether attraction and lots of others. 4
In authors opinion, the achievements made in metrology could soon make it possible to stage an experiment in determining the speed of light in one direction, the results of which could help physics get rid of lots of rubbish both in the sphere of theory and scientific ideology. Mankind requires a clear-cut picture of the world, effective scientific instruments capable of solving practical high level tasks for the sake of well-being of all society. Wave geometry, a separate branch of science in itself, was suggested as one of the instruments, with the help of which a number of physical phenomena were discovered and processes forming these phenomena were modeled. For example, a model was created of a system of oscillators which has no outward radiation; amplitudeless way of energy existence was shown; relation of speed and acceleration of the oscillating system to phase-frequency shift between the systems elements was determined; the law of preservation of energy was examined and a new formula was drawn up as a sum of its manifest and non-manifest components. The issue of multi-dimensional world possessing frequency depth was examined in this book. A concept of frequency space was suggested, i.e. in our usual system of coordinates a coordinate axis of frequency depth was introduced. Such approach strengthens the argument in favor of the so-called parallel worlds existing side-by-side with us in our single space but in different frequency bands. Rhythmodynamics has made it possible to re-write the formulas of classic mechanics in such a way that they acquired phase, frequency, speed of light and Plancks constant parameters. Isnt it a firm indication toward the way of unification of classical mechanics, elecrodynamics, and quantum mechanics? May be such approach could help us make the first steps toward creation of a single physics, in which macro- and micro-levels of matter organization, phenomena and processes wont be artificially divided? List of the main issues On fundamental phenomena: 1. How exactly is the uniform and rectilinear motion of a body in space (motion by inertia) is ensured? 2. What is the origin of a bodys propensity to resist external impact (inertia)? 3. What is the origin of force, centrifugal and gravitational? What processes trigger the emergence of centrifugal force during the bodys motion along curvilinear trajectory? What changes in bodies does gravitational field affect, and how exactly do these changes trigger attraction? 4. Through what and how does interaction between elementary particles and macro-bodies take place? 5. Can the physical essence of electric and magnetic fields be comprehended? Can one understand the processes triggering the energy flow, including the flow of electricity? General philosophical problems: 1. What is container for everything possible which exists, and what is it precisely filled with? 2. What is the origin of continuum? Has continuum a proto-element? Is continuum even and uninterrupted, or is it endlessly and inwardly discrete? 3. Presuming continuum is even, inseparable, uninterrupted, how then can anything happen in it at all? 4. Can anything exist in container provided continuum has no proto-elements? 5
5. Can one create a satisfactory view of the universe without the notion of a reality? The questions of researchers consciousness and spiritual level: 1. Who is the customer, the recipient of information collected by the sense organs in the human body? 2. In what form does the customers representative resides in the body, and where is the customer himself? 3. What does the customer need information for?
Any phenomenon or property is based on the processes which form them. Its a general practice in science to regard phenomena and their properties inherent until a theory and instruments are created with the help of which such processes can be discovered. For example, until the emergence of rhythmodynamics the notion of gravitation was explained by the curvature of space or the flow of ether toward matter. We understand that this could well be so, but we want explanations to the curvature of space and ether flow. If they cannot be explained, i.e. regarded as a fact, a hierarchy of hypotheses emerges in which the unknown is explained by something yet more unknown. Which, in science, is looked upon as a mauvais ton. Another example is motion, i.e. the bodies ability to move in space by inertia. Such motion is regarded as inherent, i.e. something basic and preordained and therefore requiring no explanations. And how about matter as a philosophical category? How about physical fields as a special kind of matter, or rather special kind of philosophical category? With the emergence of mathematics (all kinds of mathematics are based of arithmetic) it became possible to determine correlations between the facts of micro and macro worlds. Somehow this came to be regarded as a true physics. For example, the rectilinear motion by inertia is characterized by speed speed is determined by a ratio of a distance passed in a unit of time. The question is what is the cause of motion? The answer is the cause of motion is in the force which has been applied to the body! Such answer doesnt reveal anything because the question referred not to the cause which triggered motion, but to the cause of motion as a process, i.e. thanks to what exactly the body moves in space in uniform and rectilinear way, what originates and facilitates such motion? The modern physics doesnt answer this seemingly simple question. In such case how should one treat the now fashionable physical hypotheses about creation of the universe, if we still do not know the origin of motion (theres no matter without motion)? The modern interpretation of the main fundamental phenomena and properties sounds more like a system of ritual chants rather than scientific explanations. Many researchers are not content with this. They are forced to conduct their own independent research so as to solve the problems which physics avoids to solve. As a result of such research Rhythmodynamics emerged with the help of which model analogies were created of those phe6
nomena under study. If anyone succeeds in creating a simpler way and means of explanation than Ive created Ill be much obliged to this man. Yuri N. Ivanov
There is a problem in physics of explaining the processes which form the fundamental phenomena and their properties. The problem is due to axiomatic nature of fundamentals and, consequently, due to seeming absence of necessity of their in-depth understanding, to say nothing of their visualization. But its the disclosure of these processes which is essential for a qualitatively new understanding of nature. Here Rhythmodynamics plays the role of an instrument for deeper penetration, which gives qualitatively new knowledge by making its visual presentation possible. The term Rhythmodynamics consists of two notions: rhythm and dynamics. RHYTHM (Gk.rhythmos). An ordered recurrent alternation of some processes, moments (acceleration and deceleration, tension and relaxation in motion or in the course of something). DYNAMICS 1. A branch of mechanics with deals with the motion of bodies under the impact of forces applied to them. 2. A pattern or process of change of some phenomenon. 3. Motion, action, development. In which case,
RHYTHMODYNAMICS (RD) is a branch of science studying the impact of periodical processes on formation of natural phenomena and their properties.
Specifically, Rhythmodynamics, introducing in classical mechanics the notion of wave medium, phase and frequency, using modeling and visualization of processes which form the phenomena and their properties, makes it possible to deepen our knowledge of them as well as discover so far unknown ties between the fundamental phenomena regarded until then independent. RDs goals and tasks Goals: research of natural phenomena and their properties through creation of simple and illustrative means of their presentation; reaching understanding of processes participating in formation of phenomena and their properties, starting from the stage of their inception; determining the adequacy of the drafted models to the phenomena they are supposed to reflect; a return to classical approach in physics, but at a qualitatively higher level. 7
Tasks outlined: to form an illustrative user-friendly instrument on the basis of Euclids geometry, arithmetic, algebra and trigonometry to analyze and describe processes participating in the formation of phenomena and their properties. to verify the effectiveness of the instrument in cases when the essence of mechanism of the most crucial notions, phenomena and properties traditionally viewed as inherent is revealed. Expected result To learn something new is particularly difficult, especially if you are past school age. So the best option is to introduce the RD elements into school text-books. For example, the teaching materials (see DVD) already created could significantly simplify the teaching and learning processes of some phenomena. Of course the rival forces would do their best to ignore and block such knowledge. But the book is already written! And its addressed to those who are not used in their relations with reality to rely totally to established authority, to those who at least tries to think independently, who sees that society as well as science and its system of views are in a state of disorder and conflict, to those who want to find out, understand and facilitate progress, i.e. make out life better.
Rhythmus: As if progress ever needed someones help! Im sure it will manage without any outside interference. The more so that instruments for this are abundant Galileo-Newtons mechanics, Einsteins theory, quantum mechanics, a powerful calculus, brand new laboratories and technologies. Your attitude might be more appropriate in the Age of Romanticism. Dynamicus: Are you trying to convince all, myself including, that everything which exists in the world has already been discovered? Including the nature of inertia, gravitation, nature of electricity, and so on and so forth? I suspect you are simply trying to cover up the inability of modern science to explain comprehensibly the most usual things. I suspect the commission to fight the so-called pseudo-science was created exactly for this purpose of hiding incompetence of certain personalities in science.
Trying to understand the elements of this world from the position of sound reason and natural science, our minds are confronted with a paradox which is neither possible to fully define, nor grasp. In other words, one cannot understand it, but one can get used to it!
The modern science has adopted the Aristotles interpretation of the postulate-axiom of continuum. Its easy to explain the mobility of the whole as all endlessly dividable parts move one against the other. This is an easy and instinctively comprehensible option, though in this case the answer must be given to the question of the continuums proto-element. Its much harder to explain the mobility of the world we observe if we postulate the continuum as endless and indivisible. By definition, such continuum cannot afford even the slightest shift because it would imply the presence of parts there. One might think that it would be impossible to create the physics of motion under such conditions. But this is not so, and there are 9
ways to do this, as there are real processes which can develop without triggering imbalance in the body of their agent. Our modern notion of continuum is that of a continuous material environment whose properties are constantly changing in space. Whereas a continuum which consists of no parts never changes its properties in space. Which implies an entirely different approach, different physics and different original basis. It would be useful to know what processes and phenomena are lying hidden along this so far unexplored path. It would be impossible to create either a proper world picture, or a good scientific school unless a deep understanding of science, natural philosophy foundations and primary problems is reached. And the foundation of science is based primarily on a seemingly natural assertion: The World Is! And its material. Its a dogma, pure and simple, without accepting which one can forget about such material science as physics. To prove the validity of this dogma, i.e. the material nature of the World, one has to show the proto-element with which this World is built. An impossible mission because beside matter theres always something, thats why in such cases the argument is substituted by sensual beliefs, but in the majority of cases they use the notion of a fact. But hasnt the modern science accumulated too many things which are taken for granted, with attributes thought inherent? Lets cite the notions and phenomena they derive from which in physics have so far received no scientific interpretation at the level of processes which form these phenomena: continuum, physical vacuum, ether, the speed of light, space curvature, various fields, motion, inertia, mass, force, gravitation, energy, electricity, invariance, elementary particles, expansion of space, singularity. Its apparent that the endlessly divisible continuum is infinite in depth, i.e. in theory its impossible to get to its root-cause. Nor one would try to dispute the infinity of the in-bound chain of the cause-and-effect relations which ensure the physical phenomena, processes and properties we observe. Which implies that any fact or inherent property is bound to have its root-cause. Motion, for instance, or rather, the objects transfer in space (in continuum). For the body to move in continuum and relative to it, changes should emerge in the processes which ensure this motion. And if the speed of motion has changes, the processes have changed too. The reverse is also true: the changes in the nature of processes trigger the change in speed. One should bear in mind too that the absence of motion is also ensured by certain processes, and as the body and continuum are in constant interaction (the body being a manifestation of continuum) then any changes in the processes trigger the body reaction. But what are these processes, and what is the essence of their mechanism? And what if continuum is infinite and consists of no parts? What then? Its not as if such continuum might have disturbed unstable parts
Rhythmus: What do you mean the essence of their mechanism? Dynamicus: Each process has its mechanism. Say, the field affects the body and makes it change the regime of movement. But what processes in the continuum determine the existence of the field as a phenomenon? How do these processes affect the body and in what way? How do these changes become transformed into motion? In other words, whats the mechanism? Any talk about the force of the field being the actual cause of motion sounds more like ritual chants rather than physics. The mechanism is a supposed or specific chain of processes which ensure the phenomenons fact.
So, weve accepted the dogma The World Is, and its Material! To begin the construction of a model of the universe (though the author sets a more modest task of constructing a model of the phenomena in the universe), we need such things as: container, continuum, the presence of processes, the observer. The construction begins with the latter. The observers presence in 10
the model is crucial, first of all, so as not miss the impact factor of the observer himself on the observed reality, and his perception of this reality. Observer is the pivotal point there. Without observer, continuum and the developments there need no explanation, they exist as they are! Whereas the completeness of explanation depends on the instruments used by the observer, among which are the sense organs, the mind and technical devices extending the observers abilities. The process of building a picture of the world passes through numerous stages: the sense organs become stimulated by the incoming information the stimuli are transformed into signals entering the brain the brain assesses the incoming information, classifies it and presents it in a form suitable for presentation after which the question rises about the user and his agent, i.e. some entity which directly receives this information. We cannot fully describe the observer, though hes actually the focal point of all knowledge about the surrounding reality. As for this entity which plays the role of the information users agent, which we might call the Soul and take steps to find out what it actually is, we might run into another global problem which the rabid materialists are careful to side-step, saying theres no soul because theres no experimental proof of it. Whereas its precisely the soul, and every man feels it, which receives and assesses information. The issue of information user is even more complex, besides it lies beyond the scope of this book. Seeing the complexity of transformation of the input, coming from the outside, into the inner image, now we cannot assert that the surrounding world is actually the way we imagine it to be. In this sense our idea of the world and whats going on in it is always subjective because the real world may differ strongly from our inner perception of it. A good point in question is a connection between the type of information (the form of its presence) on the computers hard disk and its outward presentation on the display: a nice picture on the display, and entirely different thing on the hard disk. The information received from the monitor in no way reflects its actual state on the hard disk. Which means that we do not know what we are actually dealing with, and what it all amounts to.
Fig.1 The objects outward appearance in jpg. format (left), and a fragment of its computer presentation in the intermediary, between the hardware and display, doc. format (right).
Undoubtedly, the world we are studying does not match our notions of it. For example, the rainbow has no colors but signals of varying frequency; its our brain which colors these signals. For this reason lots of processes and phenomena natural in the real world may seem to us strange and illogical, sometimes completely beyond our grasp. This is also due to the fact that the researcher lacks perceptual abilities allowing him to receive fully the data coming from the surrounding reality. For the observer such information is latent: the processes and phenomena do exist but theres no way to perceive or register them. In this sense the observer is 11
always dealing with a limited notion of the object of his studies. Thats why the physical models he creates are often incomplete, and the yawning gaps emerging there are customarily filled with speculations in the form of axioms and postulates. Alas, theres no other way for us to judge about the universe. And lots of things exist and take place beyond our range of observation.
Container and continuum Container and continuum which fills it pertain to the category of undefinable. The only thing we can do here is to philosophize, but we cannot penetrate into the physics and the logic of such entities. In essence, we do not know what exactly we are dealing with, but we feel that container and continuum do exist, though in a transcending reality, and we therefore accept them as a fact. Besides, our choice is always limited: either materialism, or idealism. Lets present our own view of container and continuum. Container: endless and absolutely empty; related to nothing and existing independently, possessing neither essence, nor content; logically incomprehensible and thereby without physical description, i.e. without rational explanation. Role: to contain something. Property: always filled. If absolute emptiness cannot exist by definition, and its not clear what the container is filled with, they speak of continuum. Its essence, too, is beyond physical description, or logical comprehension. Continuum: continuous, incessant, uninterrupted, indivisible, consisting of nothing. The logic of the latter assertion is that if continuality were measured by endless divisibility, such continuality would have no proto-element, nor could have it. And if the dividable continuum has no proto-element, the question arises about the continuums physical reality. Such paradox can only be solved through conditional agreement in which continuum is recognized as really existing. The main role and the continuums feature: to be the proto-element of all. Processes We presume the elements of matter are the result of the disturbed state of continuum, and we know that this presumption is more artificial, than justified. Still, continuum has always been and will remain the carrier of disturbance, even if these disturbances are not linked with the shiftsome nature of the carrier. (Later on we will reveal the cause of the doubt which emerged and describe the state of processes, real for the observer, in which the use of the disturbed continuum is unnecessary). Outer and inner observers One cannot separate the observer from the observation of a phenomenon. His observations are always subjective. The observer is always a part of continuum, and hes always inside it. He cannot be an onlooker and observe the world under study from the outside. But he can create 12
models in which he poses as an onlooker. So, the observer acquires a chance not just to assess the proceedings being outside the model he created, but to analyze them from the inside as if he were a part of the proceedings examined in his model. The simultaneous look from the outside and inside makes it possible to form a more comprehensive picture of subject under study. The observers most useful quality is his ability to go outside the limits of his model in which the phenomenon is examined, and assess the proceedings from the outside. After a deep examination of the Elements one finds nothing which could justify their recognition as the foundation for the creation of the physical picture of the world. The observers idea of the elements is most likely to be based on his deep-rooted spiritual essence. Something inside prescribes, and we therefore are obliged to accept such elements: being, on the one hand, unable to imagine and suggest something different, on the other, because of our deep certainty that we are right, its the only possible way, and theres no other!
Rhythmus: What a surprise! The fundamentals of physics are nothing but our inner convictions? How about experiments, the ages-long experience, the accuracy of mathematics? Dont they count for anything? You think the whole of physics, including the modern one, has no solid foundation? Dynamicus: The modern physics is the knowledge for those who do not care for the root-cause: they have formulas; if they coincide with their calculations, they are therefore correct, and they actually show what the world is. Few are asking the question as to how come that the world seems real for us? And is it really real? The more so that its foundations are based entirely on speculations and sensual-experimental practice, beside which there simply cannot be anything else.
Postulates Postulate (Latin: postulatum), a hypothesis (a claim, presumption, regulation) advanced as an essential presupposition, condition, or premise of a train of reasoning. The latter often serves as a justification for the hypothesis acceptance. The modern interpretation of postulate uses experimental fact as reasoning. The postulate of inertia could be cited as example: inertia manifests itself almost always. In physics, experimentally discovered phenomena which have no explanation are often presented as postulates. Properties are usually regarded as innate, and therefore require no explanation. For example, the property of space to curve is a secondary postulate explained by the innate property of mass to curve space. The mass requires no explanation being experimentally proven fact, i.e. the initial postulate. Many researches find any explanations of the innate properties through examination of processes superfluous because the physics calculus requires no additional entities. The modern physics in a way resembles a Lego set whose pieces are much like postulates. If this Lego physics lack some connecting element, they first invent it then create a postulate-hypothesis of how this happened, like in the case of neutrino or gravitation waves when they made up for the absent after which intensive search was started for experimental proof. Nonetheless, the number of postulates in physics can be significantly reduced. How? Take Lego for example, which presents every complex component through a number of small universal elements in such a way that a set of these elements can be used to assemble any complex component or structure. If earlier a score of complex components played a role of independent postulates, after the introduction of several types of the lesser sized basic elements the number of components-postulates may be reduced drastically. But the emergence of new, so far unknown, elements is natural too. 13
To implement such reduction in physics one has to find something which the whole range of phenomena has in common, something which is responsible for the establishment of their characteristics. Thus we found that motion, inertia, mass, interactions of forces, selforganization, size reduction during motion and energy flow are explained from a single position, i.e. a single algorithm lies at the bottom of these phenomena and properties. This algorithm is presented in the form of familiar elementary phenomena and processes the combination of which produces different properties: motion, inertia, mass, interactions of forces, selforganization, size reduction during motion and energy flow.
Rhythmus: Whats this, another revolution? Curious. And at the same time you are suggesting that the World in which we exist may not exist?! So whats the use of your dogma The world simply is!? Everyone knows this, and theres no need to prove it! Dynamicus: I cannot prove that the World really is. As for your proof, its of the carrot and stick grade. Scientific methods cannot prove anything in general. One can only accept this or that postulation on the nature of research. Otherwise you can forget about matter, and about science too.
body, once in them, change? May be, its some processes in the body itself which make it self-propel toward the source of the field? Such positioning of questions focuses attention on the cause-and-effect chain: massive body the field of gradient conditions (gravitational field) small body field-imposed changes in the small body broken balance of the inner forces in it reaction to disbalance, attempts to restore balance accelerated self-propulsion as a means of balance restoration. In that case one should regard as the ultimate cause before the actual fall of a small body toward the big one not the field itself but those changes which are taking place in the small body, right? The logical chain built thereby allows us to conclude that if the body is not affected by the field, it wont react to it, i.e. it wont fall. With this link missing in the causeand-effect chain you wont see the final result, the fall. Hardly anyone would deny the fact that force is the essence of action, but not the action itself. For example, one can apply with equal vigor a magnet to the bodies placed close together and made of dielectric and iron, but with evidently different effect. Therefore question arises: what parameters and processes has the magnetic field exactly changed in the iron body, and which it failed to change in the dielectric one? Limited by stereotypes of thinking, few of us are aware that when the question arises about the cause-and-effect explanation of fundamental things the proof is often substituted by axioms and, literally speaking, ritual chanting. Here are examples: motion is an innate property of the material world; inertia and mass are innate properties of the material bodies; the speed of light is constant in inertial frames of reference due to the accuracy of the invariant theory; the force of action is equal to the force of counteraction; the physical vacuum which fills the space is expanding and creates the effect of moving apart galaxies. To this they add: Thats how nature works. And very few are trying to study the mechanism of the very same motion, inertia, or invariant theory. Some researches sincerely believe the mathematical descriptions they have of this or that phenomenon as well as their correlation (mathematical, of course) with other phenomena are a sufficient enough proof. Mathematical description of phenomena and processes is not physics, but physics instrumentarium. If opinion poll were conducted among physicists about the root-cause of the inertia of the body in motion the majority of them would maintain that the cause of the bodys movement in space is a force applied to it which gave this body a certain quantity of motion:
F (t 2 t1) = m(V 2 V 1) .
(1.01)
Formally, correct. But the question was not about the cause of the beginning of body motion, but about the inner and outer processes which ensured the transfer of body after the force had been applied to it. Many would regard such way of putting the question absurd because classical mechanics never examines any internal processes which ensure the fact of motion by inertia: the body moves uniformly and rectilinearly if there is no external force on it, or the net force on the body is zero. And the quantity of motion, once received by the body from external force, cannot be the cause of its subsequent motion because when moved to the reference frame of the moving body its quantity of motion becomes zero. They usually refer here to the invariant theory of Galileo and Newtons relativity which prohibit to differentiate parameters of two equal bodies if theres no relative motion between them. Here we encounter for the first time expression of pre-Einsteins theory of relativity imposing a tacit ban on the study of absolute differences and recommending to examine only relative differences. Within the limits of the 15
classical mechanics its correct because they are founded implicitly on the postulate of absolutely empty, filled with nothing container. But no one has yet managed to imagine the absolute void; the absolute void in the volumetric container is beyond human imagination. Although the surrounding space seems to us empty, there is a sufficient number of physical effects, like interference and diffraction of light waves, indicating the presence of something in this space which possesses the property of transferring the waves. This something is in essence more akin to the wave nature rather than the absolute void. This is one of the reasons why in the early science they adopted the notion of ether: thin, imperceptible medium through which light is transmitted. Further on we will avoid this notion because of the large number of speculative models of ether: ether as a super-liquid quantum fluid; ether as a crystal; ether as gas; ether as densely packed ideal balls, etc. We do not know what actually the luminiferous ether is; its only property that we know for sure is the speed of light rays (electromagnetic waves) transmission which equals 299792,5 km/sec. But even here we encounter a problem: how to establish the speed of light in one direction. This problem was indicated as far back as James C. Maxwell, in his famous work A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism. Albert A. Michelson attempted to prove experimentally the existence of luminiferous ether. In 1881 his famous experiment was conducted in which he failed to detect the absolute motion of the Earth through ether. The scientific community was plunged into a crisis: by the time the existence of ether was a foregone conclusion. This crisis lasted for 24 years during which numerous attempts had been made to explain the experiments negative result. At the time the scientists were unable to understand the true cause of failure of Michelsons experiment. In 1905 Albert Einstein published his paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" in which he suggested at the time irrational but a unique way of explaining electromagnetic phenomena without the use of ether. The scientific community worn out by the crisis gave a lukewarm reception to the Einsteins work which they regarded as interim until they discovered this dodgy phenomenon which canceled the expected result of A. Michelsons experiment. A hundred years later, in 1981, such phenomenon, indeed, was discovered theoretically, and in 1990 was proved experimentally. But by the time the Einsteins theory has gained the status of the top leading paradigm. We are yet to return to this issue because now we have a unique possibility of not just explaining the cause of failure of the experiment which was to discover the absolute motion of the Earth, but also of going back to the old, pre-1881, classicether positions so as to continue the development of the scientific line which was first suspended in 1905 and later completely rejected. Hence the task: creation of a universal and conflict-free scientific instrument which anyone could use no matter what scientific prejudices he might choose to stick to. In science, theory is such instrument. But the question always rises: Why do we need a new theory? Whats the new instrument for? Weve more than enough of them as it is To explain the motives which emerge due to dissatisfaction with, say, classical mechanics Ill give several examples. The classical mechanics is employing the invariant and relativity theories which has certain advantages, but there are disadvantages too. For example: Let object A and object B move in one direction with speed VA = 10km / sec and VB = 5km / sec . Which of the objects, whose masses are equal, has greater quantity of motion? 16
If the problems condition had a reference frame in which and relative to which the objects speed parameters were to change, the solution would be simple:
Fig.2. In some colleges students are asked to solve the problem: Is it possible to propel a sailing boat by aiming at its sails the air flow from a powerful electric fan fixed in its stern? The mediocrities are offered a standard answer: No, the boat wont sail because the force of pressure from the air flow is an internal force which cannot give a single joint momentum to the boat and electric fan in it.
17
Fig.3. The Fan Cart With Sail appliance showing the relation and direction of the thrust force to the form of the sail. Source: http://www.oberlin.edu
There was little doubt that the sailing boat would move in the direction of the air flow produced by the electric fan, i.e. forward. And thats how it turned out to be. The working model of such boat was made, and during its tests it reached the speed of 3 km/h. The author invented and made this boat independently not just to demonstrate the shortfalls of school education, but as a toy to amuse both children and adults. But soon afterwards he found in the Internet an analogy, Fan Cart with Sail. Lets enumerate the forces acting on the boat: the reaction of the electric fan to the air flow it propels toward the sail; the reaction of the sail to the air flow from the electric fan; the reaction of the sail to the incoming air-flow which emerges as a result of the boats movement (the frontal resistance); the friction between the boat and water. The cited factors split into two categories: those acting and counteracting. If action and counteraction moduluses are equal, the boat sails with constant speed, and in such cases they say that the force of action equals in modulus the force of counteraction. And if the opposite forces are equal, whats the mysterious cause of its movement, with the zero net force on the boat?! Guided by the definition Force is the essence of action, but not the action itself, one should raise the question: What do the forces acting on the boat change in the boats body? And how do they make it move with the zero net force? Are these changes real and pertain to the boats body, or they are of relative, fictitious, nature? And if these changes are real, what are they? At what level of matter organization do they take place and in relation to what? Lets take a look inside matter, what changes take place there? The bodies moving and resting in the continuum differ in parameters of the interacting elements. The external macromovements are formed and sustained by asynchronization of processes at the micro-level. To understand this asynchronization one has to use some instrument. Whereas we have neither the methodology of analysis, nor equipment, nor any theory. The Rhythmodynamics suggests to use the wave geometry which differs from the Euclidean one by the use of the foundation axiom.
18
19
In nature the role of wave carrier is played by the wave medium which transfers the wave disturbances always with the constant velocity through itself and in relation to itself. Having introduced the axiom of foundation, we thereby have brought the wave geometry closer to the real physical mediums and waves. The difference is that in wave geometry the carrier doesnt become deformed under any circumstances, whereas in reality, for example, on the surface of water, or in acoustics, the waves are impossible without the deformation of the medium. As for the electromagnetics, we have no idea what happens with the medium when electromagnetic waves are transferred.
Rhythmus: Heres again an implied return to ether. Hasnt Michelson proved that it doesnt exist, nor can exist. Or your special opinion is just a reflection of nostalgia? Dynamicus: This opinion is logically justified! The only way to prove the absence of the wave medium called ether is to measure the speed of light in one direction. As long as there is no such experiment, there is no proof of ethers absence! And the necessity of such experiment was stressed as far back as James Clark Maxwell. But the modern scientific clan driven by business interests is terribly unenthusiastic about it. Therefore they possibly either avoid any public experiments on this issue, or they may have done something and keep the results secret. If this is so, one can hardly call what they do science.
Lets take an example: Suppose theres a dot (oscillator) on a two-dimensional carrier of constructs which emits periodic waves in the form of circular fronts. Each point of the wave front is uniformly departing from the source of transmission, with the velocity of the front being tied to the carrier of constructs, not the source, which could be moving. A system of departing wave fronts emerged around the source. If transmission frequency is fixed and the source is stationary, the distance between the fronts is the same, and it equals the wave length. An even and rectilinear movement of the source (V<c) shifts the position of the departing wave fronts in relation to each other. The fronts themselves remain always circular, with their center being in the place of 20
their transmission on the carrier. After transmission the wave front is no longer tied to the moving source and other fronts, i.e. exists on its own. (fig.4). The classic rule of adding velocities can be presented as
c = c V ,
The Dopplers rule
(1.02)
V . c Vo
(1.03)
Fig.4 . Thats the way the processes in way geometry look. The wave fronts spread in the medium with constant velocity. The speed of their sources doesnt affect the propagation of waves they transmit.
The absence of carrier, i.e. wave medium, leads to ambiguity, particularly when the reference frames are required to be invariant.
Fig.5. If one is to use the geometry without the carrier one wont be able to manage with one drawing only because each oscillator, depending on the desires of geometrician, may be regarded as the reference point. The absence of the carrier of constructs and the invariant principle lead to ambiguity, i.e. inability to construct a definite interference picture.
Its interesting that Euclids geometry is incompatible with Galileos invariant theory. Its impossible to construct a satisfactory interference pattern within the framework of absent carrier and at the same tine the declared invariance of the sources. For example: Suppose two equal in frequency sources are invariant. Suppose the velocity of one of them is zero, the other V. One has to construct the changing in time interference of waves from the sources (fig.5). Obviously, its impossible without breaking the condition of invariance, because the waves are supposed to be circular due to the equality of the sources in relation to each other. In this sense the Euclids geometry and invariance contradict each other: even the simplest things cannot be constructed correctly because the modern physics and Euclids geometry are incompatible. The wave geometry is the basis of rhythmodynamics. Its main postulates match the basics of wave geometry. 21
Rhythmodynamics postulates
1. 2. The oscillator of infinitely small size, possessing no properties, except being the source of periodic oscillations in the form of pulsations, Wave medium transforming the oscillator pulsations into spreading spherical waves and ensuring their constant speed of disturbance propagation in relation to itself. The emergence of any other oscillator creates a system.
3.
The instrument of wave geometry makes it possible to model processes and calculate the experiments results. Thats how it predicted (later this was proved experimentally) the phenomena of standing wave compression, dependence of the speed of the system of oscillators on the phase shift between them, dependence of acceleration of the system of sources on the frequency difference, the speed of the energy flow, the zero-amplitude way of energy existence, etc.
22
One should stress that in wave geometry the process of self-organization is witnessed by only one outside spectator, and the process itself doesnt need the introduction of local, inner observers and the use of invariant principle the way they do it now in physics. Naturally, the observation procedures can be made more complex if we assign a local observer to each oscillator and remove the outside spectator. In which case the conflict between the eye-witnesses is inevitable because each of them has the right to regard his own oscillator as the main reference frame. Which can lead to nothing but confusion. The lucid picture which we could have is turned instead into squabbles at mathematical level. There is a difference between the perception from the outside, and the perception taking place inside. If we take this into account well see why our assessment of natural phenomena differs depending on our choice of the outer and inner points of view.
Fig.6. Thats how we see, for example, the world from the outside (left), and thats how from the inside (right).
The semblance of the wave geometry foundations and the postulates of rhythmodynamics makes it possible to model the natural phenomena and observe the processes in their ideal, undistorted geometrical version. In effect, the outside observer acquires the officially approved status which gives him the right not simply to judge impartially the proceedings, but also at his own discretion to set conditions and change parameters, and always stay outside the proceedings, i.e. to observe things as they are.
Rhythmus: Here we are: came back to what weve so painstakingly avoided: the absolute observer, the absolute reference frame, wave medium. Too many entities which we in the XX century worked so hard to get rid of. Dynamicus: First of all, we are dealing with wave geometry in which you cannot manage without the geometrician as outside observer. If its more convenient for you to assess the developments from the inside, you are free to do it. Only I think certain things are better visible from the outside. For example, the difference between the depiction of the elephant made from the inside and outside is obvious. And if you prefer the inside look, Id rather be outside. Both depictions are essential for the creation of a whole integrated picture. As for the seemingly superfluous entities, try to cook pilaf without water!
23
Fig.7. Phase shift is absent. V = 0 no transfer in the medium. Interference field emerged, as well as the standing wave between the oscillators.
Fig.8. Phase shift is absent. Orientation to the transfer in the medium is perpendicular ( = 90 ). The speed of transfer V =0.75c. Direction of transfer is from left to right. Interference field is compressed. Additional antinodes and nodes areas have emerged . The distance between the standing wave nodes has diminished.