Like a house of cards, scientific theories depend on and support one another, so that those at the base cannot be disturbed without everything above them falling down. Such an edifice is what, in contexts of science, Thomas Kuhn called a ?paradigm'. Many of those who use this term most familiarly, nowadays, are often unaware of what, in its Kuhnian context, a ?paradigm' really means. In the modern vernacular, an appropriate variant for this is, perhaps, ?mindset'. A typical example of this mindset is the manner of thinking about the world that was bequeathed to us by Galileo and Newton. So ingrained has this become in our Western cultural psyche that most members of our society cannot even contemplate thinking about the world in any other way. Having imbibed it ?with their mother's milk', as it were, they believe, implicitly, that this way of thinking into which they happened to have been born and educated represents the one and only true ?realism' there is, and that in comparison with it any other, radically different way of thinking is tantamount to lunacy. Consequently, when a different paradigm comes along, few people can cope with it. For example, when this classical-science paradigm of Galileo and Newton ? quaintly called ?Realism' ? was found to be flawed in some of its basic assumptions, namely, those of time, space and motion, this call for a whole change of paradigm, or ?new physics', could not be accommodated by those steeped in the old familiar ?realism'.
Contains book reviews of Pope's The Eye of the Beholder, a Dangerous Book.
Like a house of cards, scientific theories depend on and support one another to the extent that those at the bottom of the pile cannot be disturbed without everything above them coming tumbling down. Such an edifice is what, in contexts of science, Thomas Kuhn called a ?paradigm'.
This paper is a critique of the present state of Theoretical Physics and its flagrant departure from the constraints of commonsense logic. As a contrast to this, an example is provided of a simple, unified, solution of two allegedly separate physical anomalies which have so far defeated every attempt at explanation in terms of standard orthodox Physics. This is to the extent that a NASA spokesman has said that in order to explain these anomalies, a whole ?new physics' might have to be contemplated.
These anomalies are the well-documented ?Pioneer anomaly' and the ?Missing Mass anomaly'. This paper counters conventional attempts at explanation in terms of intellectually elevated theories such as, for instance, those of ?cosmological expansion', ?dark matter', ?deviations from Einsteinian gravity' and so on. It also questions the Newtonian concept of an in vacuo ?gravitational force'.
This paper is a critique of the present state of Modern Theoretical Physics. There are two allegedly separate physical anomalies which have so far defeated every attempt at explanation in terms of current standard of physics. This is to the extent that a NASA spokesman has said that in order to explain these anomalies, a whole ?new physics' might need to be contemplated.
The Pope-Osborne Angular Momentum Synthesis (POAMS) postulates that all motion is naturally orbital and that orbital angular momentum is holistically conserved. This paper demonstrates how the standard time dilation formula of Special Relativity, here obtained in a more economical way, can be incorporated into POAMS in order to predict orbital time dilation effects. These effects are the same as those predicted by General Relativity, but are obtained without reference to the Einstein field equations. It is also shown how the postulates of POAMS, together with these predicted orbital time dilation effects, can be used to derive what is effectively Schwarzschild space-time and hence the perihelion shift effect observed in the motion of planets.
A logical analysis of the concept of ?light velocity' in relativity and quantum theory.
This paper addresses, from a logical point of view, the conundrum of an observational relativism mediated by an ?absolute speed of light'. We reinterpret the space-time constant c in the way we feel Mach might have done in order to put Einstein's theory into its proper philosophical perspective.
We believe that in their first flushes of inspiration, what practical physicists such as Newton, Faraday and Coulomb conceived as in vacuo ?forces? of ?gravitation?, ?magnetism? and ?electrostatics? were not meant to be fixed-for-all-time philosophical statements as to what the world is or how it works. We think that these were no more than convenient working hypotheses as to how to deal practically with certain observational and experimental measures. Accordingly, we suggest that these postulated ?forces? of static interaction held responsible for the orbital motions of particles on the micro- as well as the macro-physical levels, may now usefully be replaced by a common factor, angular momentum, which is shown to be sufficient in itself to explain orbital motion. In doing this, we extend and clarify ideas encapsulated in our previous papers concerning angular momentum. This leads us to predict certain measurable physical effects associated with spinning bodies.
Modem physics is split over the question of whether or not there is faster than light action-at-a-distance. Those who think there is are further split over whether this action-at-a-distance is 'pure' action-at-a-distance or is mediated by some sort of 'ether'. But since no-one has the faintest idea of what an 'ether' is, how can it be decided whether there is one or not?
What we do know is that freely moving bodies form holistically balanced systems of angular momentum in which the measured motion of every one body is linked with that of each and every other. Is this non-local interconnection to be called 'action-at-a-distance' or 'ether'? Does it matter? Can nature care whether we choose to think of that nexus as 'gravitational', 'inertial', 'electric', 'magnetic', 'electromagnetic' or whatever? What difference can it make so long as the observed linking of movements is properly accounted for.
We demonstrate that angular momentum, which is the observational common factor in all the different orbital motions is sufficient in itself to explain those motions without the usual theoretical elaborations supplied by the likes of Newton, Faraday, Coulomb, et al.
The shift from Ptolemaic to modern, post-Copernican cosmology bears witness to the fact that a system of ideas that is bequeathed to us at any stage by the circumstances of history, no matter how prestigious and well-institutionalized it becomes, is not always, nor necessarily, the best there can ever be. The same applies to systems of thought, or paradigms, in physics. This paper argues the feasibility of a wholesale (in some cases, the long-awaited) paradigm shift from the customary analog conception of fundamental physics into a relativistic, quantum-digital mode. Such a shift offers a novel solution to the problem of how to unify the various 'field' concepts with which physics is historically encumbered. Since the common factor in all these concepts is that of angular momentum (orbital, spin, oscillatory or whatever), the logical solution to that problem of unification would be to dispense with those 'fields' entirely, in favor of an overall-conserved angular momentum nexus that fits, without further elaboration, the phenomena that those 'fields' have been traditionally invoked to explain. The fact that angular momentum is both non-local and quantized makes it the natural choice of datum in the recommended switch from the traditional analog paradigm of physics to a consistently digitalized alternative.
The same paradigm switch also introduces a novel way of deducing, from a 'Galilean' account of motion, the formula for relativistic time-dilation and, as a direct consequence, the Balmer Rydberg formula for spectral frequencies. This is in terms of proper-time-instantaneous action-at-a-distance instead of traditional 'electrodynamics'.