Were Our Ancestors Idiots? Some "Experts" Think So

If you watch television or read magazine or newspaper articles it seems that there are more and more stories out there about how our ancestors could not have possibly built the massive ancient structures that they claim to have built. For example, the pyramids in Egypt were too complex and too perfect for anyone to have built by the tools of the workman at the time therefore they were not built by the ancient Egyptians. Well, if the Egyptians didn’t build the great pyramids in Egypt, who did? The answer, according to “experts”, is either aliens, a race of technologically advanced humans or humans traveling back in time.

Well, as logical as that sounds (and it doesn’t) I remain fully convinced that our ancestors were not idiots running around aimlessly until “visitors” came by to build them Stonehenge or the pyramids at Egypt or any of the other great ancient structures. The people in the distant past developed their own tools, discovered math and developed building techniques that created these wonderful structures. No help from aliens or time-travelling future people were necessary and I find it deeply disturbing that people believe this.

Let’s take a look at why some people seem to believe that our ancestors had help in building some of the greatest structures of the ancient world and why I believe these people to be completely wrong.

“The aliens did it” concept: According to “experts”, our ancestors did not have the technology to move large blocks of stone to create the pyramids in Egypt. These blocks are incredibly heavy and there wasn’t anything strong enough to move them, so it must have been moved by a technologically advanced race of beings.

Why this is concept is wrong: This is wrong because ancient Egyptians did have the manpower, the technology and the knowledge to move these blocks. These ancient people had figured out mathematics, the wheel, how to use animals to carry or pull large objects, how to build a ramp and how to build a lever. They practiced on smaller pyramids and eventually moved up to bigger ones which helped them figure out what works and what doesn’t. They also had a massive workforce that worked for the pharaoh that was highly motivated. Apparently they preferred living as opposed to the “retirement” plan for those who refused.

Recently scientists from around the world have taken the old techniques and tools that they believed the ancients would have used in Egypt and managed to move stones that weighed several tons. They were able to put these stones in position using just these tools and methods, proving that it could be done without the aid of modern technology.

“The aliens did it” concept: According to “experts” our ancestors did not have the tools to cut out large blocks of stone for Stonehenge or the pyramids in Egypt, so they must have had “help”.

Why this is concept is wrong: Most of the sites where these large blocks were quarried have been found. Ancient tool marks have been found at these quarries and even a few blocks that had not been fully cut out have been found. After looking at these quarry sites it is plain to see, even with an untrained eye, that ancient tools were used to cut out large blocks of stone. No burn marks from precise lasers were found. No evidence of futuristic machines were ever found in these areas (or any areas for that matter) and no mention of help from an advanced race in any of the historical material. Either these “advanced races” were incredibly diligent in covering up their presence or else these ancient races actually used their knowledge to quarry their own stone.

“The aliens did it” concept: According to “experts” the blocks of stone in the pyramids and even ones in South America were cut too perfectly. So much so that in places you could not even fit a piece of paper into the space between two stones! Only an advanced race could do that!

Why this is concept is wrong: If ancient stone masons could cut a block of stone out of a large quarry, they would have the ability to cut the blocks down and smooth them out so that they fit together perfectly. Just because we don’t know how exactly they did this does not mean it could not be done. We have just lost the knowledge through the ages. Let me tell you of a couple of good examples to illustrate my point.

The best example I can think of is the Parthenon in Athens. It is well documented that the ancient Greeks built this as a temple to Athena and was used using ancient building techniques. I don’t think anyone can dispute that, so what was found there makes this quite an amazing find.

A few years ago, while repairing the damaged Parthenon, a column that had been standing for hundreds, if not thousands of years was taken down for repair. The column was made of marble but it wasn’t one long piece, it was made up of sections of marble with a cedar tree block in between them to help centre the pieces and give the illusion of one solid piece of marble instead of individual parts. That alone is an impressive building technique but when they pulled apart the pieces of marble on one section of the column, they found a cedar block still sitting between two of the sections! Workers claimed they could smell the cedar as if it was just cut yesterday. Apparently the marble sections had been carved so perfectly that they created an air tight seal that lasted over the centuries and preserved the cedar perfectly.

Another good example of lost technology is “Greek Fire”. The ancient Greeks created what was called “Greek Fire” and used it in battle against many of their foes. This “Greek Fire” was a mixture of chemicals put into a jar, that, when exposed to the air, exploded into flame. This weapon was well documented throughout the ages by the Greeks and many of their foes but the secret of what the “Greek Fire” was made of is a mystery even today.

“The aliens did it” concept: According to “experts”, the ancient pyramids in Egypt and the Nazca Lines in Peru, South America were created in such a way so that people from the air could recognize them. The pyramids layout matched a constellation in space and the Nazca Lines were pictures that only could be seen from far above. Since the ancients couldn’t fly, why would they build this unless they were built for people with the technology to see them? Also, how could people who can’t monitor the building process from the air know how to build patterns like this unless they could fly?

Why this is concept is wrong: The ancients did build the Nazca Lines for an audience from above but it was not for an advanced race, it was for their gods. As for the ancient Egyptians, they seemed to have put their pyramids in specific positions on purpose to mimic the Orion constellation (which was thought to be associated with the Egyptian god Osiris) but we cannot be certain. From what anthropologists can tell from all the evidence left behind by the ancient Egyptians, it seems that astronomy was something that they were interested in and since they believed that some of their gods lived in the heavens, logically they might have believed the gods could see what they built. What better tribute to the gods than recreating the heavens on Earth?

The Nazca too believed in gods that lived or travelled in the sky, so they drew pictures to appease them. After all, who doesn’t want a happy god looking down on you instead of an angry one?

As for how they built them in that specific way, that’s easy. The Egyptians figured out mathematics and used this to calculate a way to mirror the star pattern above when they made the placements for their pyramids.

The Nazca must have created a smaller version of the pictures they drew and then figured out a way to make them bigger just like artist today can accurately recreate a small painting on the side of a large wall. If you are thinking that this isn’t the same then think about this.

Years ago, crop circles (images created by using crops so that a pattern could be seen from the air) popped up all over England. People thought it might have been aliens as you could only see the patterns from the air. However, after a while groups of people (human, non-alien, non-advanced people) have since been caught creating the patterns. They used a stick or pole and some rope and slowly and methodically pushed down the crops so that they formed a pattern. They did this at night and without the aid of someone in a plane looking down on them. They also did this without a computer or other calculating machine to help them. In other words, they created an image quickly and easily that could be seen from the air. So it is definitely possible to create patterns or (in the case of the Nazca) pictures that only someone from the air can see.

“The aliens did it” concept: According to “experts”, ancient buildings like the Great Pyramid of Giza in Egypt, Stonehenge and the some of the Mayan pyramids in modern Mexico are aligned with the stars so perfectly that it is impossible for the (feeble) minds of the ancients to have done this. They didn’t have equipment or technology advanced enough to anticipate how to have these buildings face the right way. For example, in Mexico, one of the Mayan pyramids creates the image of a “snake” during the equinox. In the Great Pyramid in Egypt there is a hole or shaft running through the pyramid that lined up the King’s Chamber (the burial room in the pyramid) to a star in Orion at the time the pyramid was built. And Stonehenge seems to be built as a celestial calendar. How is all of this possible without today’s knowledge?

Why this is concept is wrong: If you take simple observation of an event like the equinox or position of a star and realize that it seems to be in the same place in the sky at a certain point in time, you can mark those spots with something as simple as a few sticks or stones. The following equinox or star sighting, you can take check to see if the sticks are stilled lined up in the right place as before. If they are, you can now figure out how to align your structure so that you get it to line up correctly. Astronomy was a big part of the ancient’s life and their devotion to getting things right to honour the gods should not be underestimated.

“The aliens did it” concept: In some drawings, hieroglyphs and oral histories that have made it to today talk about or picture supernatural beings. They also talk about or picture strange lights in the sky or unexplainable events. This is proof that they were visited by an advanced race and this advanced race must have built these structures.

Why this is concept is wrong: While it is true that there are some pictures and stories that appear to be supernatural beings visiting ancient races, no evidence has been found to support this theory. Surely if they were visited by aliens, the aliens would have left something behind. A piece of advanced metal, a part of a dead alien, bits of clothing in an odd shape or made of an advanced material, something, but none have been found.

If an advanced race living on Earth had visited, where is there proof of their advanced technology? A piece of a machine that broke, bits of advanced materials that fell off the machine or off the clothing of the people visiting? Where is the evidence?

If people travelled back in time, why would they interfere with ancient races? If they created the structures then they would be altering their own timeline and possibly dooming themselves. If people did time-travel, I don’t see why they would do anything other than observe. To interact directly with humans from the past could stop certain things from happening and this would only have a domino effect into the future. Plus, where is the evidence?

The only “evidence” we have at the moment of these supernatural beings visiting are the pictures and stories left behind. However, we all know that human imagination can create all sorts of supernatural beings. Every race has thought up very different and very powerful gods that interact with humans though natural events. This is the way of humans. They want an explanation for why things occur. In absence of a concrete explanation, the imagination comes up with ideas on why things occur the way they do and that is how stories of supernatural beings get created. Other humans listen to the stories that finally give an explanation to nature’s actions and since there is no other explanation, they tend to believe it. These stories then become entrenched in the culture of a society and they stop being just stories but truths.

However, stories and pictures of supernatural, time-travelling humans or alien beings are not proof that these things visited ancient peoples. If it were then if someone from the distant future uncovers a bunch of comic books from the 20^th or 21^st century and nothing else, then we should burn our comic books now or they will think that the Earth had powerful beings protecting it from evil humans and alien invaders.

I haven’t covered all of the theories that people have come up with to “prove” that ancient peoples were visited by aliens, another advanced race or time-travelling human but I have covered the ones people like to bring up the most.

These theories, while very imaginative, have no basis in fact and absolutely no proof whatsoever. Everything can be explained by ancient human beings using their knowledge, observations and skill to build wonderful structures, some of which even stand today. I think that by so-called “experts” who spend their entire life dedicated to proving that our ancestors were idiots who needed someone or something to help them “progress” is an insulting idea. A baby born in ancient Egypt had the same type of brain and same type of knowledge as a baby born today. The imagination, the determination to succeed and the ability to learn is the same today as it was back then; the only difference is the education they are given as they grow. By belittling the achievements of our ancestors these people belittle us all. I for one am insulted by the idea and hope that one day these people will realize how embarrassingly simple-minded they look.

Problems with Warp Drive, Part 2

After my original post on Warp Drive problems, I found an article in Popular Science dated April 4, 2013 that discussed a Warp Drive proposed by Miguel Alcubierre (http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2013-03/faster-light-drive?src=SOC&dom=tw). Since his version of Warp Drive is slightly different than the one I discussed in my last blog, I thought I would look at what his version offers and if it could be built would it work.

Figure 1: Spaceship with Warp Drive as envisioned by Miguel Alcubierre (Popular Science Magazine, April 4, 2013)

What Alcubierre proposes is a Warp Drive that would create a bubble in space-time by using negative energy. I imagine this would be like what happens when you take a cup of water, for example and blow onto the surface causing the surface to bend in the opposite direction. If you kept blowing, you would get the surface to look like a semi-circle. Once this semi-circle in space-time is created by a spaceship with Warp Drive, it would then keep pushing into space-time behind the bending and space-time would then envelop the ship like a sphere entering a body of water. The negative energy produced by the Warp Drive would keep pushing against space-time and would warp it so that a bubble keeps the spaceship out of space-time.

Now I see two potential problems with this part of Alcubierre’s proposal.

First, what is this “negative energy” that is discussed? If there was something in the universe that repelled space-time, wouldn’t it be outside of the universe and out of our reach?

Second, I don’t believe that you can peel back space like it was a physical object. I think it exists like the space in the eye of a needle exists; it only exists as an absence of matter. I also don’t think you could treat it like some sort of liquid that you can blow a bubble in. If it was, it would take an enormous amount of energy to create this bubble and if something like a supernova can’t rip a bubble or hole in the universe, then I doubt you could find the energy to do something like that with a spaceship.

Alcubierre then proposes that his Warp Drive would move the bubble with the spaceship in it by space-time closing in on one end as the bubble moves forward. It’s the force of the universe ‘pinching down’ on the one end of the bubble that has the force. If you have trouble imagining this, think of a marble stuck midway in a garden hose. If you take your fingers and squeeze the hose directly behind the marble, it forces the marble to move away from your fingers in the hose.

With this part of Alcubierre’s model, I see more problems.

How would you navigate? If space is warped around your spaceship then getting an accurate reading from looking at surrounding stars would be impossible. Even if you could calculate this ahead of time, how could your spaceship figure out that it was continuing to move in the right direction? There would be things out in space that float around that would cause you to need a change of direction because, although you have warped space around your spaceship, this won’t matter if your ‘bubble’ runs into a planet or a star. If warping space-time means you could go through these solid objects, what happens when your spaceship drops its bubble at the end of the journey while in the middle of an object like an asteroid? What about changes in gravity that pulls you off course, how would you know to correct for it if you can’t tell where you are?

Alcubierre believes that with this Warp Drive, a spaceship could go faster than the speed of light. Apparently this is because of the theory that when the Big Bang occurred, space-time expanded faster than the speed of light (which, by the way if true, means the Theory of Relativity isn’t correct), so distorting or warping space-time would also relax the rules of relativity as it did during the Big Bang. This might be correct if the spaceship went back in time to the time of the Big Bang but you are only warping a small section of the universe with this spaceship, not riding the expansion of a young universe! Also, if you warp space around your spaceship you are still subject to the laws of physics as you are still in the universe. If the Theory of Relativity really does exist the way Albert Einstein thought it did, then you can’t go faster than the speed of light! In this case, the warping of space is only used as a way to propel you through the universe and wouldn’t cut you off from the universe. Even if it did cut you off from the rest of the universe, the ‘bubble’ of energy surrounding the spaceship is still buffeting against space-time and would be subject to Relativity, just like an air bubble in water is subject to the physics involved in liquids. However, even if you could cut yourself off from the rest of the universe, what would keep your molecules together if the physics of our universe no longer applied?

With all of these questions, I do not believe that anyone will be able to build a Warp Drive like the one envisioned by Miguel Alcubierre. All of this trickery to get around the Theory of Relativity’s rules does not make any logical sense and, as I have shown, is easily picked apart on closer inspection.

I do believe that it is possible to go faster than the speed of light and I know we will achieve that one day. The Theory of Relativity is flawed and the speed of light is not the speed limit of the universe. I think Miguel Alcubierre and others like him have great imaginations and someone one day will build a spaceship that will speed through the stars at speeds people today can’t imagine but it won’t be with a Warp Drive based on Alcubierre’s vision.

Problems with Warp Drive

After reading several articles in various magazines, newspapers and online about scientists working on the idea of a “Warp Drive” engine as envisioned by the writers of Star Trek (television series and movies), I thought I might weigh in on why Warp Drive will not work. I know that very few people read this blog and my ideas may go unnoticed by everyone but since the internet tends to keep information forever, perhaps I will one day be proved to be right.

First, for those who are unaware of how a Warp Drive would work, let me explain what I know based on my own observations of the Star Trek t.v. series, the movies and scientists’ speculation.

Since scientists tend to believe that Albert Einstein’s Theory of Relativity is pretty much a law (NOTE: if you read my earlier blogs you will find that I do NOT agree with the Theory of Relativity as it stands at the moment), then there isn't a way to travel faster than the speed of light, making any trips to planets outside our solar system a trip that would take centuries. Since this doesn't work for a television show that is an hour long, the writers of Star Trek came up with a bold idea. What would happen if you could slip out of the universe and therefore avoid those pesky rules of physics? 

What came from this was called, “Warp Drive”, where a ship in space would create a ‘bubble’ surrounding it that would cut itself off from the rest of the universe! Using this bubble, the spaceship would be free from the constraints that the speed of light has on matter and make it possible to move many times the speed of light allowing a trip that would take centuries to be done in a few days!

The writers can’t explain fully how you could create a “Warp Bubble” or "Warp Field" other than saying it takes an anti-mater power source and some fancy engineering but apparently this “bubble” is strong enough to cut all contact off from the universe to whatever is inside the bubble. However, if there is no contact from the outside universe, how can people in the bubble see the stars as shown in all of the movies and television series?

If the rules of physics can only be generated in the universe and things in the bubble are no longer in that universe, then all rules of physics would no longer work in the bubble, not just the convenience of breaking the speed limit imposed by relativity. That means that the gravity plates under the feet of the people in the ship would not work so they would be floating in space instead of walking around freely. Plus there wouldn't be light, air, electricity, or anything that works through the laws of physics. In fact, without these laws the molecules holding together the spaceship would fall apart and so would the molecules of anyone in that spaceship! So what would actually happen if a spaceship created a bubble that was cut off from the rest of the universe and the laws of physics is that at best, the entire contents of the bubble would quickly turn into an amorphous cloud. At worst the unraveling of molecules could cause an explosion that could cause some unknown issue in that part of the universe.

Another major problem with Warp Drive is how do you move? If you could create an active Warp Field around your spaceship and figure out how to stop your spaceship from unraveling, how do you plan on moving the bubble through space? Your spaceship has no connection to the outside of the bubble, so it can't push against anything and it can't pull at anything to get it moving. You could try pushing the spaceship against the bubble to force it forward but since you are cut off from the universe how do you know you are going in the right direction and since the Warp Field is so small you won't get enough distance to move around in the bubble and generate any velocity.

Then there is the fact that, if a spaceship inside a Warp Field is beyond the laws of physics, the bubble itself is not. The bubble has to travel through the universe and obey all laws of physics just like a bubble in water cannot ignore the fact that it is in water. So the spaceship can take advantage of a lack of physics only in the bubble which makes it the bubble useless to the spaceship.

So, although the Warp Drive is a great creation of imagination from a writer, it couldn't become a reality to make spaceships fly through space at great speeds. Unfortunately there are a lot of people out there who grew up with Star Trek and are spending a lot of time and money trying to develop this unreachable technological advance. They believe that if the writers of Star Trek thought it up, it could be achieved. I believe that people in the future will look back at Warp research the same way people of my age look back on the study of phrenology; well-meaning but an utter waste of time.

The Science of Superheroes

When I was growing up, I loved to read comic books about Superman, Batman, Spiderman and just about any superhero I could get my hands on. I couldn’t stop reading about the adventures of beings with superpowers that used those powers to help common people they had never even met before. I was hooked at a young age and it had a great effect on opening my imagination and giving me an open mind to new ideas, even ones that go beyond what could actually happen in real life. I knew even at a young age that most of what I was reading was impossible but it still entertained me and left me with the question, “what if?”

Now that I am older, I can look at comic book heroes and use science to prove that many of my boyhood heroes could not exist in our world any more than Santa Claus could exist. Take Superman himself as an example.

When Superman was originally created back in the 1930’s, he was far less powerful than he is today. In fact, if you stretched your imagination enough, it was just possible for that Superman to exist in our reality of today! You see, the original Superman came from a planet, Krypton, which had higher levels of gravity than those of Earth. With this extra gravity, stronger bones and muscles were needed to survive on such a world, so when Superman was sent to a planet with lower gravity, in this case Earth, he was much stronger than any human. He was also able to jump farther into the air and had tougher skin, so he was super-human, hence the name, “Superman”. Think of it like humans going to the Moon. Astronauts were able to jump much, much higher and move things that on Earth would have been impossible to move because the Moon has such a weaker gravity than the Earth. This is all the original Superman was, an astronaut from another planet!

What happened to Superman slowly over the years is that comic book writers let their imaginations loose and decided that if he could jump really high, than why not fly? If he could fly, he would need really good vision and this eventually became x-ray vision. If he had x-ray vision, why not heat vision? If he could make something hot, than why not be able to cool things down with powerful lungs? His strength that originally was only slightly more powerful than a few men, morphed into a strength that was so great he could lift mountains. So, while the original Superman was at least within the range of possibility for being a creature that could live in our reality, the modern Superman has become a god and cannot, as we know science today, exist in our reality.

Another good example of a hero that couldn’t possibly exist in our reality is the Hulk. The Hulk in the comic books is just a man who can transform himself into a large green monster that gets more powerful as it gets angry. Now this has problems from the beginning. The gamma radiation that the Hulk uses would either kill the man or give him cancer. Secondly, the cells in a body cannot transform that quickly from human to monster. Third, the Hulk is much more massive than the man he originally comes from, Dr. Bruce Banner. Where does that extra mass come from? If I remember correctly, mass cannot be created or destroyed, so how does a meek man put on hundreds of pounds of muscle in a few minutes? Not possible.

Then there is Spiderman. Bitten by a radioactive spider, he gets all the positives out of being a human-spider hybrid but none of the disadvantages. He doesn’t get compound eyes or extra legs or shoot webs from his abdomen or have a lot of extra hair all over his body. The “Spidey-Sense” that warns him from danger is based on Spiderman’s creator seeing that spiders have an unnatural sense of knowing when someone is going to step on them. Scientists have figured out how spiders do this and it has to do with the sudden change in air pressure that they can feel through the extra hairs on their bodies. Once they feel this sudden change in air pressure caused by a foot coming towards them, they run away through instinct. Alas, it is not a superpower that spiders have, it is something science can explain.

The most human superheroes, that is, superheroes without superpowers have the most likelihood of being able to exist in our reality, yet they have problems too.

I remember reading Batman and wondering at all the weird things that would happen that make Batman look good but would be impossible to happen in real life. For example, I remember reading several comic books where Batman would jump from rooftop to rooftop, often going down several stories and then landing on his feet or doing a tuck and roll. I tried jumping down several stories as a kid and trust me, you can’t do it without getting hurt. Perhaps if it was two or three stories that he jumped down then Batman wouldn’t have a problem but more than that and injuries happen. Then there is always the utility belt that has everything you could possibly want plus an unlimited amount of “Bat-a-rangs”. The pouches that are on that belt are too small to contain everything he uses plus the modern Batman seems to have a special gun that can fire rope that will attach to anything he shoots it at. It apparently is in his belt under his cape but you don’t see that gun when he is swinging around or fighting bad guys and his cape is in mid-air. Strange. It is almost as if the gun magically appears and disappears.

In addition to this, Batman always seems to be at the right place at the right time. If Gotham is anything like New York City in real life (and that is what many comic book writers have said) then it is a huge place and he can’t just hop into the Batmobile and find bad guys doing bad things as easily as he seems to do it in the comic books. Then there is the wear and tear that living that type of life would do to a body. Major league athletes in football can only sustain a full contact lifestyle until they are in their thirties and they only play for a few hours a week and only for part of the year, not every night like a Batman would. No, I am afraid that living like the Batman would cause the person to have to quit that lifestyle after 5 or maybe 10 years. Then they would have to live with the injuries, arthritis and crippling physical and mental pain for the rest of their life. I don’t know if anyone would or could do that.

Anyways, I just wanted to touch on the science behind superheroes and why they don’t and can’t exist in our everyday lives. While these characters are wonderful to read about and make some people aspire to something better, there is no scientific basis for any of these characters to exist in our world which has many more rule than in the minds of a comic book writer’s imagination.

Too Much Knowledge Can be a Bad Thing

I read a very interesting article the other day called, Beware ‘the curse of expertise’ (http://business.financialpost.com/2013/07/10/beware-the-curse-of-expertise/?__lsa=96c0-6d2f). In it, the writer describes how many organizations fail to achieve change or move ahead of technology because they have people who are ‘experts’ in an area and these ‘experts’ tend to block “breakthrough solutions”.

Now it isn’t always that these people want to purposefully block new solutions or innovation but with all of the knowledge they have acquired makes them biased against change that doesn’t fit in with their preconceived notions. Unfortunately it is these people that are listened to and the ones with the new, innovative ideas are ignored.

What really made this article interesting to me isn’t the business side of ‘leveraging technology’, ‘shifting the paradigm’, ‘thinking outside the box’ or whatever business buzzwords you would like to use but how this affects scientists; in particular, physicists. Many theoretical physicists make most of their breakthrough research while they are still young and have not yet become ‘experts’. They haven’t learned that what they are thinking goes against the current thinking of how things are supposed to be. Often a scientist in his/her young age will grab onto a concept and if they are talented enough or dogged enough to find an answer that explains the concept, they bring their conclusions to the scientific gatekeepers only to have their heads patted in derision and told that their answers are wrong. That is what happened to Albert Einstein when he first came up with the Theory of Relativity. Almost nobody took Einstein’s theory seriously at first and it was only after decades of research that people finally accepted his theory. In fact, you can go all through history and see when people with revolutionary ideas would bring their new ideas to the public only to have the ideas dismissed out of hand by the leading thinkers of the day: ‘The Earth is flat, anyone can see that it isn’t round’, ‘The Sun revolves around the Earth, not the other way around’, ‘Tiny microbes cannot make a human being sick, they are too small’, etc.

What happens to these revolutionary thinkers is that they are put in their place by the gatekeepers and told to stick to what we know is true. After years of learning what can and can’t be done, their internal biases stop them from coming up with new and wonderfully inventive new theories. They stop pulling apart other people’s theories and take them as gospel, they learn that what everyone knows at the moment is the truth even if the ‘truth’ is that many of the theories don’t work in every situation. The revolutionary becomes the gatekeeper, the one who tells budding scientists that their new ideas are wrong and the cycle begins again.

This is the reason why scientists come up with fantastic new ideas when they are younger and lose that ability when they get older. They learn too much and become the gatekeepers! The internal dialogue with young scientists goes from ‘why not’ to ‘so-and-so already says it can’t be done’ or ‘this theory says that can’t be done’. So instead of someone challenging the status quo and coming up with a breakthrough, scientists become cowed by their knowledge and breakthroughs are left to the younger generation.

What older scientists need to understand is that current theories are not all correct. Just because someone has ‘tested’ the theory, doesn’t mean it is proved or that it is correct. Challenge the status quo, rip into theories and find out why they do or do not work. Just because someone has travelled down that path, do not assume that they have found everything on that path to find or even if that is the correct path! We do not know everything, and even though you will hear scientists bemoan that there is very little ‘new’ left to find, there is actually more out there than current scientists could even dream of. It is up to you to go out and find that new information and when you are told that your ideas don’t fit with the current understanding of the universe or that your theory is just plain wrong, don’t give up. Look closer at your theory, breakdown your reasoning and facts and make sure that you are correct but most of all, don’t stop trying new theories! It is breakthrough theories that help human beings move ahead, not sitting on the status quo.

Newton and Gravity

After going through Albert Einstein’s Theory of Relativity and its take on how gravity in the universe does not work in reality in my last blog, I would now like to go over Sir Isaac Newton’s Law of Gravity and explain why this is much better at explaining how gravity works in real life.

Newton came up with the theory that an object with mass is attracted to other objects that have mass. He came up with a set of formulae to predict the force of the attraction between two masses (which I won’t go into) and his theory was incredibly successful. It was so successful and he was so sure that he was correct, that he called his theory on gravity a law. Since many other scientists of his day and since have agreed with him, no one bothered to put up much of a challenge to try and dispute this “law” of gravity until Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity came around. This theory changed gravity from being an attraction of two objects, to space being twisted and curved to bring two objects together. The reason why people started to believe Einstein’s theory of gravity is because it explained many things that puzzled scientists through the ages like why time seems to change with the speed of an object. It also explained why Mercury seemed to have an odd orbit around the Sun. It also explained away Newton’s one major flaw; how was gravity produced? To Einstein, gravity was a result of “curved” space. To Newton, gravity was an unexplainable attraction between two objects.

If you have read my earlier blogs on the Theory of Relativity, you will note that I broke Einstein’s theory into two parts, Relativity and the Einstein Effect. It is my firm belief that the Einstein Effect explains how people see things and it is not how things actually are. It is in essence, an effect that explains how the universe is seen; how light can be changed by events and therefore changes what we see. This effect explains why we see Mercury’s orbit as different as what Newton’s law of gravity explains it to be. It is just an image, it is not reality. It also explains why time appears to change speed when objects go faster. Again, this is the appearance of time moving at a different rate, not reality. You can speed up or slow down time through speed the same way you can speed up and slow down time by changing the time on your clock. It is just an illusion. 

While the effect is great at explaining why we see something the way we do, it does not explain what actually happens, especially when we are talking about gravity.

For an explanation on gravity, Newton’s law is really the best one out there. The attraction of two objects and the strength of that attraction based on the mass of each object… I can’t see how anyone can top that. The only problem is where does that attraction come from? Well, wouldn’t you know it, I have a theory.

My theory about the cause of gravity is …wait for it…molecular or atomic bonds. Now this might sound odd but think about it, what happens when you take something massive like the iron core of Earth and calculate the collective power of all of those bonds? You get a substantial amount of collective power that is trying to attract other bonds and or atoms. It’s the power of the collective that reaches out and attracts another object. Newton himself always thought that the core of a planet would have a higher amount of gravity because that is where the densest mass would be. It is the power of the collective atomic bonds that explains gravity.

Science has embraced the power of the collective as they know that this collective can be just as powerful if not more than building something big. New telescopes are rarely being built out of one large piece of material, they are now being made up of different segments that work together. A new space-based camera has recently been built that has dozens and dozens of smaller cameras instead of just one big one as each camera is so powerful that it increases the ability for the camera to focus on multiple objects at the same time yet still keep an overall picture intact. Then there is your television set. It is made up of many little pixels that overall generate a sharp clear picture that can be as much as 100 inches across or more.

If I am correct about gravity, then it is just a form of the electro-magnetic force. This also means that the number of Fundamental Forces is now down to three and makes our universe a little easier to understand.

Now, you might be thinking, if gravity and the electro-magnetic force are actually the same, why is gravity so weak? Good question.

I believe that the electro-magnetic force is channeled and directed to a specific area, so it can become much more powerful than gravity. Gravity is more diffuse and less channeled so it takes a lot of mass in order for it to become felt.

Anyways, I will go into the electro-magnetic force and gravity in a later blog. What I wanted this blog to be about is why I believe gravity can be explained through Newton’s law much better than through Einstein’s Relativity. Einstein’s Relativity is fundamentally flawed and needs to be split into two distinct theories; Relativity and the Einstein Effect. Newton’s law on gravity is missing the why or how gravity exists and my theory that the cumulative effect of atomic bonds in the mass of an object can explain this missing piece.  

Gravity and the Theory of Relativity

According to the Theory of Relativity, gravity does not exist in the same way as Sir Isaac Newton believed it did. Newton believed that gravity was a force between two objects that attracted them together whereas Albert Einstein and his Theory of Relativity says that gravity is just a matter of curved space-time (I write “space-time” because the Theory of Relativity now blends space with time to give four dimensions). That is, an object bends and “curves” space around the object itself with the more massive the object, the greater the bend in space-time. This would mean that the Moon orbiting our Earth is following a curved path in space that is invisible to our eyes.

This also means that “gravity” bends our three dimensional space into a two dimensional invisible “curve” in space.

Since both the Moon and the Earth are quite massive, under the Theory of Relativity they must each “curve” space-time around each object but since the Earth is more massive, the Moon orbits it. At least, that is how I understand it. The more massive object wins and its “curve” in space-time is the one that is used. This raises a lot of questions.

If a massive object curves space-time then why don’t all of the planets orbiting the Sun orbit in the same path? According to the Theory of Relativity an object can create one curved path as its mass doesn’t change, so how do multiple objects in different sized orbits occur? Why don’t the moons of Jupiter, for example, break away from their orbit of Jupiter and follow the Sun’s orbit instead? Why does Jupiter’s “curve” override the Sun’s when it comes to its moons? What curve in space-time are humans following when they obey the laws of gravity by walking across the Earth?

If you think about gravity as “curved space-time” and only think very simplistically of one object’s gravity and its effect on another object (for example, the Earth’s gravity effect on the Moon), then it is very easy to see how the Theory of Relativity can apply. However, life is not that simplistic and there are many more objects in the universe than that and many different combinations that Relativity cannot seem to address.

Also, what allows objects to breakout of that curve? Are you punching a hole in the curve or riding over the curve? That would indicate a two dimensional curve and changing three dimensional space into a two dimensional curve is not possible. You can’t throw one of our three dimensions away because it is more mathematically pleasing.

I have seen a lot of people try and explain this phenomenon of gravity being “curved space-time” by having four people hold a flat bed sheet at the corners. A fifth person takes a heavy ball like a shot-put and drops it on the bed sheet. If the people at the corners of the bed sheet keep pulling on the edges to keep the bed sheet near as flat as they can, the ball rolls to the middle of the sheet where it has made a dent or curve in the bed sheet. This is how, the presenter would say, that an object “curves” space. Then they would take another ball, this time a much smaller, lighter one and drop it on the bed sheet only to see the second ball make its way to the first. The presenter would say that this is how gravity works. The second ball is just following the “curve” and doesn’t need to be attracted to the large ball in the centre of the bed sheet.

There are two major problems with this presentation. One is that you need gravity to pull on the shot-put to cause the curve in th efirst place and also to cause the second ball to move towards the first. If you tried this presentation in space, there would be no gravity to aid you, causing the balls to do not much of anything. The second is that you are trying to show three dimensional space as a two dimensional field (the bed sheet is the representation of two dimensional space). Again, there are three dimensions, so you can’t get around that one. Plus the ball is in three dimensions, so how can can you have a three dimensional object and a two dimensional object interact? You can't!   

If you believe that the bed sheet presentation is a true representation of how gravity works under the Theory of Relativity, then how do objects circling another object like a satellite circling the Earth, fall from its orbit? In the presentation the bed sheet has a downward plane caused by the first ball and this downward plane is what causes the second ball to move towards the first. In the presentation, Earth’s gravity is actually working on the second ball and forcing it down the plane of the bed sheet. If this was reality, there is no gravity to force an object down the plane of the “curved space-time” because “curved space-time” is gravity, so how does the curve force a satellite towards Earth? It doesn’t.

The simple truth is that the Theory of Relativity does not explain gravity but Newton’s theory of gravity does.

The Einstein Effect: How Einstein Got Relativity Wrong but Discovered Something Else Entirely (Part One)

The Theory of Relativity has practically become a law today in modern physics. New students who go on to take courses that deal with this theory are pretty much told by their teachers that this “theory” has been proven in every case and that it would become a law if we could travel closer to the speed of light to once and for all confirm Albert Einstein’s work. It’s a done deal, now we just have to understand why this wonderful theory doesn't work with the rest of physics. Why doesn't this spherical object (the Theory of Relativity) fit through the square hole of Physics?

I’ll give you a shocking answer to that question. It doesn't work with the rest of physics because the theory isn't correct. Yes, the math is correct and the some of the outcomes too are correct, but when Einstein’s theory is applied to light and light speeds, what the theory really does is explain an effect similar to the Doppler Effect, except with light. This is why I have named it the “Einstein Effect”. I will discuss this effect later in the blog.

Now, if you pull apart Einstein’s theory you will find flaws with it but in order to find those flaws, you have to understand the original theory. So, for the lay people in the audience (and hopefully I am not writing this just for myself), I will break it down to the absolute core in order to bring a simple understanding to this complex theory.

The core of this theory is this; physics is the same everywhere throughout the universe but certain things, like speed and what an object looks like, are relative. By “relative” I mean different from one place in the universe as compared to another place in the universe. Sir Isaac Newton’s law of absolute rest no longer applies as an object that seems to be at rest can now have motion and those in motion can be at rest. For example: a rock sitting on the ground seems to be at rest and under Newton’s laws, it would be. However, relative to someone in the International Space Station orbiting the Earth, the same rock is moving because it is on the Earth and the Earth is rotating on its axis. The speed of an object now depends on where you are observing it from, not from an absolute state of rest. This changes things when you are doing calculations and has deeper implications than I care to get into but I will give you one more example so that you understand.

If you are driving along a road at 55 km per hour and another car comes from behind you at 60 km per hour, with the Theory of Relativity you can say that, “relative to me, that car is going at 5 km per hour” and you would be correct. The 55 km per hour you are driving is relative to the pavement you are driving on (or what Newton would have called “absolute rest”) but the 5 km per hour is relative to the speed of the car passing you. The person in the car passing you could say that, relative to them, your car is moving backwards at 5 km per hour and this too would be acceptable. It is all from your point of view.

Now, I also mentioned that Relativity changes the way an object can look. This has to do with the speed of light and this is where it gets a lot more complicated.

The speed of light which stands at 299, 792, 458 metres per second in a vacuum hasn't been observed going any faster, no matter where it has been observed. In an airplane, in a car, in space, no one has seen the speed of light go faster than 299, 792, 458 metres per second. Light can be slowed down by passing it through objects but it doesn't seem to speed up. Even when the laws of physics demand that it speed up, it still does not do so. For example, if a man on a train is pointing a flashlight in the direction he is travelling and someone standing still next to the train tracks has a device that can measure the speed of light coming from the flashlight, the result should be the speed of light plus the speed of the train. This doesn't happen. The laws of physics don’t seem to fully apply to light.

When Einstein thought of how the speed of light did not increase and he applied it to relativity, he ran into a huge problem. The speed of light has to be able to increase in order for relativity to work properly, so what can he do? Well, he looked at the formula for speed (S=D/T (speed equals distance over time)) and came to the conclusion that if the speed doesn't change and the distance doesn't change, then time must change. That was the only logical solution. Now, instead of light speeding up or slowing down, time sped up or slowed down to accommodate a consistent speed for light to move. Mathematically it worked and after years and years of people running successful experiments, eventually most of the scientific community relented and accepted his theory.

It was this theory that brought us the famous E=mc² where mass and energy are interchangeable and also helped bring about the Nuclear Age where humans were able to harvest the energy stored in the mass of certain types of material; sometimes for good and sometimes for bad.

Yet this theory doesn't quite fit with the rest of physics. When approaching the speed of light, this theory works great but slow things down to normal everyday speeds and the calculations don’t seem to work as well. The core concept works (remember, everything is relative) but if you look into the actual mathematical calculations involved, they are mind-numbingly complex. They also have a speed limit built into them. This speed limit is 299, 792, 458 metres per second, the same speed as light. You can put numbers into the calculations, but the resulting speed at the end will not be higher than 299, 792, 458 metres per second because as speed increases, so does mass until it reaches infinity at the speed of light!

Why would a theory need a built-in limiter like this and why are people so proud of that fact? It’s like putting a top speed on all speedometers around the world of 100 km per hour and then telling everyone how your theory that cars cannot go faster than 100 km per hour is true.

It is the inconsistencies that brought me to believe that something was wrong with the Theory of Relativity and I will go into this more in my next post.

People, Start Using Your Brains

I usually reserve this blog for my personal theories on scientific problems but today I wanted to address something that I find troubling in science and in society in general: government funding.

First I want to say that I am a Canadian civil servant and that these are my personal opinions and not that of the government.

Being a civil servant I understand that all levels of government have a finite amount of money to spread around to their various departments and agencies. They are also limited in what they can give to various institutions be they public or private. The government can only bring in so much money and it can only spend so much money. So there are times when the government can give more and there are times when the government has to cut back on what they can give out. It is simple math.

Today, in 2013, we live in a time where government revenues are shrinking. This means that the government cannot give as much as it did before. However, it seems that everyone who is hit by the cut in government spending takes it as a government attack on their institution, department or agency. You can read it in the news quite regularly, “Government Cuts Threaten Research…” or “Government Cuts Threaten Arts…” or “Government Cuts Threaten Education…” People hit by these budget crunches don’t see the big picture but instead choose to believe that the government is against what they do, so that is the reason behind the cuts. It is a sad fact of life, but the government cannot keep funding at the same levels when its revenue goes down!

The facts of life living in a recession don’t seem to penetrate into the thoughts of many but I thought at least someone with a bit more education, a more logical thinker like a scientist might be able to put these facts together and not complain. I apparently was wrong. Here is a blog where the scientist complains about an “astonishing” budget cut of 7.2%, calling it, “…one of the largest assaults on academia in Canadian history…” Apparently the writer seems to think that the government is making these cuts out of spite from knuckle draggers that are jealous of the smart scientists or perhaps a lack of knowledge about all the important work their university is doing. Not true. What hasn’t occurred to this scientist is that the government doesn’t have a magic bucket of unlimited money to throw around and they were just one of the many departments throughout Canada that has seen their budgets decrease. The budget in my department has decreased by 2% to 7% every year now for at least 3 years so I am shocked that it took this long for his/her department to see cuts only this recently.

I don’t have a PhD in math but even I could figure out that the government can only give out a finite amount of money. It would be nice if people got their head out of the sand and realized that government funding is not infinite and the government is not targeting you as punishment. These budget cuts are also not "attacks" on science or free speech or thought or whatever other crazy idea you might have, it is simply a decrease in funding. The last time I looked, you could still speak your mind, research what you wanted, write what you wanted and do what you wanted in public (legally of course) without the fear of retribution.

So please, people, start using your brains!