March 27, 2007

From David Barclay:

Re: Paper takes swipe at bedrock law of physics (Oct. 14): The conservation of energy is based upon the assumption that no new energy is entering the universe, yet what would support the continuance of physical structure if it is not an underlying force of energy which is continuously increasing?

A difficult question it would seem, as no one to date has an answer.

Physicists can turn up their noses and choose to look the other way, but in doing so they merely degrade their own professional status.

Even Einstein considered the existence of an underlying force, whereby gravity might not itself be a force of any kind, but simply a response to this undiscovered underlying force.

An accelerating underlying force would be the inherent energy source of all physical structure, which would be focused to the center of each unified field system.

Therefore we might discover that energy does not radiate at all, but is firmly focused to the center of each unified field system. So the structure of an atom would represent a simple differential in the underlying energy of each atom.

This would suggest that the ratio of energy per unit of mass was not the same for all elements and that single atoms of different elements would have different ratios of energy per unit of mass, whereby the accepted relationship of energy and mass could better be described as a general rule, but not the final answer.

Furthermore we might discover that the less massive elements had the higher ratios of energy per unit of mass, as the least massive elements would provide less resistance to the acceleration of the underlying force affecting their form and function. On the basis of this we might realize that hydrogen had the highest ratio of energy per unit of mass for any known element and why hydrogen was a critical component of any life process.

Hardly a subject for the rolling of eyes and snotty remarks considering that our modern science is not exactly sure what energy is in the first place.

David Barclay


Anonymous Anonymous said...

You say no one has an answer to the problem you described. I have given an answer in my rather lengthy book entitled "Introspective Cosmology II". Unfortunately, though I am 71 years old, and well-read enough to have 16 self-published books in print, I have no FORMAL education beyong high-school; and so, not many, if any, find it worth their time to read anything I may have written. Then, too, my answer is part of a rather lengthy theory which, by that fact alone, inspires indifference, and then, to make matters worse, it speaks of time, space, matter, energy, and changes thru time and space in ways so different from the norm (I speak of changes thru time and space in a way so different, it eliminates the criticisms of Zeno of Elea.), that few if any could go far into my book before they found it a total turn off. In the end, though, mine is the only would-be theory of everything which has some claim to truly being a theory of EVERYTHING, since it alone (and it does this in the terms of a rather precise mathematical terminology) makes the slightest attempt to explain how immortal souls, angels, and an intrinsically triune infinity could fit into the "everything picture". Finally, knowing how prone we humans are to error, I myself must always admit the possibility that my theory is merely one so far from the truth that no one should bother becoming familiar with it. On the other hand, a gentleman on the internet who calls himself Tom Holman says of my theory: "Certainly, it's a system of beauty. Like no other I have ever witnessed!" Whether or not he's the famous Tom Holman of Stanford University, I do not know. I asked him whether or not that was the case; but, he never replied. Hoping I've not wasted your time, I am cordially, EDWARD N. HAAS.

April 09, 2007 6:48 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home