Abstracts Details

The Natural Philosophy Alliance (NPA) sponsors regular international conferences for presenting high-quality papers discussing aspects of philosophy in the sciences. Many papers offer challenges to accepted orthodoxy in the sciences, especially in physics. Everything from the micro-physics of quantum mechanics to the macro-physics of cosmology is entertained.

Though the main interest of the NPA is in challenging orthodoxy in the sciences, it will also feature papers defending such orthodoxy. Our ultimate purpose is to enable participants to articulate their own understanding of the truth. All papers are reviewed by society officers, and sometimes by other members, before presentation in conferences, and they are edited, sometimes very significantly, prior to publication in the Proceedings of the NPA.

NPA is, in turn, the only component of the non-profit corporation: The Natural Philosophy Foundation, Inc., (NPF). The NPF was incorporated in the State of Maryland on July 17, 1995 with the intent to become a long-term science fostering charity organization

No serious dynamic theory in physics can do without interactions, the trademark of event relativities as contrasted to kinematic mod-els. While fundamental force laws (Newton, Coulomb) have been successfully formulated in terms of simple one-body potentials, dy-namics calls for the more elaborate time-dependent potentials as pioneered by Weber for the case of two charges in relative motion. Local dynamic environments, changing incessantly in Nature?s real scenarios, are conveniently rendered in terms of generalized po-tentials which provide the relevant information on forces acting under changing conditions in agreement with Newton?s Action-Reaction Principle. Improper treatment or total neglect of potential energy in ?special relativity? and Copenhagen quantum theory discloses the weakness of these observer-centered theories. Important concepts (e.g. an upper speed limit, action, wave propagation, energy - a late arrival in physics, etc.) require absolute space, universal time, and a proper dynamic system of reference. The infinite and eternal Universe with its ubiquitous background potential defines the one-and-only legitimate dynamic inertial system where all of Nature?s laws hold without any of the severe restrictions artificially imposed by gedanken experiments and mathematical constructs.

Chapter 8 of *Immediate Action*, this essay addresses several fundamental issues regarding matter and the nature of closed systems.

**Sections:**

- Matter: continuous or discreet? 185
- System, closed systems, self-contained systems 186
- Closed systems and conservation principles 187
- Radiation and open systems 190
- Straight line and intertial motion 192
- Linear momentum and angular momentum 193
- The inverse square law, instantaneous gravitational force 194
- Non-instantaneous, retarded electromagnetic radiation 195
- Mach's principle, geometry and tiem 197

Though the main interest of the NPA is in challenging orthodoxy in the sciences, it will also feature papers defending such orthodoxy. Our ultimate purpose is to enable participants to articulate their own understanding of the truth. All papers are reviewed by society officers, and sometimes by other members, before presentation in conferences, and they are edited, sometimes very significantly, prior to publication in the Proceedings of the NPA.

NPA is, in turn, the only component of the non-profit corporation: The Natural Philosophy Foundation, Inc., (NPF). The NPF was incorporated in the State of Maryland on July 17, 1995 with the intent to become a long-term science fostering charity organization

Despite Max Born's opinion that special relativity theory (SRT) was well anchored in experiment, the issue of measurement units was often overlooked, leading to contradictory interpretations of SRT. The quotations listed in this paper shed light on the problems, and provide just grounds for rejecting SRT as irrelevant for physics.

Max Born?s opinion - that "special" relativity theory (SRT) were anchored in experiment - notwithstanding, the importance of measurement units has been repeatedly pointed out. The quotations listed below shed light on the origin of contradictory interpretations of SRT and provide the ground for rejecting it as irrelevant for physics.

*Journal of New Energy*, Fall 2001 (Proc. Of the 2nd Int. Workshop: *Physics as a Science*, Galeczki, Marquardt, Wesley Eds.).

The first purely mathematical and irrevocable proof of the incompatibility between "Minkowski space" and particle dynamics is presented. "Special" relativity was a tragic confusion between the independent Eulerian x ; y ; z ; t and Lagrangean x(t) ; y(t) ; z(t) coordinates of a particle moving under the influence of forces. Only continuous, field theories -like Maxwell' s-described by equations with partial derivatives could, if at all, be described by means of Eulerian coordinates. The dynamics of moving bodies, however, as discrete, atomistic theory, is compatible only with ordinary differential equations with the Lagrangean coordinates as solutions. In both types of theories non-invariant initial conditions are an indispensable part. Minkowski's expression *(ct) ^{2} - x^{2}* is, therefore, not an invariant, since

*x*-as-a-solution of an equation of motion contains the frame-dependent initial velocity. As "transformations leaving Minkowski's expression invariant", the Lorentz transformation loses is relevance for particle physics, too.

Mass increase with velocity and slowing down of some physical processes are non-reciprocal, absolute effects, dependent on Newtonian absolute velocity. This was confirmed in the Bertozzi experiment^{1} in which both kinetic energy and velocity were directly and independently measured. The definition of the uniform velocity excludes all non-Galilean transformations. so that the kinematic gamma-factor equals one. Mass increase with velocity is a consequence of kinetic energy possessing inertia. The inertia of potential and / or configuration energy has to be postulated. Both the theoretical and the empirical absence of "Thomas precession" requires a new analysis of the electron and muon g-factor measurement at CERN, in which the deviation (g-2) was derived from the beat frequency between the cyclotron frequency and that of the "Thomas precession".^{2}

- Bertozzi. W., Am. J, Physics. 32 (1964) 151-155.
- Newman. D., et al. Phy. Rev. Lett. 40 (1978) 1355 ff.

The Lorentz force has nothing, either mathematically or physically, to do with Maxwell?s field equa-tions. Properly written **F**_{L} = q(**E**^{(1)} + **v** x **B**^{(2)}), the Lorentz force is just a phenomenological expression allowing one to describe (parametrically) the motion of a charged particle in the *external* fields **E**^{(1)} and **B**^{(2)} originating from independent sources belonging to different, decoupled systems. Electrodynamics can be built starting from a *force-law* between moving charges, without separately postulating field equations. There is no need for a ?special? relativity theory.

The Lorentz force **F** = q(**E** + **v** x **B**) is *independent* of Maxwell?s field equations and is not derivable as a ?Lorentz-transformed Coulomb-law?. The similarity with the ?Lorentz-transformed? normal (to **u**) component of **E**, **E**_{n}' = (**E**_{n} + **u** x **B**) , where u denotes the *uniform, relative velocity* between two *fictitious* inertial frames of reference (IFR?s), is misleading. If at all, the Lorentz force pertains to external **B**-fields produced by closed currents. The violation of Newton?s third principle and, therefore, of the energy conservation law, cannot be avoided even if one takes radiation from accelerated charges into account.

All relativities whether Galileian, Machian, or Einsteinian, are ruled out on both principle and on observational grounds, irrespective of scale. From atoms up to galaxies, matter prefers to rotate, rather than expand. A slightly amended Newtonian gravitation theory, obeying the Third Principle, is able to account for the observed facts. Electromagnetic waves propagate (isotropically) in the fundamental frame of reference defined by the mass-energy distribution of the universe. Thermodynamics is a necessary ingredient in any cosmological theory. There is no cosmological arrow of time.

Discontinued

Of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) Paradox.

Apeiron - Wikipedia

The meaning of a physical law is discussed. A distinction is made between specific laws such as: the 1/r^{2} law, the diffusion equation, the law of radioactive decay, Hubble's law, and fundamental laws such as conservation principles. The status of Maxwell's equations is reexamined. It is concluded that: a) physical laws pertain to closed systems, b) physical laws are formulated in inertial reference frames, determined by the center of mass of the closed system, c) there exists a unique, global inertial reference frame, and d) physical laws need not be Lorentz covariant.

Apeiron - Wikipedia

- Inertial Frames of Reference: The concept of inertial frame of reference (IFR is usually tied to Galileo's "law of inertia" or to "Newton's first principle": "A body remains at rest or in motion with constant velocity if and only if it is not subjected to the influence of other bodies".
- Velocities: The concept of velocity arounsed no difficulties in Newtonian physics. Once length and time intervals defined in terms of conventional units, velocity was defined as the limit.
- Velocity Dependent Masses: Mass is defined as the proportionality factor between the first dynamic quantity, the linear momentum p, and the velocity v (or w? or else?) - a purely kinematic quantity.